In negotiation, different types of reputations serve different purposes. When you’re haggling over just one issue, such as the price of a used car or a computer installation, one party’s win is typically the other’s party’s loss. In such distributive negotiations, where each party is trying to claim the biggest piece of a fixed pie, having a reputation as a tough bargainer can be an effective means of undermining a competitor’s confidence and power.

Yet consider that most negotiations involve more than one issue. Indeed, even in seemingly single-issue negotiations, parties can bring a whole range of issues to the table, such as financing terms, delivery timing, or related services. Such negotiations are characterized by integrative potential, or the possibility of identifying common interests and beneficial tradeoffs.

In multi-issue negotiations, our research suggests that the advantage goes to those with a reputation for collaboration rather than competition. In a series of studies, we told participants that they would be negotiating with someone who had a tough reputation, a cooperative reputation, or an unknown reputation. Although this information was fictitious and randomly assigned, it had a major impact on participants’ expectations during the negotiation simulations and, ultimately, on both sides’ outcome.

Specifically, negotiators with a reputation for tough, self-interested bargaining fared worse than did those whose reputation was unknown. What’s more, negotiators with a reputation for effective collaboration achieved better deals than did those with a competitive or an unknown reputation.

Why is a collaborative reputation useful in multi-issue negotiations? Typically, we negotiate only when we need something from the other side. When parties are mutually dependent, it only makes sense that a cooperative reputation will serve you best.

Related Article: Navigating the Mediation Process ^[2]