A strategy is a basic direction that we want to give to the negotiation, that is, the game plan that we are going to develop. Get to know each one of them in depth. The strategy in negotiation is the set of processes, which includes the objectives, the methods, the actions to be developed and the tools to be used.
The selection of the strategy depends on following the direction and meaning of the arrows. Discover the keys to choose the right negotiation and improve your sales ". Let's examine each of these negotiation strategies in detail:
It is the most difficult to achieve versus the competitive one since the tendency of the latter is that people like to be right in everything and confront the other. On the other hand, the collaborative strategy requires a greater effort, since it is concerned with investigating and understanding the interests of all parties, in order to know their deepest needs, concerns, fears, purposes and goals, so that based on these, an agreement is reached that satisfies them.
But it is not only about understanding the interests but also the rest of the elements of the negotiation and that is part of the planning, such as the generation of solution options, creating alternatives, supporting the argumentation with objective criteria of legitimacy, the Communication, relationship and commitment.
It is not easy to negotiate collaboratively, but this form has a high probability of reaching the best agreement, with compliance incentives over time. However, in order to accomplish this, creativity, ingenuity, emotional stability and coordination of both parties are needed to recognize the opportunities and achieve what they want from the other.
The collaborative strategy is characterized by the integration of value of integrative type, that is, it eliminates rigid limitations and seeks meeting points within the differences between the parties, as support to achieve mutual satisfaction sealed by the agreement. Here, the relationship and the result are very important.
Its focus is to win and impose the will, and the sum of the profits is the result of snatching the profits from the other. In this strategy the person can, for example, confront until he is violent or manipulates to exercise his power, having a high need for power.
It is the strategy that he wants to win at all costs and does not care about the conflicts or the consequences to achieve it, nor the breaking of relations with the other parties.
One of the causes of this type of strategy is that whoever uses it has a high level of anxiety, and since there is a risk of losing, they prefer to snatch rather than suffer defeat. In addition, they like to exploit the adrenaline because it gradually calms them down.
The distribution of the value in the negotiation is distributive, this is one of the parties that supply the limited resources or benefits, does not share the cake or makes it as little as possible. Here, the result becomes very important and the relevance of the relationship decreases.
This strategy is known as: I lose today to win tomorrow. That is to say, the satisfaction of their own interests is postponed as long as the other satisfies their needs, but without totally renouncing their own interests, since a concession is generated that will later be possible to assert.
To analyze this, we will see the case of an executive who has just entered a company with a fixed-term contract (1 year), who is asking for his support to cover the Christmas week outside of Santiago and his family. Given this, the executive can freely decide not to accept, because his family is first; or simply accept and mention that it is not an easy decision.
It is clear that by accepting the proposal you are reaffirming your commitment to the organization, as a need for affiliation or sense of belonging, which will probably be rewarded with an indefinite contract, a special permit or other concessions that benefit you according to your interests.
Therefore, according to the scheme of the strategies, the assignment puts the focus on relationships and low relevance in the results.
If we look again at the outline of the negotiation strategies we reviewed above, we will realize that evasion is of little importance in relationships and the outcome. Consequently, it becomes indifferent to negotiate because it is not considered relevant from the perspective of benefits or other concessions that could be achieved.
It is perceived that assuming the conflict would lose time, money and resources that are scarce in exchange for something marginal, being preferable for others to solve it, and thus avoiding to avoid involvement. This has the consequence of reducing risks when negotiating, but also losing opportunities to avoid the problem, which could creatively produce advantages for both parties.
This strategy is characterized in that the parties are not complicated by the matter to be negotiated. Now, although the parties obtain a profit, it will only be divided and distributed without the maximization of the interests of the parties, preferring that the cake does not grow and is distributed equally.