A simple comparison of collaborative and adversarial negotiation

Collaborative and adversarial negotiation approaches are very common when parties are deciding on how to get what they want in a given set up.

There are two main outcomes that parties tend to desire when negotiating, either a win-win or a win-lose. These two outcomes have led to two different approaches to how the parties may negotiate, that is, collaborative and adversarial negotiation approach.

Implicit in the choice of outcome and approach are decisions about;

1. How much power a party in negotiation has over the other – basically the ability to impose a ‘lose’ position on the other party if it wishes
2. To what extent preservation of a constructive, on-going working relationship with the other party is desirable – in this case balancing the desire to ‘win’ with the desire not to force the other party to ‘lose’ in a way that will damage the relationship

But the main question is how these two approaches compare.

Comparing Collaborative and Adversarial Negotiation

There are a number of characteristics that can be used to compare collaborative and adversarial negotiation approach and such includes;

The goal

In collaborative negotiation the goals is to expand ‘the pie’ so that each party gets a piece which is not the goal in adversarial or distributive negotiation in which the aim is to get a larger piece than that of the opponent.

The position

In negotiation a party’s position tends to be obvious. A supplier will tell you their price and you start to know their position but the degree of flexibility about that position is key in distinguishing collaborative and adversarial negotiation. Adversarial negotiators tend to be rigid about their position in negotiation

Relationship with the other part

Given the win-lose outcome that results from adversarial negotiation, the negotiators tend to go for short term relationships, basically transactional in nature. This is not the case with collaborative negotiation which has a win-win outcome at its core. In this case the parties aim for a long term, mutually beneficial relationship.

Strategy used

With collaborative negotiation the strategy is always to be open since that allows for joint problem solving. Openness will not work if you are trying to get the most out of negotiation and so in adversarial negotiation information tends to be withheld and parties only share what needs to be known.

The guiding principle

Succeeding in negotiation or even knowing if you have a chance will depend, among other things, on your guiding principle. With collaborative negotiation the guiding principle is ‘win-win’ which is contrasted by adversarial negotiation whose guiding principle is ‘win-lose’. It is a zero-sum game where one party wins and another party loses.

Options in case of a road block

There are moments when parties to a negotiation may hit a dead end. Joint problem solving, which is a trait in collaborative negotiation will allow the parties to expand their options and figure out a way round the dead end. A dead end in distributive or adversarial negotiations just mean terminating the process.

CONCLUSION

There is always a cost of negotiating. Before you even decide on the approach, the first thing you need to know in any negotiation is what your objectives are and the kind of outcome you desire.

Objective for negotiation are specific (ideally, measurable) statements of what a negotiator wants to achieve from a negotiation process e.g;

• a price reduction
• an improvement in quality or delivery performance from a supplier

Outcome are, more broadly, the results of the negotiation process. The outcome of a negotiation is ‘actually’ happening (whether or not it was the objective of the negotiators)

IN SHORT: What you want (objective) vs what you end up getting (Outcome)