We often view conflict in negotiation as something to be avoided at all costs. In fact, when conflict arises in negotiation, it’s often a helpful sign that we need to scrutinize our approach and air any differences we’re experiencing with the other party. The following four types of conflict of negotiation illustrate common sources of friction and how to confront them.
1. Types of Conflict in Negotiation: Status and Power Differences
When negotiators have different degrees of status or power, conflict can be common, though it often remains under the surface. Think of a subordinate who has trouble getting their boss to listen to their needs, or a seller who has their choice of bidders. In such situations, the party with less power or status is often left frustrated and angry, while the other party remains oblivious to or dismissive of their concerns.
Having power reduces our ability to take others’ perspectives, research by Columbia Business School professor Adam Galinsky and his colleagues shows. Because people with power and status have greater control of resources, they are less dependent on others and thus have less need to try to understand them, the researchers explain. But when you are in a privileged position in a negotiation, it’s incumbent on you to ask questions, listen, and respond to your counterpart’s concerns. If you don’t, you could be left without a negotiating partner or, worse yet, find yourself the victim of sabotage.
2. Types of Conflict in Negotiation: Clashing Negotiating Styles
Conflict often arises in negotiation when parties have different negotiating styles. That might mean one party aims for win-win negotiation, while the other has more of a win-lose negotiation strategy. In such cases, the more competitive counterpart may resist the efforts of the more collaborative negotiator to try to find ways to create value and expand the pie of value.
When dealing with a competitive negotiator, explain that you are also interested in claiming value for yourself but that you prefer to first create as much value jointly so that you will each walk away with more. And be sure to take time to get to know the other party, as this will help build trust and go a long way toward breaking through their defensive attitude.
3. Types of Conflict in Negotiation: Different Views of the Future
Negotiators may both understand the importance of value creation, but if they have different views of how future events will unfold, they may quickly reach impasse. Take the case of a salesperson who tries to convince a customer that their product will perform well for many years; the customer, by contrast, suspects that the product, while useful now, could quickly be replaced by new technology.
When parties have different views of the future, they can avoid the need to reconcile their perspectives and avert conflict by agreeing to a contingent contract. In essence, parties agree to disagree through a clause that stipulates what will happen if different events unfold. For example, the customer might ask the salesperson to accept a clause that would shorten the duration of their contract in the event the product becomes obsolete. If the salesperson believes their claims on the product’s longevity, they should be willing to take this “bet,” note Max H. Bazerman and James J. Gillespie. If they refuse, this should tell the customer something about their faith in their product. A contingent contract can head off conflict and impasse by eliminating the need for parties to agree on what will happen down the line.
4. Types of Conflict in Negotiation: Dirty Tricks
Conflict can also crop up in negotiation if one party engages in unethical or questionable behavior. Imagine, for example, you arrive at a car dealership and ask to test-drive a particular make and model. The salesperson regretfully informs you that they have only an upgraded (much more expensive) version of that vehicle on the lot. When you get up to leave, they check their computer again and—surprise, surprise!—find they actually do have the very car you were looking for.
When suspected or uncovered, dirty tricks like these can leave you feeling distrustful and angry. Often, the best approach is to address the apparent deception directly, writes G. Richard Shell in his book Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. In this case, doing so might raise the potential for conflict while reducing your odds of being deceived.
For example, you might say to the car dealer, “I really don’t have any patience for further sales ploys. Are you ready to negotiate with me straightforwardly, or should I visit one of your competitors instead?” Letting the other party know that you see through their tricks might not stop unethical behavior, but it will at least let them know that you are prepared to call it out—and take your business elsewhere. In such cases, the threat of conflict or impasse has the potential to prompt more collaborative behavior.
What other types of conflict in negotiation have you encountered?