Negotiation Types and Objectives
Per the above definition, negotiation becomes necessary when two parties hold “non-identical” preferences.
This statement seems fairly obvious, since 100% agreement would indicate that there is not any need for
negotiation. From this basic starting point, there are several ways of thinking about negotiation, including how
many parties are involved. For example, if two small business owners find themselves in a disagreement over
property lines, they will frequently engage in dyadic negotiation. Put simply, dyadic negotiation involves two
individuals interacting with one another in an attempt to resolve a dispute. If a third neighbor overhears the
dispute and believes one or both of them are wrong with regard to the property line, then group negotiation
could ensue. Group negotiation involves more than two individuals or parties, and by its very nature, it is often
more complex, time-consuming, and challenging to resolve.
While dyadic and group negotiations may involve different dynamics, one of the most important aspects of
any negotiation, regardless of the quantity of negotiators, is the objective. Negotiation experts recognize two
major goals of negotiation: relational and outcome. Relational goals are focused on building, maintaining, or
repairing a partnership, connection, or rapport with another party. Outcome goals, on the other hand,
concentrate on achieving certain end results. The goal of any negotiation is influenced by numerous factors,
such as whether or not there will be contact with the other party in the future. For example, when a business
negotiates with a supply company that it intends to do business with in the foreseeable future, it will try to
focus on “win-win” solutions that provide the most value for each party. In contrast, if an interaction is of a
one-time nature, that same company might approach a supplier with a “win-lose” mentality, viewing its
objective as maximizing its own value at the expense of the other party’s value. This approach is referred to as
zero-sum negotiation, and it is considered to be a “hard” negotiating style. Zero-sum negotiation is based on
the notion that there is a “fixed pie,” and the larger the slice that one party receives, the smaller the slice the
other party will receive. Win-win approaches to negotiation are sometimes referred to as integrative, while
win-lose approaches are called distributive.
Figure 2.2
Certain negotiation styles adopt a mindset in which the extent of one’s win is proportional to the
other’s loss. (Credit: Sebastian Voortman/ pexels/ License: CC0)
16
Chapter 2 Disputes and Dispute Settlement
This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col30149/1.5