Negotiation Strategies And Styles

Collaborative negotiators are known for their approach of problem-solving, which includes actively listening to the other party's concerns and providing relevant information. By doing so, they aim to find mutually beneficial solutions that address both parties' interests. This approach fosters open communication, trust, and cooperation, leading to more successful negotiations. Therefore, the statement "Collaborative negotiators use problem-solving tactics that involve listening and providing information in order to come up with viable solutions" is true.

According to the Dual Concern Model of Motivational Orientation, accommodating tactics are characterized by high cooperativeness. This means that individuals who use accommodating tactics prioritize the needs and interests of others over their own, and are willing to make concessions in order to maintain harmony and avoid conflict. Therefore, the statement that accommodating tactics have high cooperativeness is true.

According to the Dual Concern Model of Motivational Orientation, withdrawing tactics are characterized by low assertiveness. This means that individuals using withdrawing tactics tend to be less assertive and more passive in their approach. Therefore, the statement that withdrawing tactics have high assertiveness is false.

According to the Dual Concern Model of Motivational Orientation, collaborating tactics involve high assertiveness. This means that individuals who use collaborating tactics are willing to assert their own needs and interests while also actively seeking to understand and address the needs and interests of others. This approach promotes open communication, problem-solving, and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, the statement that collaborating tactics have high assertiveness is true.

Competitive negotiators are motivated to achieve maximum benefit for themselves at the expense of the other party. They adopt a contending style and implement a win-lose strategy, focusing on their own gains rather than finding a mutually beneficial solution. This approach allows them to prioritize their own interests and potentially gain an advantage over the other party.

According to Hayes (2003), there are five different negotiation styles.

According to the Dual Concern Model of Motivational Orientation, competing tactics are characterized by low cooperativeness. This means that individuals using competing tactics are focused on their own goals and interests, often at the expense of others. They are more concerned with winning or achieving their desired outcome, rather than working together and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, the statement that competing tactics have high cooperativeness is false.

Compromising negotiators aim to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement by finding common ground and sharing the differences on issues of concern. They are willing to make concessions and find a middle ground that benefits both parties. This approach involves a collaborative and cooperative attitude, seeking a win-win outcome where both parties feel satisfied with the negotiated agreement.

Hayes (2003) identifies several different types of negotiation strategies. Accommodative negotiators are willing to make concessions and prioritize maintaining a good relationship with the other party. Competitive negotiators focus on winning and gaining an advantage over the other party. Inactive negotiators tend to avoid conflict and may not actively participate in negotiations. Collaborative negotiators work together with the other party to find mutually beneficial solutions. Compromising negotiators seek middle ground and are willing to make concessions. These strategies highlight the different approaches individuals may take during negotiations based on their goals and priorities.

Inactive negotiators neglect both their own objectives and the objectives of the other party involved in the negotiation. They do not actively work towards finding a solution that benefits both parties. Additionally, inactive negotiators struggle to resolve differences in preferred outcomes, indicating that they have difficulty reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.