Types of Negotiators

Type 1 – Tough Negotiator

Some of you might be intimidated by this style, others are excited by it. Let’s start by describing what we mean by ‘tough’.

Beliefs, Goals and Success Criteria

Tough negotiators are somewhat egotistic in that they believe that they know best. They have their own view of what is fair, what is right and thus seek to impose their ideas and will on others. The irony is that they do not always know that they are acting in this way – it can be just the way they are as people.

‘Tough’ can be a pseudonym for an intimidating bully.

Tough negotiators must win, and the others must lose.

Their success criteria will be to gain as much and as many of their tangible and emotional needs and wants as possible, exchanging the absolute minimum in return. They care little for what others think of them.

Culture Fit

This is straightforward: They disregard others’ cultural needs – unless, that is, it serves their purpose.

Words and Voice

This person is not always courteous or polite – quite the opposite, in fact. So, don’t expect too many words like ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ – and don’t be surprised if a few swear words creep in to the discussion.

Their favourite words are: ‘I want’, ‘I need’, ‘I expect’, ‘I demand…’

It is likely that they will seek to undermine others, typically stereotyping or patronizing them: ‘You junior managers need to listen to your seniors…’

Their voice will be forceful, threatening, shouting, and often the loudest voice in the room. It could also be a very deliberate and authoritative tone and pace of voice.

Body Language

So, how might the tough negotiator act? Well, their theme of intimidation can carry through to their body language in all sorts of ways, from overt to the subtlest of application. They are, however, unlikely to use all the following behaviours at the same time:

We each need physical space – how much space depends on our relationships, our working environment, and our culture. So, you would ‘allow’ someone you care about to get physically closer to you than a total stranger – just as you would in a noisy environment, so you can hear each other speak. A tough negotiator, however, abuses and invades others’ personal space without permission or cause.

They aim for their eye level to be higher, forcing others to literally ’look up’ to them. The exception here is if they seek to show their ‘authority’ in a different way – perhaps being the only person sitting or using a larger and more comfortable chair.

If choosing a seat round a table, they would select either the one opposite the other party (confrontation) or at the head of the table (‘I’m in charge here’).

When others are talking, tough negotiators are quite likely to look away (showing disinterest), fidget, shake their head, or somehow show exacerbation at their comments – perhaps by rolling their eyes.

Tough negotiators might point their finger, lean forward, stare or threaten.

Tactics

There are many potential tactics that tough negotiators might use – consciously or otherwise:

• Dishonesty. Yes, they lie!
• Withholding information and/or knowledge.
• Power plays – ‘I know your boss personally’. (This could be true – but it may not be.)
• Quoting third parties or sources. They might quote an obscure law, trusting it will not be checked. Such quotes may be inaccurate.
• Seeking a higher authority (thus demeaning yours) – ‘if you can’t agree, then I’ll take it to someone who can’.
• Stubbornness (repeating their demands in the belief that you will give in).
• Claiming reasonableness (when they are not being so).
• Refusing to listen.
• Refusing to let others speak.
• Refusing to speak.
• Moving the goalposts – if they are not succeeding, they might approach it from a different angle (but have the same agenda).
• Demanding a concession at the last minute which could change the ‘balance’ of an agreement.
• Threats and bluffs.
• Shuffling or packing away their papers to suggest they are giving up (in the face of your ‘unreasonableness’).
• Abruptly ending negotiations (hanging up the telephone, storming out of meetings etc.).

Upside and Downside

Tough negotiators are singularly focused to win – to get what they need and want. They may well be seen – especially in the short term – as highly successful by their peers and the organisation they represent.

Their preparation time is limited because they will only put their effort into researching their own needs and wants, which they have no need to prioritise (because they want it all).

The only research undertaken in respect of the other parties will be to identify their weaknesses. They aim to complete negotiations relatively fast.

The downside includes:

• An agreement may never be reached – especially if two ‘tough’ negotiators come face to face.
• The basis of the negotiation will probably be on inflated demands, making it difficult to move them to a point of ‘reasonableness’.
• Any agreement may stall on implementation because any other party will see little benefit in ‘doing their bit’.
• Their ability to encourage the parties back to the negotiating table in the future is severely diminished.

When is Tough Appropriate

Despite the downside, there can be times when toughness is appropriate. Consider which of these scenarios would warrant being ‘tough’:

• Governments threatening with war as being the only way to secure ultimate peace
• A tough managerial style being the only way to avoid bankruptcy
• Parents refusing their child yet another chocolate bar, despite the threat of tears and tantrums
• At a market, arguing until a price is as low as possible, irrespective of what others think

Type 2 – Pushover Negotiator

Now if you were uncertain how you felt about being ‘tough’, you are probably saying that one should never be a ‘pushover’. Well let’s see…

Beliefs, Goals and Success Criteria

The pushover negotiator will believe that friendship and a good (or at least calm) relationship are more valuable than the deal itself. Some might therefore describe these people as ‘nice’, having real discomfort with conflict which they will actively seek to avoid. They are trusting of others and will need considerable evidence to believe otherwise.

They are likely to be resigned to getting little of their wants and needs – they may not even ask, let alone persist, in trying to secure them, because, they believe, others’ needs and wants take precedence. They would consider themselves lucky to achieve their ‘bottom-line’.

The outcome: The other party gets what they want and need – they will win. Inherently, that means I will lose.

Cultural Fit

Here they would try to do ‘the right thing’ by seeking to adapt to others’ culture, even at the expense of their own. This is not to say they will not make cultural mistakes – they would just be unintentional, and, when discovered, prompt profound apologies.

Words and Voice

They do not usually say a lot! The words they might use are apologetic, deferential and concessionary: ‘I’m sorry to interrupt you – you must be busy…’ or ‘whatever you think is best’. Their voice will be quiet, softly spoken and possibly faltering.

Body Language

Let’s consider some of the possible body language of the ‘pushover’ negotiator:

• Personal space differs according to how well they know the other party – they might get physically close to someone they feel emotionally comfortable with but keep strangers at a distance.
• They are unlikely to make much eye contact or look directly at others.
• They are quite likely to let others choose their seat first and then accept being told where to sit. They would seek to avoid the ‘head of the table’.
• They do listen – to discover whether the other parties are happy – but may not necessarily understand (nor ask for clarification).
• Pushover negotiators typically show some form of discomfort or lack of confidence in their body language.

Tactics

Since they tend to follow where others lead their tactics tend to be re-active rather than proactive. Their range of available tactics is limited, therefore, but would include:

• Silence and/or play on their naivety. This is their most natural tactic and can, on occasion, reveal some information from the other parties which might otherwise remain hidden.
• Lack of honesty (in that they will not communicate what they truly need and want for fear of upsetting someone).
• Appealing to the other’s better nature – if they have one.
• The sob story – the tears – the apologies – the begging.
• Inflating the importance of anything that helps them ‘save face’.

Again, we will later consider the most appropriate way of responding to such tactics.

Upside and The Downside

These people will be regarded by many as ‘good’ people. Others will get what they need and want and thus be happy to negotiate with them again in the future. The negotiation itself will be unlikely to escalate negatively, because the relationship is all-important.

Sometimes it can pay in the long term – pushovers earn ‘favours’ by their style and it may be reciprocated in the future (but there is no guarantee).

Ironically, their style also can have an intimidating impact on others. Since a pushover might seek to avoid a negotiation, it can make a tough deadline even more difficult to achieve. As a result, they might get all sorts of concessions without even turning up to the negotiation.

On the downside:

• The pushover typically gets little – if anything – of what they actually need and want.
• Others might look down on them or take advantage and could therefore be greedy in their demands – knowing the pushovers will concede.
• Others can get impatient or frustrated at the pushover for not saying what they want or mean.
• The pushover’s lack of confidence and/or self-esteem is likely to be re-enforced by each negotiation – making it harder for them in the future.

When Is Being A Pushover Appropriate

So, all this might make you think that being a pushover is never appropriate. Well…

• Would a government ever seek a negotiated agreement to a border dispute by conceding territory to avoid a war?
• In business, would a manufacturer ever agree to take on a loss-making contract merely to keep the workforce occupied?
• Would a retailer ever sell anything as a loss-leader in the hope of attracting customers into their stores?
• Would you ever respond to a need or want from a loved one even though you have neither the time nor the money?

So, there will be occasions when being a pushover is right – perhaps when it is the lesser of two evils (as with the first three scenarios above) or when the importance of the relationship outweighs anything else (as in the case of loved ones).

Type 3 – Collaborative Negotiator

This person seeks all the parties to work together to find the best possible outcome. See what you think about this style of negotiating.

Beliefs, Goals and Success Criteria

The collaborative negotiator believes that a negotiation is the resolution of a joint problem and, that by being open, honest, and respectful, they can fulfil as many of everyone’s needs and want (tangible and emotional) as possible.

They seek to preserve and enhance the relationship between the parties, thus substantially improving the likelihood of its successful implementation. There should be ‘no regrets’ about the negotiation with the benefit of hindsight and therefore the path to negotiating in the future will be smoothed.

The goal: all parties win.

The collaborator will seek, in the event of there being no agreement, for everyone to be comfortable with that decision.

Cultural Fit

Collaborators will seek to work within the bounds of others’ cultures – but not necessarily without challenge if it contradicts their own.

For instance: religions attach significance to different days of the week, which may restrict when business negotiations can and cannot be undertaken. A collaborator will respect this – but not at the expense of countering, his/her own religious beliefs.

Words and Voice

Emphasising their approach, they will use terms like ‘we’, ‘together’, ‘mutual benefit’, ‘how else can we resolve…’, ‘what do you think?’ They use questions to discover exactly what is negotiable (and what is not).

Their voice will be calm, confident, and deliberate without appearing contrived or unnatural.

Body Language

Collaborators deliberately adopt a more complete set of body language techniques rather than the occasional and disjointed usage discussed in the previous styles.

Collaborators respect others’ needs for personal space. If there is doubt about what is appropriate, they are more likely to play safe rather than run the risk of offence.

Lots of eye contact – without staring – especially at key points in the discussion.

They will seek to create an equitable and encouraging body language. For instance, their eye level would be neither below the other parties (suggesting a pushover) nor above (reminiscent of tough negotiators). However, they may well, for instance, drop their eye contact below that of someone who has adopted a pushover style, to encourage them to express what they think and feel.

They would not take the head of the table seat, nor one opposite others. They would prefer side-by-side seating or, more likely, at right angles to others. This sends an encouraging, cooperative message and yet still enables easy eye contact.

They tend to listen more than talk because they will have prepared how they will reveal their needs and wants and need to encourage the other party to do the same. They will give speakers many encouraging signals to show that they are interested in what is being said.

Collaborators show confidence in the manner of their body language.

Tactics

• Honesty and openness.
• Questioning to identify and understand the needs and wants of all parties.
• Respect for others and their opinions even when they don’t agree, but challenging unreasonable attitude or behaviour.
• Staying calm and objective – irrespective of the reactions of others.
• These tactics are the means by which they seek to achieve their goal.

Upside … And the Downside

On the upside, the maximum exchange of needs and wants takes place. A good working relationship is established and maintained for the future.

On the downside, perhaps this collaborative style needs more deliberate persistence and patience than the other styles of negotiation. This is especially true when faced with a view that successful negotiations require a winner and a loser.

Potentially, doubts may occur for even the strongest advocate of collaboration: ‘Had I been tougher, could I have achieved more?’ While it is unlikely that this is the case, it can inhibit their advocacy of this approach in the future.

When Is Collaboration Appropriate

There are lots of possibilities – here are a few:

• Governments sign treaties of cooperation and friendship.
• In business, corporations form partnerships with each other – perhaps in joint funding initiatives.
• When friends decide to go on holiday together, they seek to meet everyone’s needs and wants as well as having a better time than if they went alone.

Click here to view a video on when the different types of negotiators meet.