Concessions are often necessary in negotiation but they often go unappreciated and unreciprocated. Most people understand that negotiation is a matter of give-and-take, you will win or you will lose: You have to be willing to make concessions to get concessions in return. Example, the head of a manufacturing firm was preparing to initiate talks with the leadership of the employees' union. The biggest issue on the table was a wage increase. The union was asking for a 4 percent increase, while management wanted to raise salaries by only 1 percent.
The executive considered the situation. During past negotiations, weeks were lost as each side jockeyed for position, feigned willingness to walk away, and eventually compromised on an unsurprising outcome. In this case, a deal at 2.5 percent, the midpoint of the two parties' opening positions seemed likely to be agreeable to both sides.
This time, things would be different, he resolved. He would save everyone hassle and delay by making concessions early. Against the advice of the mediator, he opened discussions by announcing that the eventual outcome was obvious and that he was prepared to make a final offer: 3 percent, the most he could have offered. The union's leadership was pleased by this offer—yet they did not accept it. If the firm could offer so much at the outset, they reasoned, perhaps they had set their sights too low. As the union's aspirations rose to unrealistic levels, a promising negotiation unraveled and culminated in a strike.
What’s the difference between a person negotiation style and stragic? The typical negotiation styles element Competing (or Aggressive), Collaborating (or Cooperative), Avoiding, Compromise, and Accommodating (Conceding). Everybody’s styles are different. They could have one to none of the element stated. They could have too much of one and not enough of the other.
Competing