Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal relationships. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties. They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship.
Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict. People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others. Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others. In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time--they withdraw all complaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance.
Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic. Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to simmer without doing anything to minimize them. Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Sometimes they simply agree to disagree (a modus vivendi).
Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties. Collaborating is an active, pro-social, and pro-self approach to conflict resolution.
Collaborating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides. This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem solving, or a win-win orientation, entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent's outcomes as well as their own,
Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships. Competing is an active, pro-self means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one's view.
Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win-lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, or contending) can take many forms, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one's solution on the other party.
Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.
A job interview: “What are you offering, and what can you expect to get in return? Ask them some questions about their attitude to rewarding success and commitment. What is their long-term vision for the organisation and the people in it? Such questions help you look strong and interested on a deeper level than usual,” says Charles.
Your salary: “You are in an objectively weak position. You have huge Needs, but an employer has a huge choice of candidates! The key thing is to project competence and confidence: you want the employer to believe that she/he will be better off by employing you and not the other candidates.
“What if I do really well in my first six months? Might you see your way to stepping up the salary a notch?” Ask directly if there is any flexibility on the salary or working methods, but in doing so show that you see the employer’s point of view:“To be quite honest, on this salary I’ll struggle to afford the rent and the commute!”
Suzie Cuddy is the UK Resourcing Advisor at O2′s Telefonica, so we asked her advice on how she suggests we negotiate salary, especially if you’re offered a salary that will barely cover your outgoings. “Never take a job that would cover your means. Not only will this lead to obvious financial strains like serious issues of not being able to pay rent or bills etc, but it could also lead to serious stress. Stress is never what you want out of a job and being in a job that means you cannot support yourself will only cause unnecessary stress.”
“Talk to the company and explain to them your situation and how much you would love to work for them but it just would not be financially viable for you. If they really want you and are really interested they will do something to get you on-board.”
Working flexibly: “It does no harm to attempt a negotiation of sorts in a job interview as long as it is done in a sensible, constructive way. That in itself projects adult confidence. ‘What if you look at allowing me to work from home three days a fortnight after I have proved myself for a couple of months?’
“Note that in both these cases you are trading Resources/Control around the idea of Time,” says Charles.
WHY SHOULD WOMEN NEGOTIATE?
Linda Babcock did a study for her book Women Don’t Ask where she found that there was a 7.6% difference between the salaries that women MBAs were getting and those that men were getting. A lot had been written on the comparable work issue already and much of the blame for the difference had been placed on organizations - basically institutional sexism.
Linda doesn’t say that doesn’t happen, but she does ask if there is something more. One of the questions she asked people is, “When you got your offer, did you attempt to negotiate?” She found that about 7% of women attempted to negotiate, while 57% of men did. Of those people who negotiated, they were able to increase their salary by over 7%. So, you can see that if women and men negotiated in similar proportions, that 7.6% difference would be cut dramatically.
One of the things I ask my students is: If you think of a $100,000 salary, and one person negotiates and gets $107,000, and the other doesn’t—what’s the cost of that? In a simple-minded way, some people say, "Is $7,000 really worth risking my reputation over?” And I agree, $7,000 may not be worth your reputation.
But that’s not the correct analysis, because that $7,000 is compounded. If you and your counterpart who negotiated are treated identically by the company—you are given the same raises and promotions—35 years later, you will have to work eight more years to be as wealthy as your counterpart at retirement. Now, the question is: $7,000 may not be worth the risk, but how about eight years of your life?
source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation
source : https://gothinkbig.co.uk/features/why-negotiating-is-a-skill-you-should-learn
source : https://www.themuse.com/advice/why-women-must-ask-the-right-way-negotiation-advice-from-stanfords-margaret-a-neale