In the text below, I will address the issue of different organizational preferences for negotiation styles depending on the culture prevailing within a company. The starting point will be the Cameron and Quinn culture model, due to its widespread use in consulting practice. I will discuss each culture in terms of the role negotiations play within it, highlighting the limitations and opportunities associated with various negotiation styles. Finally, I will address the issue of changing organizational culture in the process of internal negotiations and present the principles of negotiating organizational culture.

Organizational Culture

It is difficult to define something as elusive, yet as pervasive, as organizational culture. Most authors agree that it consists of ideologies, beliefs, and deeply rooted values concerning the exercise of power, relationships between employees, and the purpose for which the organization exists (Penc 2000). Simply put, it is the set of factors that allows us, after ten minutes of conversation on any topic, to distinguish a police officer from a doctor, an IT specialist from a stockbroker, or a supermarket employee from a worker in a small family shop. There are no organizations without organizational culture, except for newly established companies that are still searching for their identity. In all other cases, time, the market, and individuals – from charismatic founders to rank-and-file employees – leave their mark, making each company unique and distinctive.

The issue of organizational culture is crucial because it forms the often unconscious foundation on which many company constructs, such as HR or the marketing department, later rely. Introducing the latest participatory solutions in a company with a culture that denies employee co-responsibility, or implementing customer relationship management programs in a profit-maximizing company, leads to ineffectiveness, costs, and frustration for those dedicating time to these projects. There are no better or worse cultures; there are only those that either help the company in its current market situation or hinder it. The topic of cultural change will be discussed later. For now, let us return to negotiations.

Negotiations

According to Prof. Z. Nęcki, negotiations are ‘a sequence of reciprocal moves through which the parties aim to achieve the most favorable possible resolution of a partial conflict of interests’ (Z. Nęcki 2000). Note that for any sequence to be possible, a shared space is required in which these moves can take place. All negotiation guides emphasize the importance of thorough preparation. One should carefully consider their own goal, strategy, and resources, as well as the goal, strategy, and resources of the partner (or opponent) in the negotiation. Sometimes, attention is also drawn to understanding what is important to the partner and what values they uphold. Are they focused on a long-term project and seeking collaborators, or do they aim to maximize their profits even at the cost of damaging their reputation?
From my perspective, I would add one more consideration – what place and role do negotiations have within the organizational culture of their company? Why is this such an important issue? If someone has, from the beginning of their career in their organization, been accustomed to thinking that ‘business is a zero-sum game,’ even the most far-reaching concessions will not encourage them to engage in constructive negotiations. Conversely, if someone has always pursued a strategy of pragmatic and multidimensional problem-solving within the company, we can immediately focus on that approach, while remaining mindful of potential challenges in finalizing negotiations into a concrete, documented action plan.

Below, I will describe one of the most widely used models for diagnosing organizational culture – the Competing Values Model by Cameron and Quinn. In the descriptions of the main culture types, I will refer to their implications for negotiations and what these mean in practice.

Competing Values Model

The Competing Values Model was developed based on research into the key characteristics of effective organizations. All performance indicators of these organizations, after statistical analysis, clustered into two dimensions.

The first dimension, at one end, groups those efficiency criteria that emphasize flexibility, autonomy, and dynamism, while at the other end it includes those that emphasize stability, order, and control. In other words, some organizations are effective when they change and adapt, with fluid internal structures and informal relationships between employees (e.g., Nike or Apple), while others are effective when they remain stable, supported by a solid framework of unchanging structure (e.g., Boeing or Bank of London).

In the second dimension, at one end are companies focused on their internal affairs, integration, and unity, and at the other end are those oriented toward their position in the environment, diversity, and competition. This means that both companies that create a harmonious whole (e.g., IBM) and those primarily focused on collaboration or competition with others (e.g., Toyota), giving their branches considerable autonomy at the expense of possible inconsistencies between them and central patterns, can be effective (Cameron K., Quinn R., 2003).

As can be seen, the values at the opposite ends are mutually opposing and compete with each other. These two dimensions, or axes, allow us to identify four main types of culture: hierarchy (stability, control, and an inward focus on internal affairs and integration), clan (inward focus, integration, and flexibility, freedom of action), adhocracy (flexibility, freedom of action, and outward focus on position in the environment, diversity), and market (outward focus on position in the environment, diversity, and stability, control).

It should be noted that virtually all companies have an organizational culture composed of a mix of these four main cultures. Nevertheless, the way they are combined, the dominance of some over others, and the different areas in which certain cultures are activated (e.g., marketing – market, R&D – adhocracy) determine the uniqueness of each company.

HIERARCHY

A highly formalized and hierarchical organization. Procedures dictate what people should do. The management team ensures good coordination and organizes the best possible working conditions. Maintaining uninterrupted organizational operations is important. The organization strives for stability, predictability, and efficiency. The cohesion of the organization is guaranteed by rules and procedures documented in regulations.

Negotiation –
In organizations with a hierarchy culture, the scope of negotiations is highly limited and formalized. There are specific procedures governing them, and attempts are made to prevent negotiations from occurring outside these procedures. An example of such negotiations is the annual discussion between trade unions and company management regarding the wage increase coefficient. A characteristic feature of this situation is that only designated individuals have the right to negotiate. Others either limit contact or avoid it entirely with representatives of the other side. For instance, in a company I studied, only one person from the management team communicated with union representatives, while the others merely approved their decisions.
With the approach to negotiations seen as something that disrupts the natural rhythm of the organization by introducing new variables, such as negotiation partners, there is a tendency to minimize negotiation situations within the company. One way to achieve this is by rationing information about the current situation so that only a few individuals have the knowledge necessary to prepare adequately for negotiations. This fosters a zero-sum game mindset among management and negotiators.
Treating negotiations competitively and ambitiously leads to a preference for a hard style, a tendency toward authoritarian decisions, attempts to dominate the partner, and strong resistance to manipulation techniques and stress. A common tactic used by such negotiators is to prolong discussions so that, when decisions must be made, they can impose their preferred outcomes through authoritarian techniques. An effective approach against this negotiation style is the ‘give-and-take’ tactic, which forces concessions on the condition of reciprocal concessions, ultimately leading to a compromise acceptable to both parties. Care must be taken to preserve the face of the counterparty during this process.

MARKET

The primary criterion of effectiveness is transaction cost. The organization is oriented toward its position in the environment. It aims for stability and predictability but achieves these through economic mechanisms. Management focuses primarily on financial results. The core values in such organizations are competitiveness and efficiency. The organization exists to generate profit and strengthen its position in the environment. A market-type organization is strongly oriented toward the external customer.

Negotiation – negotiations are conducted primarily with the organization’s external clients. During the preparation phase, both formal and informal resources from people at various levels and departments are utilized to best meet the client’s expectations. This participation in the negotiation process ensures that negotiations are important to employees and remain constantly present in their awareness. A matter-of-fact style dominates, allowing for the development of the most advantageous solutions for both the client and the company. Communication regarding the company’s situation is open, enabling all employees to familiarize themselves with the current state of affairs. In internal policies, negotiations are fully permissible; however, the most important criterion by which all employee proposals are evaluated is their cost and the financial benefits they may bring. Negotiations with such partners are highly task-oriented. A matter-of-fact style dominates, negotiators are generally insensitive to ingratiation tactics, and they do not worry about losing face. Success for them is associated with obtaining the best possible economic conditions, so during negotiations, it is essential to use language focused on benefits related to cost reduction and profit maximization.

CLAN

In companies of this type, shared values and goals dominate. They resemble a large family more than a traditional business. Typical features of a clan culture include teamwork, treating clients as partners, and maintaining a positive atmosphere. The main task of management in such organizations is to delegate authority to employees and encourage a sense of participation, engagement, and loyalty.

Negotiation – negotiations are very prominent in the life of the organization. They are conducted both with external clients and with employees. A soft style dominates, particularly in dealings with employees. Nevertheless, influence techniques through the group and pressure for unanimity are used. There is a strong reluctance to engage in negotiations on serious or sensitive topics. Instead, a large number of discussions on simpler issues are preferred, in order to create an atmosphere of shared responsibility and leave no time or space for serious problems. Negotiators raised in the culture of such a company are highly sensitive to the atmosphere of the discussions. With external clients, they negotiate in a more matter-of-fact style, but great attention must be paid to the way arguments are presented, in order to consistently demonstrate a positive attitude toward their company and the clients themselves.

ADHOKRACJA

The main feature of this culture is the support for adaptability, flexibility, and creativity in a diverse environment. Success is primarily driven by innovation. This type of culture is highly unstable, often established ad hoc to carry out a specific project. Organizations of this type focus mainly on developing new products and services. The primary role of managers is to encourage entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovative solutions, which in turn lead to increased resources and profits. The main emphasis is placed on creating a vision for the future.

Negotiations –a characteristic feature of this type of organization is the situation of continuous negotiation. Opinions of clients, employees, and employees among themselves are constantly clashing, with the common goal of achieving the best possible product. Negotiations are conducted almost exclusively in a matter-of-fact style. The outcome of one negotiation process almost immediately becomes an input factor for the next round of joint agreements. A challenge in such an organizational negotiation process is the reluctance to finalize agreements and develop a clear consensus. Therefore, it is crucial to be careful not to fall into a time trap during such negotiations. One must consistently maintain a creative atmosphere and be resilient to the frequent shifts between negotiated topics and dimensions of the problem.

Above, I briefly highlighted the most important aspects of negotiating with individuals working within a given organizational culture. Does this still matter when dealing with professional negotiators from an external company acting on behalf of that organization? Yes, because the outcomes of negotiations will be evaluated within the organization through the lens of its prevailing values. Therefore, even the most creative solution to a problem may be rejected by an organization that wanted, during the negotiations, to undermine its rival. Similarly, a solution that is maximally beneficial for the company, if achieved at the expense of the other party, may be rejected as threatening to the company’s image. Knowledge of this provides a significant negotiation advantage.

Cultural Change

Why change organizational culture? As I mentioned earlier, all cultures are ‘good.’ However, under certain market conditions, some perform better than others. Cameron’s research indicates that in the three most common restructuring processes—TQM (Total Quality Management), downsizing, and business process reengineering—most American companies implementing them failed. Cameron analyzed the reasons for these failures and found that in the vast majority of cases, these changes were introduced alongside or even against the organizational culture of the company (Cameron 1997). Thus, implementing restructuring processes only makes sense if it is preceded by appropriate changes in organizational culture, or if they are introduced simultaneously (although this option is much riskier).

Changes can be introduced from the outside by implementing pre-developed changes and procedures in the company. Such an approach may only be effective by chance. In most cases, these changes are treated as a ‘foreign body’ and are soon ‘expelled’ by the organizational system.

The second method of implementing changes, and the only one likely to succeed, is introducing them from within, engaging employees in their development, and ensuring the involvement of as many members of the organization as possible at every stage—from conceptualization, through evaluation, to implementation.

In the Cameron and Quinn model, organizational changes are carried out through negotiations. First, employees individually complete a questionnaire diagnosing the current situation in the company. Then, in groups, they establish a joint diagnosis. This is done through a negotiation process, which remains present throughout the group work. Next, employees complete a questionnaire indicating how they believe the situation should ideally look. They collaboratively develop a shared view on this within the group. Finally, once the current and desired situations are known, the groups work out a way to transition from one to the other.

As can be seen, negotiations are an essential tool in the method of diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Below, I will outline a few general principles that we should follow during these negotiations.

Respect for the organization and the individual work and experience of its employees

Unfortunately, very often after conducting a preliminary diagnosis, we feel completely confident that we understand the problem of a given organization, especially if we have encountered something similar before. At that point, it is essential to refrain from influencing the negotiation process and under no circumstances should we disrupt it by participating as a party presenting arguments in support of changes we have imagined.

 

Cooperation of top management and at least neutrality of trade unions

For negotiations to take place, two conditions are necessary: first, the goodwill of both sides, and second, the possibility of benefits for all participants. A lack of support from top management makes any developed solutions inapplicable and causes frustration among those involved in the process. In such cases, we can be fairly certain that next time, these individuals will participate, at best, reluctantly. An adversarial stance from trade unions has a similar effect, particularly by pressuring employees not to participate in negotiations and undermining the mutual trust between negotiators.

 

Preparation

It is necessary to gather the broadest possible description of the current situation from as many employees as possible across different areas and levels of the organization. Such pluralism and wide participation in the negotiation process increase employee engagement and lend credibility to the organizational culture change project.

 

Space

Through organizational and structural measures, it is necessary to prepare a space both for the negotiation process and for the consumption of its outcomes. This requires arranging an appropriate venue, allocating sufficient time resources (employees should not have to rush to their tasks after participating in negotiations), and ensuring a reasonable number of participants, members of the organization (referring to a sensible ratio between their number and the costs this generates for the organization. The more employees involved, the higher the project cost, but also the greater the effectiveness of the actions).

 

Communication and Arguments

We should remember that implementing change is always very stressful for its participants. This can lead to interpersonal conflicts and a negative atmosphere within the organization. Additionally, in many organizations, negotiations between employees and management are not common, and participants need to be taught how to handle them. Therefore, during negotiations, we are obliged to continuously monitor the climate, interpersonal relationships, and communication. Part of our responsibilities as experienced negotiators will be to assist participants in developing solutions that successfully conclude their negotiation process.

 

Finalization

We must not forget to ensure that an attempt is made to implement the proposed changes. Ideally, this should also involve the members of the organization who participated in the negotiations. We need to remember to provide them with feedback regarding the changes being implemented.

In the text above, I sketched out the vast topic of negotiations during organizational culture change. I would like to once again emphasize the role that negotiations play in the change process. They are both a tool and an immediate outcome of the change. In many organizations, the very act of having management and non-union employees sit at the same table and negotiate a model for change can be a shock that permanently transforms the organization.

Negotiations are often conducted in a manner characteristic of a given culture, and it is then up to us as consultants to address the challenge of differing negotiation styles across departments with different cultures, or styles that do not allow for the development of useful solutions.

Author

Błażej Płaczynta-Brudnik – is a board member of MindLab and a trainer. He specializes in training and implementing programs for employees in industrial companies. He designs and delivers programs to develop managerial and communication skills. He holds a degree in Psychology from Jagiellonian University and in Environmental Geophysics from AGH University of Science and Technology. He completed the BAZA trainer course under the supervision of PTP and is a certified Change Management Practitioner by APMG International.

The article was published in the book Negocjacje wśród jawnych zagrożeń i ukrytych możliwości. Publication issued following the international conference Dni Negocjacji III