The Five Negotiation Styles: Which One Should You Use?

Thursday, 1 October 2026

The five negotiation styles are competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. They are derived from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), which maps behaviour along two dimensions: assertiveness (how strongly you pursue your own interests) and cooperativeness (how much you attend to the other party’s interests). The Harvard Program on Negotiation describes negotiation as the process of achieving agreement through discussion. The style you bring to that discussion shapes both the outcome and the relationship. Understanding all five styles is essential because the most effective negotiators do not have one style. They have a repertoire and the judgement to deploy the right one for each situation.

Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperativeness)

Competing treats negotiation as a zero sum contest: what one party gains, the other loses. It prioritises outcomes over relationships. In procurement, competing is appropriate for one off purchases of commoditised goods where price is the primary differentiator and there is no ongoing relationship to protect. It is inappropriate for strategic supplier relationships where the buyer depends on the supplier’s capability and goodwill over a long contract term. The risk of competing is that it damages trust and discourages the supplier from offering creative solutions or going beyond the minimum contractual requirement.

Collaborating (high assertiveness, high cooperativeness)

Collaborating seeks a solution that fully satisfies both parties. It requires more time, more information sharing and more creativity than other styles. In procurement, collaborating is the default for strategic supplier relationships where the buyer and supplier have a shared interest in the contract’s success. The Art of Procurement guide describes this approach as focusing on mutual interests, objective criteria and fair outcomes. Collaboration works when both parties have something to gain from a deeper relationship and when the negotiation agenda has enough variables to create value through trade offs.

Compromising (moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness)

Compromising splits the difference. It is faster than collaborating but produces outcomes that leave value on the table because neither party fully explores the possibilities. Compromising is appropriate when time is limited, when the stakes are moderate and when both parties have roughly equal power. In procurement, it is common in contract variation negotiations where both parties want to reach agreement quickly and maintain the relationship. The risk is that it becomes the default even when a better outcome is available through collaboration.

Avoiding (low assertiveness, low cooperativeness)

Avoiding delays or sidesteps the negotiation entirely. In procurement, avoiding is sometimes appropriate: when the timing is wrong (the buyer does not yet have the data needed to negotiate effectively), when the issue will resolve itself or when the cost of engaging exceeds the potential benefit. The H&C negotiation frameworks guide notes that avoidance is often misused in procurement as a way to defer difficult conversations with suppliers about performance, pricing or contract terms. Avoidance does not eliminate the issue. It allows it to grow.

Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperativeness)

Accommodating prioritises the other party’s interests over your own. In procurement, accommodating is appropriate when the supplier relationship is more important than the specific issue being negotiated, when the buyer has made an error and needs to acknowledge it or when giving ground on one issue creates goodwill that can be used on a more important issue later. The risk is that habitual accommodation teaches the supplier that the buyer will always concede, which undermines negotiation power over time.

How do you choose the right style?

Three factors determine the choice: the importance of the outcome, the importance of the relationship and the power balance. When both the outcome and the relationship matter (strategic suppliers), collaborate. When the outcome matters but the relationship does not (commodity purchases), compete. When the relationship matters but the specific issue does not (minor disputes with key partners), accommodate. When neither matters enough to justify the time, avoid. The Procurement Tactics guide reinforces that negotiation power comes from alternatives: a buyer with a strong BATNA can choose their style from a position of strength rather than default to accommodation out of dependency.

How can professionals build negotiation capability?

AcademyGlobal (AG), the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply (CIPS) Centre of Excellence for Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia, delivers programs that build negotiation capability across all five styles. AG’s Negotiation Essentials program provides the foundational skills for identifying your natural style, expanding your repertoire and choosing the approach that fits the situation. For procurement professionals who negotiate with suppliers regularly, AG’s Negotiation for Procurement Program builds the preparation discipline and tactical skills that procurement specific negotiation demands.

The negotiators who create the most value are not the ones who always win. They are the ones who know when to compete, when to collaborate and when the best move is to walk away.

Frequently asked questions

What are the five negotiation styles?
Competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. They are mapped along two dimensions: assertiveness (pursuing your interests) and cooperativeness (addressing the other party’s interests).
Which style should procurement professionals use?
Collaborating for strategic suppliers. Competing for commoditised categories. The choice depends on the importance of the outcome, the importance of the relationship and the power balance.
Is compromising a good default?
It is the fastest style but it leaves value on the table. It is appropriate when time is limited and stakes are moderate. For important negotiations, collaborating typically produces better outcomes.
How do I know my natural style?
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is the standard assessment. Most people default to one or two styles. Knowing your default reveals your blind spots.
Where can I develop negotiation skills?
AcademyGlobal’s Negotiation Essentials program builds foundational negotiation skills across all five styles.

References

1. Harvard Program on Negotiation, “BATNA Examples and What You Can Learn from Them,” June 2026
2. Art of Procurement, “Tips for Successful Supplier Negotiations in Strategic Sourcing,” February 2026
3. H&C, “Negotiation Frameworks for Procurement Teams: 2026 Guide,” August 2026
4. Procurement Tactics, “BATNA: Definition, Tips and Examples,” Updated August 2026
5. Negotiations.AI, “Supplier Negotiation Checklist: BATNA, ZOPA, Risk and Approval Gates,” June 2026