Negotiators should use techniques that will allow satisfactory contract terms to be achieved. In the event of disagreement, a strategy should be chosen that will enable a satisfactory agreement to be reached. It turns out that people participating in negotiations have a personality predisposition to choose a specific way of dealing with a difficult situation. Among other things, one can distinguish the style of conflict resolution in negotiations: domination, avoidance, submission, compromise and joint problem solving. Each of them can bring tangible benefits if applied in a specific situation. Negotiators should be able to identify conditions that would indicate the possibility of using a specific way of reaching an agreement.

Striving to achieve all their goals and not paying attention to the interests of the other side, negotiators use dominance as a style of conflict resolution in negotiations. This strategy can be successfully used when we are convinced of our advantage and we know that the other party will agree to the terms of the contract dictated by us. However, it should be remembered that dominance is only effective if we make a one-time transaction. If we want to renegotiate the terms of the contract, our partner could have more bargaining power and wanting to play on us, now he would force us to agree to his proposals.

Domination may lead to a heated discussion in a situation where both contractors seek to satisfy only their needs and neither partner is the weaker party in negotiations. The competitive attitude of negotiators will lead to a deterioration in relations between entrepreneurs, and negotiations will turn into a lose-lose game, the aim of which will be to sink the partner. No one will win, and what matters is who lost more.

Domination as a style of conflict resolution in negotiations is most often used by negotiators who are confident, believe in their own abilities, aggressive, ambitious and convinced of having an advantage over the other side. If you are not equal to your partner, and he demands that you agree to his terms at the beginning, withdraw from negotiations and look for a contractor thanks to whom you will achieve your goals.

Sometimes, negotiators use a conflict resolution style that avoids a given problem. A contentious issue is treated by one of the parties as if it did not exist. The subject changes and the point of negotiation is discussed, in which it is easier for contractors to reach an agreement.

An avoidance strategy is designed to postpone the solution to a given problem. The negotiator hopes that there will be changes in the conditions of operation and the dispute will resolve itself. Sometimes procrastination also contributes to the modification of the other party’s demands.

Avoidance can be successfully used when dealing with a trivial and insignificant issue in negotiations. Some contract terms may be omitted. However, it is not allowed to postpone the resolution of problems that will have a significant impact on the final arrangements of the contract being worked out.

Sometimes negotiators have no intention of arguing with an aggressive negotiator. They then use a style of conflict resolution called submission. It is a complementary strategy to domination. When one partner forces the other to accept certain arrangements, the other counterparty usually gives in and agrees to the terms of the contract.

The strategy of submission is used in a situation where the pursuit of one’s own interests is not as important as maintaining good interpersonal relations with the partner. Sometimes agreeing to unattractive contract terms is beneficial, because in this way the relationship with the contractor is strengthened. And thanks to this, a satisfactory agreement can be reached in the next negotiations.

If you care about a good relationship with your partner, use a negotiation conflict resolution strategy called succumbing. You will have to agree to the other party’s proposals, but thanks to this you will gain their trust and sympathy. And this may be useful to you in future negotiations.

Contrary to appearances, compromise is not the best way to get a satisfactory contract. Partners are aware that their goals are different and they will have to make some concessions. Each side must abandon some of its demands in order to reach an agreement. Negotiators meet somewhere in the middle – the terms of the agreement are created by lowering mutual expectations.

Compromise is dangerous because it leaves you feeling unsatisfied. It may seem to the negotiators that they agreed too easily to make concessions to the other side and for this reason had to give up some of their demands. At the next meeting, there may be a situation in which both sides will use dominance as a style of conflict resolution. There will be a fierce battle.

There are situations in which it becomes impossible to work out a compromise solution. One of the contractors will have to make a much larger concession in order to reach an agreement.

The four conflict resolution styles discussed above are natural ways to reach agreement. They largely depend on the personality of the negotiator. For example, people who are closed and do not like to enter into interpersonal relationships use an avoidance strategy. Empathetic negotiators, on the other hand, who want to maintain a good bond with their partner, will use the tactic of submission. Egocentric individuals will prefer dominance.

Solving a problem together is a negotiating style that must be consciously chosen by the negotiators sitting at the table. Partners using this strategy have in mind the different goals of the other party and strive to reach an agreement by clearly communicating their needs. The adoption of such a way of resolving the conflict in negotiations allows for the development of a contract that will fully satisfy both contractors. Presenting your interests, not positions, allows you to achieve the expectations of the negotiating parties.

Source: https://poradnikprzedsiebiorcy.pl/-styl-rozwiazywania-konfliktu-i-ich-znaczenie-w-negocjacjach

Projekt otrzymał dofinansowanie z Norwegii poprzez Fundusze Norweskie 2014-2021, w ramach programu „Dialog społeczny – godna praca”.