jim.shamlin.com

Mastering Accommodation and Avoidance

In some instances, negotiation simply is not worth the trouble - the outcome does not matter, or you do not feel that negotiations will improve the situation. In such situations, you have two options: accommodate or avoid.

Accommodation means giving the other party what they want, without asking for any concessions in return. This makes sense if preserving the relationship is important, and you expect that your present accommodation will be seen as a favor that the other party may be expected to return.

Avoidance means simply walking away from the other party without giving them what they want, or even giving them a chance to make demands. This is best done when the relationship is of no importance, as the other party will generally feel shunned (which you can attempt to mitigate). It may be necessary to avoid a situation when the relationship is of value, but giving them what they demand is not possible.

Accommodation

One general (but informal) statistic is that there are people who are habitual accommodators - they will cooperate under most circumstances, and will back down against anyone who is assertive, whether it is a good strategy or not. By their reckoning, it's about a quarter of the population (higher in service industries).

This is generally not a successful strategy: a chronic accommodator gives, but receives nothing in return, and is not able to get what they want in any situation. They may expect others to give in return, but they cannot insist on it.

However, there are situations in which accommodation is the correct strategic choice.

Why We Accommodate

Psychologically, accommodation is a defense mechanism to avoid stressful or tense social situations - by merely giving in, you avoid a confrontation with another person. Simply stated, it is the easiest way to escape a short-term problem.

Ironically, people whose primary form of negotiation is accommodation often have competition (rather than collaboration) as their secondary form. Fundamentally, they accommodate others until they absolutely can't give any more, then they get pugnacious.

When to Accommodate

Accommodation is the appropriate strategy to follow when the outcome of the negotiation does not matter, but the relationship does (or when the relationship outweighs the outcome) AND when helping the other party get what it wants is not detrimental to you.

In a business sense, an accommodation is an investment in a relationship: it pleases the other party, and it makes them more inclined to grant a favor in return should ever you need one.

It is generally important to be explicit when accommodating - to make the other party aware that you are doing them a favor, especially if you are taking a small loss to accommodate them. Otherwise, the favor may be taken as an entitlement, and the other party may not feel the need to show gratitude at all. It also preserves a position of strength and defines boundaries - sending a clear message that you are willing to be flexible this time, but that the other party shouldn't take that as an entitlement.

Accommodating to Buy Time

There are instances in which you need to buy time by using an "OK for now" strategy - for example, if you need to do more research, or get approval from another party, you can make a conditional accommodation that forestalls until a future time. "That's OK for now, though I might want to revisit that after X."

This is generally acceptable - but it is up to you to return to the item in the future, or your opponent will assume that your original agreement stands (you do not wish to revisit the item). It's preferable to making an accommodation that you have to take back later.

Though the authors don't mention it, it's also common to "sideboard" an item - to simply pus hit back on the agenda, or state that you'd like to discuss it later, without making a commitment. This treatment should be favored instead of accommodation if you expect to negotiate.

Winning by Losing

Accommodation has been referred to as a "lose to win" strategy - you lose the negotiation in order to win a friend. Generally, accommodation makes sense in situations where:

It's also worth considering the importance of the accommodation to the other party - the greater their need for the outcome, the more effective your accommodation will be, and the more worthwhile it is to make it.

Drawbacks of Accommodation

Unless an accommodation is carefully handled, it can have some negative consequences: the other party may see accommodation as an entitlement unless you make it clear that you're doing them a favor. If you overemphasize that you're doing them a favor, it may seen condescending to them. And if it's clear that you may want something specific in return, it may be seen as dishonest or underhanded.

Avoidance

Avoidance is another tactic to use when neither the relationship nor the outcome matters, and you simply choose not to get involved with the other party at all.

It's important to consider that negotiation has costs - the time and effort to negotiate, and the loss of whatever you give over to the other party. If you get nothing in return - in terms of outcome or relationship - any other tactic than avoidance is wasteful.

Defensive Avoidance

Avoidance can be a useful tactic to forestall negotiations until the other party is willing to negotiate. For example, if you're dealing with an angry customer who is making outrageous demands, and you expect that they will not be appeased by accommodation, you may opt to avoid negotiating until they cool off. At that point, you can try another approach, provided that the situation merits negotiation.

The Withdrawal Threat Tactic

In some cases, the other party may seem disinterested in negotiating with you - and you're not sure if it's a stall tactic or they generally are not interested in making a deal. In these cases, you can make a withdrawal threat: being careful not to sound angry or disappointed, intimate that you are considering withdrawing from the negotiation. If they fail to react, simply leave.

In such cases, your opponent is not interested in negotiating - they don't feel there's anything in it for them, and they are not going to be motivated to respond to your overtures, no matter what you do. Don't' bother banging your head against a rock.

Risks of Avoidance

The main risk of avoidance is damage to a relationship: people dislike being ignored, particularly when the outcome of the negotiation is important to them (even if it doesn't benefit you at all), and can be difficult if they feel snubbed. If the relationship is important at all, you will have to handle the situation carefully, and consider making some accommodation to assist them, or at least explain why you cannot be involved at this time (with the indication that you may be wiling to work with them in the future).

The Appeal of Avoidance

The avoidance strategy is appealing when you have better alternatives to achieving your goals, or when the cost of winning what you need from the negotiation is predicted to outweigh what you stand to gain from it.

The author provides a few situations in which avoidance is appropriate:

Avoiding to Stall

Avoidance can be a stalling tactic when you have someone who is eager to negotiate, but feel that you may get a better deal from another party. You can avoid to stall for a specific amount of time, or indefinitely.

The risk in this tactic is that the other party may pursue other opportunities and no longer be interested in negotiating with you when, and if, you decide to entertain their overtures.

To mitigate this risk, you may wish to enter negotiations, but stall in the process - whether by slowing down negotiations, manipulating the schedule, or overtly asking for time to consider their offer. This should only be done if there is a chance you will seriously consider it (for example, if this is a back-up in case another deal falls through).

Picking Your Battles

Avoidance is an important tactic, in that it allows a negotiator to avoid spending time and resources in negotiations that will not benefit him (or may in fact do him harm). If there's nothing to be won, there's no sense in fighting - and the time and resources you save can be applied to negotiations that will be more fruitful.

In that sense, avoidance can be a strategic tactic.

Passive vs. Active Avoidance

You can actively avoid negotiating by refusing to engage in negotiations at all, and making it clear to the other party that you have no interest in doing so. It should be immediately clear to the other party that you're not keen on dealing with them, and they ought to promptly bugger off.

Passive avoidance involves listening to the offers and overtures of the other party, but not saying anything in return. You do not intimate a lack of interest, but use stall tactics to constantly delay negotiations until they get the message.

Passive avoidance seems like an easier path - it avoids the need to be blunt with the other party - but it takes more resources to accommodate their desire to present their case than to brush them off, and it is more likely to leave the other party with a negative impression of you.

LOOSE NOTE: DEALING WITH HOTHEADS

If you're faced with a person who's very upset and is being irrational, the authors suggest that you listen empathetically, then ask them to state their terms. In general, there are four outcomes:

  1. They will continue to rant and rave - continue listening and try again
  2. They will make a reasonable request - consider accommodating them
  3. They will make a difficult or unreasonable request - you can attempt to negotiate a more reasonable settlement
  4. They will bugger off - they may simply storm off, in which case you may attempt to contact them later to salvage the relationship

This method involves defensive avoidance until such time as another approach can be used.


Contents