The fundamentals
The five negotiation styles (Thomas-Kilmann)
Faced with disagreement, everyone has a default mode. The Thomas-Kilmann model distinguishes five, along two axes: assertiveness and cooperativeness. None is good in the absolute; the art is choosing according to the stakes.
The five modes
High assertiveness, low cooperativeness. You play to win. Useful when the stakes outweigh the relationship, or under time pressure.
High on both. You solve it together. The most value-creating mode, but costly in time and trust.
Middling on both. You split the difference. Fast, but it often leaves value on the table.
Low on both. You sidestep or postpone. Sensible when the stakes are minor or tempers need to cool.
High cooperativeness, low assertiveness. You give in to protect the relationship or build goodwill.
No style is the right one
The trap is always using the same mode, the one your temperament pushes you towards. A good negotiator diagnoses the situation (the stakes, the relationship, the time available) and picks the style accordingly, switching mid-course if needed.
Diagnose before you choose
Choosing the mode comes down to three questions asked before the meeting. How heavy are the stakes? A minor disagreement deserves neither the cost of full collaboration nor the risk of competition. How heavy is the relationship? With a partner of ten years, the competing mode mortgages more than it earns; with a one-off counterpart and no future, accommodation is spending with no return. How much time is there? Collaboration is the most value-creating mode and the slowest; real urgency pushes towards compromise or assertion.
The same diagnosis works for reading the other side. Identifying their default mode in a few exchanges (do they give in fast, sidestep, bargain mechanically?) lets you anticipate their reactions and choose the response that does not lock them into their weakness.
Handling the other side's style
Do not accommodate by reflex: they read a concession as an invitation. Hold the substance with criteria, stay impeccable in form, and show a credible BATNA.
Do not push harder, they will dodge better. Lower the cost of dialogue: a short agenda, prepared options, a gentle but dated deadline.
The temptation is to bank their concessions. Bad maths: the unbalanced deal will perform badly. Helping them state their interests protects the deal itself.
The split-the-difference comes too early and freezes value. Delay the halving: explore the differing priorities first, there will be time to share afterwards.
Play along, but prepared: collaboration without numbered markers slides into naivety. Transparency is measured out, not decreed.
Your default style: a starting point, not an identity
The Thomas-Kilmann test does not sort good negotiators from bad; it reveals a natural leaning. The useful information is twofold: knowing which mode you slide towards under stress (for that is where the flaw costs most), and spotting the modes you never use, each one a tool left in the locker. Progress is not about changing temperament but widening the range: stay yourself in comfort, and hold a second, mastered mode for the situations that demand it.
Sources
- Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (1974).
- Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, the managerial grid (1964), which the model draws on.