Negotiation is about trading. This distinguishes it from other forms of decision-making. In negotiation there is an explicit trade: I get some of what I want and you get some of what you want. We trade what we have that others want for what we want from them.

We do not however, negotiate in a contextual vacuum. Because we happen to be meeting to make a decision, it does not follow, necessarily that either of us attempts to make explicit trades. We can seek to resolve the matter by various means, including trying to force the other to capitulate. Nor need we abide by any notion of "fairness". Indeed, I can attempt to exploit you by silver-tongued sales techniques, or by playing on your ignorance, or by threatening you with dire consequences if you resist my demands.

Where does this leave the person who wants to trade to arrive at a solution when up against somebody else who does not? This gives us the style dimension, divided between those who want something for nothing (red stylists) and those who trade something for something (blue stylists). Think of this dimension as a continuum, with extreme red stylists at one end and extreme blue stylists at the other. In between the extremes there are varying shades of redness, purple and blueness.
 
Red stylists are characterized by their beliefs about how decisions can be made to work for them. They:
 

• see all negotiations as "one-off" contests;
• seek to win by domination;
• believe that more for them inevitably means less for you (but that is your problem not theirs);
• are prone to bluffs, ploys, "dirty tricks", even coercion;
• want something for nothing.

• see any negotiation in its long-term context;
• seek to succeed by co-operation;
• believe that more for you means more for them (which is a joint gain for both of you);
• eschew manipulative techniques, preferring instead to address each party's interests using negotiable tradables;
• will only trade something for something.

Unfortunately, much of this advice is unhelpful. It is true that learning about the manipulative approach has something to commend it, not least because any exposure to the regular negotiation in business will demonstrate all kinds of variations in tactical ploys being tried upon you. Because negotiation is an unscripted interaction with no "rules", no appeals and no comebacks, it could appear on the surface that the manipulative approach is the dominant one and something you must adept in quickly if you are to do well.

These approaches, however, are unhelpful if you confuse identifying what some people might try to do to you in a negotiation with what you must learn to do to others. Courses that teach tactical manipulation suffer from at least three drawbacks.

• You forget the appropriate ploy for the situation.
• You apply the wrong ploy for the situation.
• The situation was not covered in the course.