negotiating profile

PROFILE

®

®

defeat | withdraw | accommodate | compromise | collaborate

Theoretical Background

NEGOTIATING

Third Edition

FACILITATO

R GU

IDE

Third Edition

®

FACILITATO

R GU

IDE

Third Edition

®

FACILITATO

R GU

IDE

Third Edition

An Excerpt from the

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Origin and Development of the Negotiating Style Profile

The NSP evolved from a need to help department store buyers understand the impact oftheir negotiating behavior on their vendors. During the spring of 1982, approximately 20buyers and merchandise managers were interviewed individually to collect data for thepreparation of a training program to help them improve their negotiating skills.

During these interviews, both buyers and merchandise managers talked extensively abouttechniques they used to gain the best arrangements for themselves and their stores. Theyalso talked extensively about the importance of building long-term relationships with theirvendors. In all but a few cases, buyers returned to the same vendors time after time, seasonafter season. Senior managers talked repeatedly about the need for “partnership” and “con-tinuity” in buyer-vendor relationships.

From these interviews it was clear that buyers somehow had to satisfy conflicting needsduring the negotiating process. They had to return to their superiors with favorable termsfor the store but at the same time not destroy their relationship with the vendor. The nextnegotiating session would be as important to the buyer as the last session had been.

In a subsequent search of current literature on negotiating practices, several authors corrobo-rated these conflicting needs in a variety of negotiating situations. Roger Fisher and WilliamUry (1981, p. 20) made the clearest case as they reported on their conclusions from theHarvard Negotiation Project. In Getting to Yes, they maintained that:

Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in therelationship. Every negotiator wants to reach an agreement that satisfieshis substantive interests. That is why one negotiates. Beyond that, anegotiator also has an interest in his relationship with the other side. Anantiques dealer wants both to make a profit on the sale and to turn the cus-tomer into a regular one. At a minimum, a negotiator wants to maintaina working relationship good enough to produce an acceptable agreement, ifone is possible given each side’s interests. Usually, more is at stake. Mostnegotiations take place in the context of an ongoing relationship where it isimportant to carry on each negotiation in a way that will help rather thanhinder future relations and future negotiations. In fact, with many long-term clients, business partners, family members, fellow professionals, gov-ernment officials, or foreign nations, the ongoing relationship is far moreimportant than the outcome of any particular negotiation.

11

Based on our interviews and the current literature, both concern for the substance of thenegotiation and concern for the relationship appear to represent the most important behav-iors a negotiator can employ in an actual negotiation. Furthermore, it is clear that a negotia-tor cannot be effective in both the short and long term if he or she emphasizes one set ofconcerns to the exclusion of the other. Instead, it seems that negotiating behavior can berepresented best through a model similar to The Managerial Grid® by Blake and Mouton(1978). The Grid depicts a manager’s concern for production and for people as interactingconcerns that result in predictable patterns of behavior.

The final link emerged when the negotiating process was compared to a conflict resolutionprocess. The model by Kilmann and Thomas (1976) suggests that depending on a person’swillingness to confront issues and willingness to see all points of view, a particular conflictresolution style can be predicted. The Kilmann-Thomas model describes five pure styles for conflict resolution. This same approach can be used to describe the five pure styles ofnegotiating behavior. These styles are described in The Model of Negotiating Styles byRollin Glaser and Christine Glaser. Gordon Shea (1983) in Creative Negotiating describes similar relationships.

If negotiators are interested in developing a more collaborative win-win approach, they first need a clear picture of their present behavior and its impact on the negotiating process. The need for change can be established by increasing their awareness of their current negotiating preferences. Accordingly, an easily administered assessment, the NegotiatingStyle Profile was designed to measure a negotiator’s concern for these two dimensions ofnegotiating behavior.

12 Negotiating Style Profile Facilitator Guide — Third Edition

What Is Negotiation?It is helpful first to establish what we mean by negotiation. The following definitions weredrawn from the literature.

Negotiation is a process of communicating back and forth for the purposeof reaching a joint decision.

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to YesHoughton-Mifflin, Boston, 1981, p. 33.

Whenever people exchange ideas with the intention of changing relation-ships, whenever they confer for agreement, they are negotiating.

Gerard Nierenberg, The Art of NegotiatingHawthorne Books, New York, 1968, p. 2.

Fundamentally, what negotiating is all about is voluntary decision making… your best task as a negotiator is to help move someone from ‘no’ to ‘yes’or from reluctance to commitment.

Herb Cohen, Negotiate This! Warren Business Books, New York, 2003, p.11.

Creative negotiating is a process whereby two or more partners meet andthrough artful discussion and creativity, confront a problem and arrive atan innovative solution that best meets the needs of all parties and securestheir commitment to fulfilling the agreement reached.

Gordon Shea, Creative NegotiatingCBI, Boston, 1983, p. 19.

Negotiation is using knowledge to get what you want.

Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of NiceWiley, New York, 2001, p. 19

Background Information 13

The Two Universal Concerns of Every NegotiatorTo help clarify the possible patterns of negotiating behavior, we drew from a variety ofsources. The starting point is the concerns of the negotiators themselves. What brings themtogether and causes them to enter into a sometimes protracted discussion?

Every participant in a negotiation has two important concerns during the negotiatingprocess. The first concern is with the outcome or substance of the agreement. The secondconcern is with the relationship with the other party. People have varying degrees of interestin these two behavioral dimensions. One person, for example, may be determined to drivethe best bargain at any cost. Only the outcome or getting the best deal matters. Others havesomewhat less concern for outcome. And, there are people who are willing to accept what-ever can be gained and make little or no effort to influence the outcome of the process.

A person’s concern for the outcome of a negotiation may be graphically represented on acontinuum ranging from low to moderate to high.

The second concern every participant to a negotiation has is for the relationship with theother party. What kind of relationship should we build before and during our discussion?Does the other person have certain needs he or she wants fulfilled? Does this person likeme? Is my behavior offensive? Will this person want to negotiate with me in the future?How will our relationship affect the other party’s willingness to carry out our agreement, ifone should be reached?

A person’s concern for the relationship with the negotiating partner may also be graphicallyrepresented on a continuum ranging from low to moderate to high.


The Model of Negotiating StylesThe two universal concerns for outcome and relationship are shared by all negotiators,regardless of the object of their negotiations. Each concern interacts with the other to pro-duce a pattern or style of negotiating behavior.

This can be illustrated by using a negotiator’s concern for outcome as the horizontal axisand his or her concern for relationship as the vertical axis. The resulting model (Figure 3)depicts the dynamic interplay of high, moderate, and low amounts of each behavioraldimension.

Figure 3: Interacting Concerns.

An individual’s concern for the outcome of an agreement may be graphically expressed on acontinuum, ranging from low to moderate to high. For example, a person may be resolutelydetermined to drive the best bargain for him- or herself at any cost, even if it means“destroying” the other party. Only the outcome of the deal has any meaning for him or her.Still another person could have somewhat less concern for outcomes. And, some people arewilling to accept whatever can be gained from the process; they make little or no effort toinfluence the negotiation outcome directly.


Concern for the relationship with the negotiating partner also may be graphically represent-ed on a continuum ranging from low to moderate to high. For example, a person may havesome concern for the relationship with the other party and may ask, “Does this person haveneeds that should be considered in this negotiation?” “Does this person like me?” “Is mybehavior offensive?” “Will he or she want to negotiate with me in the future?” “What kindof relationship should we have before and during our discussions?” “How will our relation-ship affect the other party’s willingness to carry out our agreement if one should bereached?”

The relative degree of emphasis a negotiator chooses to place on his or her concerns for out-come and relationship determines his or her negotiating behavioral style. The completedmodel (Figure 4) illustrates the five negotiating styles.

Figure 4: The Model of Negotiating Styles.


Five Characteristic Negotiating Styles

DefeatWhen a high degree of concern is expressed for the outcome of the negotiation and a lowdegree of concern is expressed for the relationship with the other party, a Defeat behaviorpattern is produced. This negotiator is determined to defeat the other party at any cost. Theother party’s needs are not important. Little or no concern is given to building or maintain-ing an effective, long-term relationship. This pattern is characterized by win-lose competi-tion, pressure, intimidation, adversarial relationships, and the negotiator attempting to getas much as possible for him- or herself.

The following statements/characteristics apply to the Defeat style:

Drive a hard bargain.

Engage in win-lose competition. (I win; you lose.)

Our conflicting interests can’t be reconciled.

Total victory is the goal.

Get as much as I can. My interests must prevail.

Me or them. Don’t get taken.

Business is business.

In a successful negotiation, everyone is slightly bloodied.

Dig in. Insist on your own position.

Apply pressure. Intimidate. Browbeat. Be belligerent. Abuse. Insult. Harass. Betray. Chisel. Haggle.

Don’t trust anyone.

Participants are adversaries (opponents).

Be a tough battler; top dog.

Do unto others before they do it to you. Clobber them before they clobber you.

Power and control are everything.

Use threats, bluffs, surprises, deceit, and trickery.

Two dogs; one bone.

How much can I get for how little?

There can be only one winner.

You have to have a killer instinct.


WithdrawWhen a low degree of concern for both the outcome of the negotiation and the relationshipwith the other party is expressed, a Withdraw behavior pattern is produced. This negotiatorhas little interest in forging the best deal and little interest in maintaining and developinggood business relationships. This produces a behavioral style suggesting lack of concern forthe negotiating outcomes and feelings of powerlessness. The negotiator admits to him- orherself, “You take whatever you can get because there are no other real options.” This pat-tern is characterized by feelings of powerlessness, indifference to the outcome, resignation,surrender, and taking whatever the other party is willing to concede. Withdraw and removeoneself becomes the behavior of the negotiator.

The following statements/characteristics apply to the Withdraw style:

Indifferent; resigned.

Keep a low profile.

Avoid confrontational situations.

Do minimum to keep up appearances.

Results are beyond my influence.

Realistically, you take whatever the other person is willing to concede.

Other people are born negotiators and have more power.

Forgo. Waive. Sacrifice. Relinquish. Surrender. Yield. Cede.

AccommodateWhen the focus is on building a compatible relationship in the hope that the negotiation willbe successful, an Accommodate behavior pattern is produced. This negotiator expends min-imal effort to work out the best deal. The focus is on building a friendly relationship. In thelong run, relationships pay off. This pattern is characterized by efforts to promote harmony,avoidance of substantive differences, yielding to pressure to preserve the relationship, andplacing interpersonal relationships above the fairness of the outcome. This negotiatoravoids creating a confrontation at any cost. Accommodate the other party’s needs becomesthe negotiator’s style.

The following statements/characteristics apply to the Accommodate style:

Good relationships produce good deals.

Maintain harmony; keep the peace; be friendly.

Avoid unpleasant confrontations.

Be agreeable; keep people happy.

Make concessions to further the relationship.

Trust others without reservation.

Disclose your bottom line so the other party knows what you’re after.

Yield to pressure to preserve the relationship.


CompromiseWhen a moderate degree of concern for both dimensions of negotiating behavior isexpressed, a Compromise behavior pattern is produced. This negotiator has a moderatedegree of concern for both dimensions of behavior. He or she believes that some concernmust be shown for the longer-term relationship with the other party or the negotiated out-come will not be adequate. This pattern is characterized by compromise, meeting the otherparty halfway, looking for trade-offs, splitting the difference, and other halfway measures.Conflict reduction is valued over synergistic problem solving. Find an acceptable agreementis the objective of this negotiator’s style.

Although this style may produce a reasonable result, it does not generate the same optimumsettlement that can be achieved through a high degree of concern for both dimensions ofbehavior.

The following statements/characteristics apply to the Compromise style:

Compromise.

Agree to split the difference.

Meet halfway.

Find a quick, easy solution we can both agree on.

Give something to get something.

Look for trade-offs.

No one gives up or gains everything.

Each person walks away with something.

We get off each other’s backs.

We scratch each other’s backs.

You win some; you lose some.

CollaborateWhen a high degree of concern for both the outcome of the negotiation and the relationshipwith the other party is expressed, a Collaborate behavior pattern is produced. This negotia-tor believes that both sets of behaviors are important. Not only is the outcome of the “deal”important, but building and maintaining a long-term business relationship are also critical.This pattern is characterized by searching creatively for common interests with the otherparty, problem-solving behavior, and recognizing that both parties must get their needs sat-isfied for the outcome to be entirely successful. Collaborative behavior and synergistic solu-tions are the result. This negotiator works to build a collaborative relationship so both par-ties can win.

The following statements/characteristics apply to the Collaborate style:

Collaboration.

Win-win.


Negotiation is a creative, problem-solving situation.

We have common interests. We need to form a partnership.

Both parties get their respective needs satisfied.

Each party explores mutual interests and works for mutual gains.

Yield to principle, not pressure.

Try to reach a result based on objective criteria.

Try to create a synergistic, creative solution to all negotiation problems.

Principled negotiations.

No tricks.

Instead of dividing the apples, we both shake the tree to get moreapples.

Work at integrative solutions.

Which Style Is Preferred? Variations of each of these styles may be appropriate under certain conditions. Furthermore,a negotiator may choose any one of the five styles for a particular negotiation. For example,the other party may truly have superior power over the subject of the negotiation. In thatcase, a Withdraw stance might well be the only feasible course of action if agreement is to bereached.

It is suggested, however, that a consistent application of the Collaborate style offers thegreatest probability of producing negotiating results of the highest quality and most endur-ing satisfaction to the parties involved. If mutual need satisfaction is of paramount concernto the parties and problem-solving strategies are harnessed to satisfy these needs, then boththe outcome of the negotiation and the relationship of the parties will benefit.

Interpersonal Skills of the Collaborative NegotiatorThe Model of Negotiating Styles is a two-dimensional representation of negotiating behav-ior. It follows that specific interpersonal skills and a definite negotiating method can belearned by negotiators to improve their skills and help them move in the direction of theCollaborate style.

Six interpersonal skills have been identified and, if practiced regularly, can help move thenegotiator in the Collaborate direction. These skills include:

Assertive Behavior — The negotiator should be able to honestly andopenly state his or her needs, while respecting the needs and concernsof the other party.


Supportive Climate-Building — Both parties are more likely to collab-orate if they feel they are working in a mutually supportive, respectfulenvironment.

Active Listening — One key to a successful collaborative negotiation isthat both parties actively listen to one another. Active listening meansmaking a point to hear, understand, and respond to what the other per-son is saying.

Nonverbal Behavior Sensitivity — A great deal about how someone isfeeling is communicated through his or her nonverbal behaviors.Successful negotiators are able to recognize, interpret, and respond tothe other party’s nonverbal behaviors appropriately.

Using Questions to Raise Receptivity — For collaboration to occur,both parties need to understand the other’s needs and concerns.Asking questions assures that these needs and concerns are brought tothe table.

Confronting and Working Through Differences — When two partiesface each other in a negotiation there are guaranteed to be differences.Collaborative negotiators are skilled at acknowledging these differencesand using them constructively in the conversation.

Conducting a Collaborative NegotiationIn addition to the interpersonal skills required, a method or approach that will increase theprobability of a win-win outcome is needed. That method includes:

Comprehensive preparation.

Appropriate opening to set the tone of the negotiation.

Exploration of each party’s needs.

Creative development of alternatives.

Use of objective criteria to evaluate agreements.

Appropriate closing to define the agreement.

Critique of the negotiated outcomes.

Negotiating with others is a creative process that can be affected by thought, preparation,and skill practice. The Model of Negotiating Styles is designed to help negotiators focus onthose skills and methods that are likely to produce synergistic outcomes.


TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT

Data AnalysisHRDQ uses the following statistical concepts in its technical development: Reliability,Validity, Norms, Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviation. The results, which follow, arebased on a sample of 1,407 individuals who have completed the Negotiating Style Profile.

Sample SizeTo determine sample size, HRDQ uses a simple random sampling method. This methodallows us to determine the appropriate size of sample needed to accurately report ourresults.

For the Negotiating Style Profile, we determined that a sample size of 418 was suitable. Basedon the simple random sampling method, this gives us a 95% confidence level with only a 5%margin of error that the data presented are representative of the population who will usethis assessment.

ReliabilityA measure of reliability expresses the degree to which an assessment is consistent in itsmeasurement. The numerical value for reliability (a reliability coefficient) provides themeasure for which the correlation of reliability is determined. Reliability coefficients rangefrom -1 to +1, as the coefficient approaches zero the strength of the relationship (i.e., the cor-relation) decreases until there is no correlation between the variables. However, as the relia-bility coefficient approaches either -1 or +1, the higher the correlation and thus the higherthe reliability. While there are no commonly accepted standards for reliability in trainingand development assessments, reliability coefficients near .60 are considered acceptable.

HRDQ uses Cronbach’s Alpha as a measure of reliability. As seen from the table below, theassessment’s five categories (i.e., Defeat, Withdraw, Accommodate, Compromise,Collaborate) all lie within the acceptable range and can be relied upon to provide consistentresults for participants in a training context.


CATEGORY RELIABILITY-ALPHA

Defeat 0.66Withdraw 0.55Accommodate 0.64Compromise 0.65Collaborate 0.72

ValidityThe validity of an assessment is the degree to which it effectively measures what it claims tomeasure. Keep in mind that an assessment’s validity is dependent upon how the assess-ment is used. For example, if this assessment is to be used in the context of a training expe-rience, then the assessment can be considered valid. If it were to be used as a predictive toolfor selection purposes, then it would not be valid.

Face ValidityFace validity answers the question, “Does the assessment seem to make sense to the averageperson and will it help him or her learn more effective behavior?” The Negotiating StyleProfile has been administered to thousands of individuals in a wide variety of industriesincluding retail, service industry, computer software, oil companies, food manufacturers,supermarkets, telecommunication firms, and government agencies. The assessment’s popu-larity and use across multiple industries indicates that it does, in fact, possess face validity.

Content ValidityContent validity answers the question, “Is the content of the assessment representative ofthe theory on which it is based?” HRDQ’s mission is to provide theory-based, results-driv-en training. Recognizing this mission in all our products, the Negotiating Style Profile wasdeveloped from a thorough and comprehensive review of the literature on negotiation.Each time we revise this assessment we revisit the literature to make sure that the theoriesupon which it is based are still current and relevant.

Construct ValidityConstruct validity answers the question, “Do the items measure what they claim to meas-ure?” HRDQ takes pride in the amount of attention and time we devote to the developmentof an assessment’s dimensions and its items. Not only do we select each of an assessment’sdimensions and items on the basis of theoretical constructs; we also execute rigorous factoranalysis procedures.

Technical Development 23

The initial assessment was constructed by extracting 53 statements concerning negotiatingbehavior from the negotiation literature. The statements were converted to items suitablefor measuring negotiating behaviors and attitudes. The items were then sorted into five dif-ferent negotiating styles suggested by a theoretical model. These items were analyzed andreduced to 30 items by an independent research group (The New University ResearchGroup directed by Dr. Gil Boyer). Six items were assigned to each style.

The assessment was then administered to 59 people from four similar groups of departmentstore buyers and merchandise managers. The experience, education, occupation, and ven-dor relationships were all closely correlated for the subjects.

An analysis of the resulting scores was undertaken. All scores for each of the five styleswere individually graphed. Defeat (N1), Accommodate (N3), Withdraw (N4), andCompromise (N5) scores were normally distributed.* Collaborate (N2) scores were nega-tively skewed as predicted. (Negative skewing was predicted because Collaborate state-ments sound attractive but may not actually reflect the negotiator’s true behavior.)

In the spring of 1986, three groups of department store supervisors provided more data.These subjects were drawn from three different stores within a single store chain. In additionto the usual descriptive statistics, inter-item correlations within each scale were calculated.Items that did not correlate were eliminated or changed. As a result, several items from theoriginal assessment were revised.

In 1996, accumulated data from 1991 to 1996 were analyzed. One of the main analyses per-formed was a factor analysis. A factor analysis uses relationships among items to sort theitems into groups. We would hope that the items that are meant to measure each stylewould group together. For example, we would want to see items 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26,which measure Defeat, all group together and not group with other items.

The factor analysis revealed that respondents distinguished quite well among the Defeat,Withdraw, and Compromise styles, but had more difficulty distinguishing betweenAccommodate and Collaborate. We found this result understandable. Prior to training, thedistinction between focusing on a relationship (Accommodate) and focusing on a relation-ship while still concentrating on the outcome of a negotiation (Collaborate) is a subtle one.It is not surprising that the untrained respondent would fail to clearly make that distinction.Based on this finding, the facilitator should note that the distinction between Accommodateand Collaborate needs to be highlighted and the understanding of participants checked.

In the factor analysis, we found seven items that did not group as well in their styles as theyshould have. We revised those items so that they would better fit their styles. The itemswere not altered substantially.

* In September 2004, the N1–N5 labels were removed. Based on client feedback, most — if not all — facilitatorswere using the style names vs. the N1–N5 labels. At that time, the items were revised to make them consis-tent. The content of the items did not change; therefore, the statistical information is still applicable.


Ranges, Means, and Standard DeviationsRanges show the highest and lowest scores attained by the sample. Mean scores are the sta-tistical average of all the scores. Standard deviation scores indicate how closely the scoredata cluster around the mean. For example, if the standard deviation is large, the scores willbe more spread out.

As can be seen from the table below, all scores are in the acceptable range for this assess-ment in its present stage of development.

CATEGORY RANGE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION

Defeat 6–38 20.10 5.83Withdraw 8–39 22.64 5.46Accommodate 8–42 31.00 5.18Compromise 10–42 27.84 5.10Collaborate 13–42 34.77 4.52

NormsHRDQ assumes a normal, bell-curve distribution of scores when determining norms. Thesenorms (which are divided into three categories — Below Average, Average, and AboveAverage) are deliberately broad and intended to offer the respondent only the most generalinformation about where he or she stands relative to others who have taken the assessment.The normative data for the five project leadership categories are as follows:

CATEGORY BELOW AVERAGE AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE

Defeat 6–13 14–26 27–42Withdraw 6–16 17–28 29–42Accommodate 6–25 26–36 37–42Compromise 6–22 23–33 34–42Collaborate 6–29 30–39 40–42

Facilitators should caution respondents to interpret their results as approximations. Withtraining and development assessments, individual scores are simply benchmarks to help therespondent consider what needs to be changed or improved in his or her work behavior. Itshould be noted that the normal curve is a convenience and does not suggest any normalbehavior in nature or in the behavior being measured.

Technical Development 25

negotiating profile

Documents