Bargaining Styles and
Successful Negotiation
Alan K. David, MD
Professor and Chair, Family Medicine, MCW
Craig Porter, MD
Professor, Pediatrics, MCW
Objectives
1. Attendees will assess their own bargaining style
tendencies using the TKI Conflict Mode Instrument
2. Attendees will gain insight into personal traits that
influence conflict management
3. Attendees will learn successful ways to better
understand and manage conflict increasing its
potential as a positive force for collaboration.
2
Timeline for Workshop
1200-1210:
Introduction
Goals/Objectives
Schedule
Reactions to Conflict
1210-1225:
Bargaining Style Assessments
Take and Score BSA – TKI Conflict Made Instrument
1225-1235:
5 Conflict Management Styles:
Competencies, Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating,
Avoiding
1235-1255:
Case Presentation Small Group Role Play
1255-1315:
Small Group Reports
1315-1330:
Summary
3
Three natural reactions to conflict
1. Striking back
2. Giving in
3. Breaking off
Striking Back
• ….often leads to escalation/provides the other party with a
justification to react in a competing, perhaps unreasonable
fashion.
• May advance your immediate interests, but often damages
long-term relationships (win the battle, lose the war).
• People who play ‘hardball’ are usually good at it. Striking back
plays the game the way they like to play it.
5
Giving in ….
• We are uncomfortable so we give in just to be done with the
situation/conversation-we give in because we’re afraid of looking
silly, incompetent or unreasonable.
• Guilt induction – the other person may imply that you are the one
who is blocking progress making a solution impossible.
• After giving in one usually feels “bad” – taken advantage of, angry,
foolish, etc. – outcome is also poor.
• May give one a reputation of weakness that others will try to
exploit-giving in to an angry person only encourages angry outburst
in the future.
• Giving in often leads to the other party coming back to ask for yet
more concessions.
6
Breaking off
• Breaking off is often a hasty reaction that we
come to regret later-the problem doesn’t go
away, even if you are not addressing it directly.
• May be an appropriate strategy-if you are being
taken advantage of. Breaking off reminds the
other party of their stake in the relationship and
leads to more reasonable behaviors.
• The costs of breaking off can be high in terms of
damaged or shattered friendships, organizational
disarray….
7
Three biases physicians have that
can lead to conflict
1. The competitive “us versus us” bias
• Compared to business leaders in a case study,
physicians were less able to see through the
competitive surface to find and exploit win/win
interests.
• Physicians seem hesitant to risk cooperating with
others, fearing a win/lose result that makes them
look bad.
• Some reported they would rather have everyone lose
than risk that any one person gets more than their
fair share.
G. Richard Shell. Biases Physicians Bring to the Table.
8
Three biases physicians have that
can lead to conflict
2. The autonomy bias
• Clinical practice and medical training demands that
physicians act autonomously, but preference or
training for autonomy can work against cooperation
necessary in large complex organizations
• Sense of “what’s in it for me” may overpower thinking
about “what’s in it for us” and can lead to conflict.
9
Three biases physicians have that
can lead to conflict
3. The hierarchy bias
• More than some professions, a medical title carries expectations about
how those above and below in status will be treated.
• This hierarchical bias carries over into settings where it isn’t useful,
helpful or relevant….
But-physicians can feel lost without the ‘pecking order’ they grew up
in and are comfortable with.
• This is particularly challenging when physicians fee in conflict with
someone from a “lower rung.” Rather than trying to get a sense of the
other’s perspective, physicians tend to consider them “untrustworthy”
“these asst. professors are totally out of line.”
10
History and Validity of TKI Conflict
Mode
• Developed in 1960’s
• 5 Category scheme for classifying interpersonal conflict
handling modes:
Competing
Avoiding
Collaborating
Accommodating
Compromising
• Renormed in 2007: 4,000 men and 4,000 women ages 20-70
(Sample drawn from 57,000 cases 2002-2005)
G. Richard Shell. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The ThomasKilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Negotiation
Journal April, 2001: 155-174.
11
TKI (continued)
Two dimensions:
Assertiveness – extent one tries to satisfy one’s own
concerns
Cooperativeness – extent one tries to satisfy the
concerns of another person
Competing: assertive and not cooperative
Collaborating: assertive and cooperative
Compromising: in the middle on both
Accommodating: cooperative and not assertive
Avoiding: neither assertive nor cooperative
12
Assertive
Competing
Compromising
Assertiveness
Unassertive
Uncooperative
Collaborating
Avoiding
Accommodating
Cooperativeness
Cooperative
13
Uses of TKI Conflict Mode
•
•
•
•
Leadership development
Negotiation training
Team building
Management/Supervisory training
14
Competitors
Characteristics: Negotiate to “win,” rarely
back down.
Common prejudice: This is the “best” style.
Cautions to Competitors
•
•
•
•
Lack of feedback
Reduced learning
Low empowerment of others on team
Surrounded by “yes-men” (closed off from
information)
Collaborators
Characteristics: Negotiate to solve problems, have a
taste for complexity.
Common Prejudice: Not forceful enough to defend a
position.
Caution to Collaborators
• Too much time spend discussing trivial matters
(misuse of energy and resources)
• Trust can be taken advantage of when collaborating
behaviors are not reciprocated
• May be avoiding risk by diffusing responsibility for
decision-making
Compromisers
Characteristics: Do not like to negotiate, but will do it
when it is fast and fair.
Common prejudice: “Split the difference” mentality is
the most efficient way to bargain.
Cautions to Compromisers
• Concentration too much on practicalities and tactics
and not enough on big picture goals
• Too much focus on “trading” undermines
interpersonal trust and deflects attention from
merits of issues discussed
Avoiders
Characteristics: Dislike conflict, get anxious about
negotiation
Common Prejudice: Avoiders should have no role in a
negotiation.
Cautions to Avoiders
• Lack of input results in weak, or no discussions
• Decisions on important issues made by default
• Too much focus on “cautious climate” results in
ineffective risk aversion
• Important issues go unresolved
Accommodators
Characteristics: Use negotiation to build
relationships, resolve conflict by solving other
person’s problems.
Common Prejudice: Have no point of view.
Cautions to Accommodators
• Lack of influence
• Deprives a team of your contributions
• Tend to be overly deferential to rules and policies
The bargainer’s dilemma: we
assume that everyone is like us
A few potent combinations:
• Accommodators versus Competitors
• Collaborators versus Compromisers
• Avoiders versus Competitors
Getting the big picture
Successful Negotiation
• What do we bring to a negotiation?
– Desired outcome(s)
– Frame of reference
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
People
Problems
History
Process
Outcomes
Priorities
Stakes
People
• Primary players
– At the table
• Secondary actors
– Those who advise the primary players
• Tertiary subjects
– Unaware
• Who should be in which role
– Players, actors and subjects may disagree with
your opinion
Problem
•
•
•
•
What needs to be settled or changed or resolved
What is unacceptable
What is the cause
UNTIL THERE IS AGREEMENT AT THE TABLE, THE
NEGOTIATION WILL REACH AN IMPASSE
History
• Neutral vs. Positive vs. Negative
– Each influences the negotiation differently
– Negative history often drives a “get even” and
“rehash the past” negotiation
• These attitudes may thwart the process
• Getting around an impasse
– Learn their strategy
– Create a diversion
– Change the game
Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Know what you want
Know what you are willing to give
LEARN what the others want
LEARN what the others will give
Link the giving and the getting
– “giving to yes”
• Establish new currencies if necessary
Priorities
• Understand the priorities of each side
• Use the common priorities to reach
agreement
Stakes
• Good, bad and opportunity stakes
• Share
– If I swallow “X”, you get “Y”
– If you accept “A”, I will get “B”
– Then we each get “Z”
Process
• The process is driven by your bargaining style
which drives your preference in working
relationships and determines your behaviors
– Do you cooperate?
– Can you share?
– Must you win?
• What approaches are the others using?
– Can you shift?
– Can they?
Conflict
• Is inevitable
– Embracing this concept should force you to form
strategic approaches in your organization
• Accept conflict and recognize its value-a culture shift!
– Learn to PROPERLY express the sources of disagreement as a
beginning step because there will be NO resolution is the
issue is not on the table
• Recognize the many costs of continuing conflict
Positive Aspects to Conflict
• Conflict presents us with choices
• It identifies problems that merit attention
• Successful organizations must be adept at
responding to external problems. Really
successful organizations do the same for
internal problems
• Eliminating the negative connotation of
conflict diminishes the number of
“troublemakers in an organization
Learn
• …to ask the question
References
G. Richard Shell. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in
Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal. April,
2001: 155-174.
G. Richard Shell. Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation
Strategies for Reasonable People. New York. Penguin,
1999.
CPP. Inc. – www.cpp.com
Leonard J Marcus. Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving
Conflict to Build Collaboration. San Francisco. JoseyBass, 1995.
38