Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Negotiation styles aren't just personality quirks—they're strategic tools that directly affect whether you walk away with a deal, a damaged relationship, or both. You're being tested on your ability to recognize when each style is most effective, understand the underlying dynamics of assertiveness versus cooperativeness, and predict outcomes based on the approach chosen. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) framework organizes these styles along two axes, and understanding this model helps you analyze any negotiation scenario.
Don't just memorize the five styles—know what drives each one and when it becomes the right (or wrong) choice. Exam questions will ask you to recommend styles for specific scenarios, compare approaches, and evaluate trade-offs between short-term gains and long-term relationships. Master the "why" behind each style, and you'll handle any FRQ or case analysis with confidence.
These styles prioritize achieving your own goals, though they differ dramatically in how they treat the other party's interests. The key distinction is whether you view the negotiation as a fixed pie or an expandable one.
Compare: Competitive vs. Collaborative—both are high-assertiveness styles, but competitive treats resources as fixed while collaborative seeks to create additional value. If an FRQ presents a long-term business partnership scenario, collaborative is almost always the better recommendation.
The compromising style sits at the center of the assertiveness-cooperativeness grid, offering a practical middle path when full collaboration isn't feasible. It trades optimal outcomes for efficiency and relationship maintenance.
Compare: Collaborative vs. Compromising—both aim for mutual agreement, but collaborative invests time to maximize joint gains while compromising accepts "good enough" for speed. Use compromising when deadlines are tight; use collaborative when the stakes justify deeper exploration.
These styles de-prioritize your own goals, either to preserve relationships or avoid conflict altogether. Understanding when these are strategic choices versus avoidance patterns is crucial for exam analysis.
Compare: Accommodating vs. Avoiding—accommodating engages with the other party and yields; avoiding disengages entirely. Accommodating can strengthen relationships when used strategically, while avoiding typically just delays inevitable conflict.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| High assertiveness, low cooperation | Competitive style |
| High assertiveness, high cooperation | Collaborative style |
| Moderate assertiveness and cooperation | Compromising style |
| Low assertiveness, high cooperation | Accommodating style |
| Low assertiveness, low cooperation | Avoiding style |
| Best for one-time transactions | Competitive style |
| Best for ongoing relationships | Collaborative, Accommodating styles |
| Best under time pressure | Compromising, Avoiding styles |
Which two styles share high assertiveness but differ in their treatment of the other party's interests? What distinguishes their underlying assumptions about resources?
A manager needs to resolve a scheduling conflict between two employees who will work together for years. Which style would you recommend and why? Which style would likely backfire?
Compare and contrast the compromising and collaborative styles: when would you choose efficiency over optimization, and what are the trade-offs?
Identify a scenario where the avoiding style is strategically appropriate versus one where it would escalate the conflict. What factors determine the difference?
If an FRQ describes a negotiator who consistently uses the accommodating style, what long-term consequences should you discuss, and what alternative approach might better serve their interests?