Strategy and tactic are two different concepts according to Saner (Usunier, 2010).
Strategy is “the overall guideline, indicating the direction we need to take from our wishes and needs to our objectives” (Usunier, 2010: 51) whereas tactic
“always follow strategy, fleshing it out with a concrete line of action (Usunier, 2010: 51). In other words, tactics are orientated toward strategy and not objectives. That is why sometimes tactics seem to not be orientated towards objectives at all because in some situations, tactics need to take a different direction of the objectives in order to achieve them, as illustrated by the following.
Figure 3: Strategic context of negotiations
From Usunier (2010: 52)
Blake & Mouton (1964) have developed a managerial grid that represent different management styles. This grid can be applied to negotiation and more specifically to strategy. The grid is composed of two axes: assertion (the fervor manifested by someone who wants to have his wishes fulfilled) and cooperation (to what extend
the partner’s interests are taken into account). The position the most appropriate in a particular conflict depends on the type of task at hand, the situation, and the personality of the negotiators (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Dupont, 1982). This grid is very interesting when in comes to analyze negotiation or to help setting strategies but I will not focus on this aspect in my analytical part. This grid is relevant in order to analyze several negotiators, and as I have chosen to conduct semi structured interview, this aspect will not be mentioned directly.
Figure 4: Modes of conflicts management
From Usunier (2010: 53)
The first position possible is competition that is characterized by assertiveness and no cooperation. This position is typically a zero-sum game. Own interests prevail at the expense of the opponent interests. All the means necessary to achieve own goals are possible. The main advantage of such position is the initiative, but it can be perceived very negatively and jeopardize negotiations. If
the other party uses the same approach, the result would be a pure battle of will, at the expense of the relationship quality and probably the final outcome.
Collaboration is characterized by cooperative and assertive approaches. It is when one party tries to find a solution through cooperation with the other party.
This situation is characterized by the fact that both parties’ interests and desires are taken into account. It is an integrative approach of negotiation. This situation requires a good level of understanding and empathy from both parties.
Compromise lays between cooperation and assertiveness. Typically, this situation occurs when both parties meet one another half way. Both interests and desires are partly fulfilled, but not entirely. It is a situation when both parties agree to an agreement, but an agreement that is not fully acceptable. Compromise does not avoid confrontation but does not seek it either.
Avoidance situation occurs when being uncooperative and unassertive. “Instead of insisting on his demands or cooperating, the negotiator withdraws from the conflict and forgoes an agreement” (Usunier, 2010: 55). The negotiator thus just avoids to face the problem of the negotiation. It is sometimes used in order to postpone delicate matters in order to wait for a better moment. The relationship would then be safe. This position should be used in particular contexts of a negotiation as it is very versatile.
Accommodation is the opposite situation of competition: not assertive and cooperative. In such situations, the negotiator gives up his own interests but accept the opponent’s conditions. It could be necessary to use this position in order to defuse some situations, as an escalating conflict or just in order to keep the relationship safe. But it can also be interpreted as a weakness or allow for greater demands.
It is hard to know what position to use during the negotiation process and the complexity lies in the context of the negotiation. Saner identified four criteria that can help in order to choose the best strategy when confronted with a particular situation during the negotiation process.
Figure 5: Determinants of conflict behavior
From Usunier (2010: 57)
The first criterion is to know to what extend is the negotiation important for the negotiator. If the negotiation is vital, it is not the same as if it is a less important negotiation. A competitive approach would be typically for an important negotiation where the negotiator is willing to put everything that he can in order to achieve his interests. A collaborative approach would even be better in order to achieve a joint outcome that satisfies both parties. At the very least, a compromise approach could be considered as an acceptable compromise which is always better that anything at all during an important negotiation. However, an accommodative approach would not be considered relevant as it would mean giving up own interests. The avoidant situation could be applied in some particular cases. Moreover, the power balance between the negotiators is also important.
The second criterion to take into account according to Saner is common interests.
It is obvious that the more both parties have common interests, the more they will cooperate. If the objectives are similar, it is more likely that both parties will work together to achieve them. However, if both parties have opposite interests and objectives, it is more likely that they will confront one another.
The last criterion highlighted by Saner is the relationship quality. According to Saner, the relationship quality depends on the personal relationship between the negotiators. When negotiating with a partner known and with whom negotiations have been conducted with positive outcomes and based on trust, it will be easier to negotiate. The opposite is also true. Moreover, it may occur that despite a good personal relationship, the negotiation goes wrong because of too different interests. In such a case, a compromise would be seen as the best option.