SELECTING A STRATEGY

By: Roy J. Lewocki, Alex. Hiam & Karen W. Olander

 SELECTING A STRATEGY
 After analyzing your own position and that of the other party and looked at
the contextual issues you are ready to select a strategy to use in the
negotiation

 5 basic strategies to use when negotiating

 There is no single best strategy

 Most negotiations involve a mixture of issues and each best handled by a

different strategy

 When having selected a strategy you can during the negotiation make
adjustments and change strategy
 SELECTING A STRATEGY
 Selecting the strategy depends on 2 basic concerns
1. The relationship with the other negotiator
1. how important is past and future relationship? How have you gotten along?
2. The outcome of the negotiation itself
1. How important is it to achieve a good outcome? Do you need to win all points? Is the outcome only
moderate or no importance?

Importance of relationship

EXAMPLE: “BUYING A CAR” MOTHER *

• From a sales person *

SALES PERSON
• From your neighbor
• From your mum Importance * NEIGHBOUR
of outcome

SALES PERSON
*
 5 STRATEGIES
 AVOIDING (lose-lose)
 ACCOMODATING (lose to win)
 COMPETITIVE (win-lose)
 COLLABORATIVE (win-win)
 COMPROMISING (split the difference)

HIGH

ACCOMODATING COLLABORATIVE
lose to win win-win

Importance of COMPROMISE
Relationship split the difference
COMPETITIVE
AVOIDING
win at all cost
lose-lose
win-lose
LOW
LOW Importance HIGH
of outcome
 5 STRATEGIES
 AVOIDING (lose-lose)
 Nicknamed MISNOMER “wrong or inadequate name”
 Used infrequently
 Does not always mean LOSS
 See negotiating as a waste of time or not worth pursuing
 AVOIDER
 Example: buying 2 different houses, both meet all needs but you may decide not to
negotiate with one because the price is to high and the person is inflexible. So you select
alternative and avoid negotiating in the that option
 5 STRATEGIES
 ACCOMODATING (lose to win)
 Relationship is more important than the outcome
 Focused on building or strengthening the relationship
 Other people are usually happy when
1. we give the what they want, we may simply choose to avoid focusing on the outcome
and giving the other side making them happy
2. We may want something else in the future
 Short- term loss exchange for long term gain
 Short-term strategy helps to encourage a more independent relationships and help to
cool off hostile feelings and tensions
 But you must be careful to not be the side to constantly give in, because if this happens
the other party will begin to compete and take advantage of your guard being down.
 5 STRATEGIES
 COMPETITIVE (win-lose)
 To get as much outcomes as possible
 Maximizing the magnitude of outcomes right now and not care about the long-term
consequences of the strategy or the relationship.
 The relationship in this case is either
1. One time negotiation with no future relationship
2. Future relationship might not be important
3. Relationship exists but was poor to begin with
4. The other party has a reputation for hard bargaining or dishonesty
 The goal is to get the other party to give in

 Critical factors
Starting point Starting point
 A well defined bargaining range
 BATNA
 I have this alternative that is equally
endpoint endpoint
good but costs less
 Tactics
end point end point
 Bluffing being aggressive and threatning

Starting point Starting point

 5 STRATEGIES
 AVOIDING (lose-lose)
 Nicknamed MISNOMER “wrong or inadequate name”
 Used infrequently
 Does not always mean LOSS
 See negotiating as a waste of time or not worth pursuing
 AVOIDER
 Example: buying 2 different houses, both meet all needs but you may decide not to
negotiate with one because the price is to high and the person is inflexible. So you select
alternative and avoid negotiating in the that option

 ACCOMODATING (lose to win)

 COMPETITIVE (win-lose)
 COLLABORATIVE (win-win)
 COMPROMISING (split the difference)