Skip to content

Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · Negotiation Skills and Communication

Negotiation Styles and Approaches in Mediation

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Negotiation styles are the five habitual ways people deal with conflict: competitive, collaborative, accommodating, avoiding and compromising. Approaches describe the method: positional bargaining fights over stated demands, while interest-based bargaining works on the needs behind them. To answer, define the style, link it to the facts, and state its effect on settlement.

Understand Negotiation Styles and Approaches

Negotiation is a talk between parties to reach an agreement on a dispute. Mediation and conciliation rest on it, because the neutral helps the parties negotiate better. So you must know how people negotiate and why some negotiations fail.

A style is a person's usual way of behaving in a conflict. It depends on two things: how much the person cares about getting their own goals, and how much they care about the relationship with the other side. The five styles come from different mixes of these two concerns. This is the common two-concern model of conflict styles. Name it in your answer, but do not attribute it to a person unless you are sure.

The five styles are:

  • Competitive: high concern for own goals, low for the relationship. The person wants to win. Result: win-lose.
  • Collaborative: high concern for both. The parties solve the problem together. Result: win-win.
  • Accommodating: low concern for own goals, high for the relationship. The person gives way. Result: lose-win.
  • Avoiding: low concern for both. The person delays, evades or withdraws. Result: the issue stays unresolved.
  • Compromising: moderate concern for both. Each side gives up something and meets in the middle. Result: partial win for each.

No style is always right. Competing suits an emergency or a matter of principle. Collaborating suits a long business relationship. Accommodating suits a minor issue. Avoiding suits a heated moment that needs a cooling period. Compromising suits time pressure.

Now the approaches. In positional bargaining, each party states a fixed position, such as 'I will pay ₹10 lakh and no more', and defends it. Movement is by concessions. It is quick to start but often ends in deadlock or a poor deal. In interest-based bargaining, parties look behind the position to the interests: the needs, fears and goals that created it. They then invent options that meet both sets of interests. A mediator naturally pushes parties from positions to interests, using questions such as 'Why is that important to you?'.

Key rules to remember

Two-concern model
Style = concern for own goals + concern for the relationship
Competitive: high/low. Collaborative: high/high. Accommodating: low/high. Avoiding: low/low. Compromising: moderate/moderate.
Outcome of each style
Competitive = win-lose; Collaborative = win-win; Accommodating = lose-win; Avoiding = lose-lose or no resolution; Compromising = partial win for both
Use these labels in one line when comparing styles.
Position vs interest
Position = what a party demands; Interest = why the party demands it
Interest-based bargaining looks behind the position and seeks options that satisfy interests of both sides.

How to solve Negotiation Styles and Approaches questions

Use this method for any theory or case question on negotiation styles or approaches.

  1. 1Read the question and mark what is asked: define, distinguish, identify the style, or advise.
  2. 2Define the term in one or two lines in plain words.
  3. 3For styles, state the two concerns (own goals and relationship) and the outcome.
  4. 4Pick facts from the case that show behaviour: demands, concessions, withdrawal, joint problem-solving.
  5. 5Match the facts to the style or approach and give the reason.
  6. 6Comment on suitability: when this style or approach helps and when it harms.
  7. 7Link to mediation: say how a mediator would respond or move the parties.
  8. 8Close with a one-line conclusion that answers the question asked.

Quickest way: Concern-grid shortcut

When to use it: Use when a case question asks you to identify a style or compare approaches within a few minutes.

  1. Ask: is the party pushing for its own goals? High or low.
  2. Ask: does the party protect the relationship? High or low.
  3. Read the grid: high/low competitive, high/high collaborative, low/high accommodating, low/low avoiding, middle compromising.
  4. For approach, ask: are they arguing over demands (positional) or exploring needs (interest-based)?
  5. Write the answer as: style, reason from facts, effect on settlement.

Common mistakes in Negotiation Styles and Approaches

  • Treating compromising and collaborating as the same.

    Both end in an agreement, so they look alike.

    Fix: In compromise each side gives up part of its goal. In collaboration the parties look for a solution that meets the real needs of both, so little need be given up.

  • Confusing accommodating with avoiding.

    In both, the person does not push their own goals.

    Fix: The accommodating party engages and yields to keep the relationship. The avoiding party does not engage at all and delays or withdraws.

  • Saying one style is always best.

    Students memorise collaboration as the ideal.

    Fix: State when each style suits. Competing may be right in an urgent matter or one of principle; avoiding can give a cooling-off period.

  • Defining interests as the same as positions.

    Both are stated by the party during talks.

    Fix: A position is the stated demand. An interest is the underlying need that explains it. Give a small example in the answer.

  • Writing only definitions in a case-based question.

    Students recall notes but do not analyse the facts.

    Fix: Quote the party's conduct from the facts, name the style, and give your conclusion.

  • Calling positional bargaining useless.

    Textbooks stress its weaknesses.

    Fix: Say it can be quick for simple money disputes, but often causes deadlock and harms relationships when issues are complex.

Worked examples

Example 1

Distinguish between positional bargaining and interest-based bargaining. Illustrate with a dispute between two companies over a delayed supply.

Show the solution
  1. Define positional bargaining: each party takes a fixed stand and defends it, moving only by concessions.
  2. Define interest-based bargaining: parties explore the needs behind the stands and create options to meet both.
  3. Apply to the facts. Supplier Asha Components Pvt Ltd says: 'We will not pay any penalty.' Buyer Rao Motors Ltd says: 'We want a penalty of ₹5,00,000.' These are positions.
  4. Find interests. The supplier fears loss of reputation and cash strain. The buyer needs timely supply to meet its own orders.
  5. Create options: a firm revised delivery schedule, part-supply now, and a reduced penalty adjusted against future orders.
  6. Compare: positional bargaining risks deadlock and a damaged relationship; interest-based bargaining can keep the business relationship.
  7. Link to mediation: the mediator asks 'why' questions to move the parties from positions to interests.

Answer: Positional bargaining argues over fixed demands, while interest-based bargaining looks at the underlying needs and builds options that satisfy both. In the supply dispute, the penalty demands are positions, and timely supply and reputation are interests, so a revised schedule with an adjusted penalty can settle the matter.

Example 2

In a mediation, Vikram, a landlord, insists that the tenant Meera must vacate and refuses to discuss anything else. Meera says she does not wish to discuss the matter and keeps postponing meetings. Identify the style each party shows and explain how the mediator may help.

Show the solution
  1. Vikram pushes only his own goal and shows no concern for the relationship. This is the competitive style, aiming for win-lose.
  2. Meera shows low concern for her goals and for the relationship, as she delays and will not engage. This is the avoiding style.
  3. Effect: Vikram's firm demand and Meera's withdrawal together leave the dispute unresolved.
  4. Mediator's response: hold a private session with each party to build trust and understand their reasons.
  5. With Vikram, ask why vacating matters to him: for example, need of the premises or unpaid rent. With Meera, ask what makes her avoid the talks: for example, fear of eviction or need of time.
  6. Move both to interests and explore options, such as a fixed vacating date with a rent arrangement.
  7. This shifts them towards a collaborative or compromising style.

Answer: Vikram shows the competitive style and Meera the avoiding style. The mediator should use private sessions to understand their interests and then guide them towards a collaborative or compromising solution, such as an agreed vacating date with a rent arrangement.

Exam tips

  • Write each style with its two concerns and its outcome. This earns easy marks and shows clear understanding.
  • In case questions, quote the party's conduct before naming the style. Examiners reward analysis over definition.
  • For 'distinguish' questions, give points side by side in bullet form on basis such as focus, outcome, relationship and flexibility.
  • Always add a line on how a mediator would respond, as this connects the topic to the paper.
  • Never say one style is best in all cases. Write when each style is suitable.

Practice questions from Negotiation Skills and Communication

Negotiation Styles and Approaches in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Negotiation Styles and Approaches: frequently asked questions

What are the five negotiation styles?

They are competitive, collaborative, accommodating, avoiding and compromising. Each reflects a different balance of concern for your own goals and concern for the relationship. Learn them with their outcomes: win-lose, win-win, lose-win, no resolution and partial win.

What is the difference between positional and interest-based negotiation?

Positional negotiation is a contest over fixed demands, with movement only through concessions. Interest-based negotiation asks why each party wants what it wants and builds options that meet those needs. The second is more likely to give lasting, creative settlements.

Which negotiation style is best in mediation?

The collaborative style usually gives the best results, especially where parties have a continuing relationship. But no style is best for all cases. A mediator tries to move parties from rigid or avoiding behaviour towards problem-solving.

How is compromising different from collaborating?

In compromising, each side gives up part of what it wants to reach a middle point. In collaborating, the parties work to find a solution that satisfies the real interests of both. Collaboration needs more time and trust.