Everything is a negotiation. Every conversation, every exchange of value, every choice to spend time or resources on something. Whether it’s a negotiation with someone else or with yourself, rest assured we are constantly weighing competing interests and solving problems.
While there are dozens of negotiation styles, it can be helpful to consider some common archetypes in the world of conflict resolution and negotiation. Each of us might think of ourselves in a particular archetype, or others may perceive us as an archetype based on our typical mode of negotiating. Learning our archetypes and staying aware of them while interacting with others can be incredibly useful, especially when involved in a high-stakes negotiation.
The following are four archetypes based on the tactics that each type uses in negotiation. See if you generally fit into one of these styles.
The Brinkman Archetype
A Brinkman is a negotiator who is willing to push the situation to the brink of destruction, potentially escalating the conflict in order to achieve an advantageous position. Essentially it’s someone who is willing to play chicken. The Brinkman aims to make the stakes so high that the other party has no choice but to give in or compromise. The power of this style lies only in the perception that the Brinkman is actually willing to carry through on the threat. If the Brinkman has made previous threats and not carried through, or if the perception is that they are bluffing, then the power of this archetype is relinquished. So, while s/he may be posing the threat of escalation, the negotiator must also be willing to carry out the threat if the other side does not bend.
This Brinkman relies on the emotions of fear and desire in their opponent, appealing to their desire to get even a little something in the negotiation at the risk of getting nothing. In an organizational example, a company negotiating with a supplier may inform them that unless they lower manufacturing costs, they will take their business elsewhere, even though it may result in significant upfront costs to move manufacturing. The company making the threat can prove this by showing a cash flow analysis indicating that even with the upfront expenses, the cost saving over time makes sense. This way, it all looks legitimate and not like a bluff.
The Unworthy Opponent Archetype
This type of negotiator aims to create a perception that s/he is not worth bullying or going after because there is not enough to gain by doing so. They may make it evident that they don’t have the resources to defend themselves, so even if the other side wins, there would not be much to gain from the fight. In other words, it will cost more to fight than to win. If an initial testament to how little they have doesn’t work (i.e., the other side doesn’t believe the story), the “Unworthy” Negotiator may start telling stories to evoke even deeper emotions in their opponent, such as major financial issues. They rely on the emotions of pity, compassion, or sorrow. A company playing this archetype may make it evident to a claimant how small they are and indicate that a lawsuit would just cause them to go bankrupt, in which case the claimant would end up with nothing but costly legal bills. They can prove this by sticking to the story and perhaps offering only very little as a settlement, claiming that any more would simply bankrupt the company.
The Buddy Archetype
This type of negotiator seeks to create a friendly relationship with a would-be opponent during or before discussing negotiation points. The Buddy might insist on getting to know the other side by engaging in a social activity prior to talking business. Or, they might engage in personal storytelling during a negotiation to humanize themselves and find points of relatability. This negotiator relies on emotions such as fondness, empathy, and closeness to reach favorable outcomes. For example, a company may take out their clients for a friendly dinner prior to proposing a large contract. Or, the CEO of one company during a merger might insist that s/he meet with the other side’s CEO for a friendly coffee to discuss their personal and professional visions.
The Mediator Archetype
This type of negotiator seeks the classic win-win solution. They are concerned with not just getting their own needs met but also the needs of the other party. With that in mind, the Mediator is required to look underneath surface-level positions to discover what underlying needs, goals, or interests are at play. S/he then aims to think creatively about how to get everyone’s underlying needs met, even if it means not giving everyone what they initially wanted on the surface.
A company seeking to change the terms of a deal, for example, might be asking for a greater length of time to deliver a product at the originally agreed-upon cost, even though it would end up costing their vendor more money and thus create less profit for the vendor. Looking under the surface, the vendor might discover that the client needs more time because they recently lost a key operations person, and the vendor actually has an AI solution that can take on much of the operational tasks lost by the resigned employee. If they were focused only on positions and not underlying needs, they would have found themselves in a win-lose negotiation. But by focusing on interests and getting creative, the Mediator could come up with a win-win solution that serves each side’s needs.
Conclusion
Some negotiators become known for a particular archetype. However, most negotiators adjust their tactics based on the changing dynamics of the negotiation or situation. In exploring the different types of archetypes, ask yourself which tactics you often use, whether you are known for a particular style of negotiation, and how it changes based on context. Whatever the case, it is helpful to stay aware of the tactic one is using, the emotions one aims to evoke in their partner or opponent, and which archetype is potentially most advantageous for each particular situation.