Negotiation Styles & Personalities Mandy Crabtree

According to Tu (2012), if a negotiator is looking for good results then they must know when to employ negotiating theories and when to combine them.

Negotiation Styles Intimidator Flatterer Seducer Complainer Arguer Logical Thinker

Intimidator  An intimidator sets out to mess with emotions.  Common signs to indicate you are dealing with an intimidator: loud or fast talking, profanity, shouting, and demands.  The best way to handle an intimidator is to stay calm, focused and in control. The goal of the intimidator is to get the opposing side to feel anxious and lose control, ultimately giving into his demands (Pinet and Sander, 2013, p. 56).

Flatterer  Compliments opponents to throw them off of their game.  You may find intimidation and flattery used together when one negotiator is female and the other is male. “Competitive adversarial negotiators, like the flatterer, move psychologically against their opponents to maximize their own returns” (Craver, 2003, p. 48).

Seducer  Charming and full of tricks.  Known to be unethical and sneaky.  Seducers do not always live up to their part of the deal so it is important to keep track of every detail of all agreements made. Pinet and Sander (2013) state that when dealing with a seducer it may cost you the deal, so it’s best to not deal with them and their manipulations (p. 62).

Complainer  Easier to deal with than the intimidator, the flatterer and the seducer.  Wants to be heard and understood, therefore, listening may allow the process to run smoother. According to Pinet and Sander, (2013) the best defense against a complainer is a good ear and an empathetic heart (p. 63).

Arguer  Spends too much time on small details.  Arguers may combine intimidation tactics such as being loud to appear they are above their opponent, which is why it is crucial to stop them from crossing the line. When dealing with an arguer it is important to keep them on track and stick to the schedule to avoid wasted time (Pinet and Sander 2013).

Logical Thinker  A logical thinker will want to know details and may ask detailed questions to ensure every detail is clear.  Dealing with a logical thinker requires a simple and direct approach. Tu (2012) explains that since a logical thinker is analytical they will likely find a cause-and-effect for all issues and weigh pros and cons thoroughly (p. 322).

“There is no one universal style; however, adopting a cooperative style over a competitive style may produce a more positive outcome” (Taylor, Mesmer- Magnus, and Burns, 2008).

Negotiating Personalities Aggressive and Dominating Passive and Submissive Logical and Analytical Friendly and Collaborative Evasive and Uncooperative Expressive and Communicative

Aggressive and Dominating -demanding, pushy, forceful, controlling, and persistent Passive and Submissive -quiet, calm, reserved, shy, and sensitive. Logical and Analytical -thinkers, apprehensive, and organized Friendly and Collaborative -fair, considerate, honest, and patient Evasive and Uncooperative -insecure, pessimistic, procrastinator, and reserved Expressive and Communicative -spontaneous, energetic, charming and talkative

No one style is superior over the other, so creating a style of your own may set you apart from the pack and allow you to stand out as a great negotiator. Conclusion

References  Bazerman, M. H., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Winning negotiations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.  Craver, C. B. (2003). Negotiation styles: The impact on bargaining transactions. Dispute Resolution Journal, 58(1), Retrieved from Pinet, A., & Sander, P. J. (2013). The only negotiation book you'll ever need: Winning maneuvers for the digital age!  Taylor, K. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Burns, T. M. (2008). Teaching the art of negotiation: Improving students' negotiating confidence and perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Education for Business, 83(3), Retrieved from  Tu, Y. (2012). A comparison on business negotiation styles with education. Information Management and Business Review, 4(6), Retrieved from