• Home
  • Other
  • Critical Review for Management and International Negotiations

Critical Review for Management and International Negotiations Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
    High School
  • Page:
  • Words:

Critical Review for Management and International Negotiations2

Critical Review for Management and International Negotiations


Critical Review for Management and International Negotiations

Negotiation styles differ depending mostly on whether the style has been effective or has worked for someone in the past or because of a person’s temperament or their nurture. Understanding negotiation styles allow one to choose the one that would lead to high rewards in terms of profit and enables one to understand the style the other party is employing and thus deal effectively with such negotiators.

One of the common negotiation styles is the compete or competition style whereby one wins, and the other loses. Such a style is employed mostly by negotiators that pursue their own needs, even at the cost of the other party suffering. It is the best style when immediate compliance is needed and when some things are non-negotiable, and results are required in a short time. However, a blended approach is the method I would recommend since such a style can result in a deadlock. In the face of such negotiators, one needs to be firm in their position. Another negotiating style is the accommodative one which has a special emphasis on relationships, and as such, they are generous with not only concessions but also information which may be sensitive. It is a proper technique when your party is at fault and is in the process of rebuilding bridges or when one is in a weak position. Such an argument stands since the two styles have been applied over the years with considerable success. (Coburn, 2015).

Another style that is employed by those that dislike conflict is the avoid style where each party loses. This style is the typical reaction to high compete negotiators and when temperaments are high during negotiations and time out is needed. The argument for this style can be substantiated by different negotiators since it has been in existence for quite some time and still finds application in the present. However, this style leads to more conflict on the part of the negotiator that wanted to avoid the conflict and hence ironing out issues affecting decision-making process and responsibility levels beforehand is important in sidestepping avoidance issues. The other negotiating style that is confused with an agreement is compromise which is in effect haggling. This usually involves splitting the difference, and such seems fair in the absence of good rationale. But such a style benefits negotiators that have taken the most extreme positions. It can be used effectively when a negotiator is pushed for time but are negotiating with one they trust. It, however, has the common pitfalls of a poor strategy and that is the assumption that a compromising negotiator will continue to make more concessions. The final, and probably the most effective style is the collaborative style where each party wins. This style is an evolution from all the other styles and is aimed at meeting the needs of both parties in the negotiation. Such a style seems like the best option for dealing with all types of negotiators (Coburn, 2015).

Negotiating styles can determine the value one gets from a deal, and as such, the styles outlined in the argument give the different pitfalls that can be avoided while at the same time providing guidance to the best use of each style in different situations.


Coburn, C., 2015. Negotiation conflict styles.