Buyer and Seller Differences in Business‐to‐Business Negotiations

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton (1991: 20) defined negotiation as “a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision.” Negotiations are an important sales cycles activity (Ford and Håkansson 2006) and are typically an essential component of business success (Herbst and Schwarz 2011). Business executives can spend a significant portion of their working day in negotiation: managers report spending up to 20 percent of their day negotiating (Hendon, Henson, and Herbig 1999), and buyers have reported spending up to 50 percent of their work day negotiating (Kumar, Rai, and Pati 2009). These high percentages speak to the importance of negotiation in business practice and suggest the need for more research on how practitioners behave in business‐to‐business (B2B) settings (Agndal, Age, and Frick 2017).

Negotiation outcomes determine the purchasing performance of buyers and sellers in increasingly competitive markets (Hageen, Kedia, and Oubre 2003; S. P. Thomas et al. 2013). Profit is an objective result of buyer–seller commerce (Mintu‐Wimsatt and Graham 2004), so choosing the correct negotiation strategy and identifying the best combinations of suitable negotiation tactics is an important way to maximize a company's profitability. Business‐to‐business negotiations are one of the key activities in industrial markets (Ford and Håkansson 2006).

These negotiations typically comprise various issues to be negotiated, including price, delivery time, and method of payment (Fang 2006). Research has shown that negotiators' overall approaches (Krause, Terpend, and Petersen 2006) and tactics (Weingart, Hyder, and Prietula 1996) affect the outcome of those negotiations. Despite their demonstrable importance, however, the difference between buyers and sellers in their selection of negotiation tactics has received little attention in the B2B literature.

For purposes of this article, we define negotiation tactics as specific behaviors used overtly or covertly by negotiators to move negotiations toward their desired result (Weingart et al. 1990; Narsimhan and Ungarala 2016). We use the terms style, strategy, and approach interchangeably to refer to types of interaction “used by parties in conflict to achieve resolution” (Ganesan 1993: 184).

Studies of B2B negotiation that collect data from practicing managers are rare. One study found that only 5 percent of all published studies involved practicing managers or private sector employees (Buelens et al. 2008: 332). Another study (Mestdagh and Buelens 2003: 24) reported that approximately 80 percent of published negotiation studies involve student populations. Because students negotiate differently from professionals (Fraser and Zarkada‐Fraser 2002), critics have challenged the validity of those studies.

Lack of access apparently accounts for the dearth of studies involving actual practitioners: firms consider information exchanged during buyer–seller negotiations to be highly sensitive, and the reliance on student subjects reflects a lack of accessibility to real‐life data (Herbst, Knöpfle, and Borchardt 2015). Because of this scarcity, the relationship between managers' choice of negotiation tactics and negotiation strategies in buyer–seller B2B settings, as well as what influences that relationship, is not well understood.

Buyer–seller negotiations affect resource efficiency, overall firm performance, and relationship quality. Obviously, relationships between buyers and sellers affect how B2B negotiations unfold, and satisfaction with the negotiated agreement is a decisive factor in the development of future business transactions. Differences between buyers' and sellers' strategic negotiation approaches and tactical behaviors and how these behaviors influence long‐term business relationships are thus worthy of attention. In this study, we sought to help redress the lack of research on the behavior of actual practitioners by observing negotiators who negotiate on behalf of firms on a daily basis as they engaged in real bargaining situations. Our findings enhance our understanding of the negotiation behavior of both buyers and sellers in B2B negotiations and how their chosen strategies affect their use of tactics.

Research on B2B negotiations comprises an array of studies that explore negotiation behavior by sectors (e.g., Al‐Khatib, Vollmers, and Liu 2007; Fleck, Volkema, and Pereira 2016; Sigurdardottir, Ujwary‐Gil, and Candi 2018), by performance (e.g., Mintu‐Wimsatt and Calantone 1996; Pullins et al. 2000; Tellefsen 2006), within organizational teams (e.g., Smith and Barclay 1993; Tellefsen 2006); and with regard to organizational factors that influence the process (e.g., Michaels, Dubinsky, and Rich 1995; Katrichis 1998), power architecture (e.g., Balakrishnan, Patton, and Lewis 1993; Iyer and Villas‐Boas 2003; Dukes, Gal‐Or, and Srinivasan 2006), conflict or cooperation (e.g., Schurr and Ozanne, 1985; Strutton, Pelton, and Lumpkin 1993), cultural differences (e.g., Campbell et al. 1988; Mintu‐Wimsatt and Calantone 2000; Fang 2006), negotiation strategies (e.g., Graham et al 1988; Perdue and Summers 1991; Ganesan 1993), negotiation tactics (e.g., Alexander, Schul, and Babakus 1991; Volkema and Fleury 2002; Reid, Pullins, and Plank 2002; Sigurdardottir, Ujwary‐Gil, and Candi 2018), and ethics, morals, and trust (e.g., Elahee and Brooks 2004; Al‐Khatib, Vollmers, and Liu 2007).

In B2B negotiations, negotiators typically seek to develop long‐term relationships that satisfy all parties, which can fuel a successful business relationship (Sigurdardottir, Ujwary‐Gil, and Candi 2018). Research suggests that negotiators' emotional intelligence correlates with the parties' trust levels, and that higher levels of trust can promote long‐term relationships (Kim, Cundiff, and Choi 2014). Negotiators in consumer markets are more likely to be negotiating on their own behalf (i.e., automobile buyers) than are B2B negotiators, who negotiate on behalf of their firms and are referred to as either agents (agent to agent) or representatives (representative to representative). Stefanos Mouzas (2016) suggested that businesses should look beyond the scope of their current negotiations to consider the impact of their behaviors on their networks and future business relationships. Negotiations are rarely made in isolation, and strong relationships can be a vital component of a firm's overall performance (Miguel et al. 2014).

Research suggests that factors that enhance negotiation outcomes in buyer–seller contexts include face‐to‐face communication (Boles, Croson, and Murnighan 2000; Harwood 2008) and flexibility and responsiveness (Lapierre 2000). Jill Purdy, Pete Nye, and P. V. Balakrishnan (2000) examined different types of communication between businesses and found that face‐to‐face communication was associated with greater time efficiency, outcome efficiency, and overall party satisfaction. Face‐to‐face communication also fosters long‐term business relationships and is more likely to result in collaborative relationships (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan 2000). Ability to conduct face‐to‐face negotiations is considered a core competence for sustaining long‐term business relationships (Harwood 2008). Consequently, we believe it is important to understand the behavioral factors, such as negotiation tactics and negotiation strategy, that drive decision making in face‐to‐face negotiations.

To date, studies of B2B negotiations have primarily focused on negotiation behavior in buyer–seller settings, but few have focused on the behavioral differences between buyers and sellers, and results have been contradictory. In one study, buyers primarily favored collaborative negotiation approaches, followed by competitive strategies, using accommodative and avoidant strategies the least (Perdue, Day, and Michaels 1986). But in another study, buyers used aggressive negotiation tactics including time pressure tactics to gain concessions from potential sellers (Perdue 1992). Another study found that buyers display cooperative behavior more often when they perceive the seller as trustworthy and loyal (Wu, Chen, and Chen 2016).

Sellers, on the other hand, have been found to be more successful when they exhibit demographic and personality characteristics similar to their buyers (Mathews, Wilson, and Monoky 1972). Sellers, regardless of sector, have frequently been found to use traditional competitive bargaining tactics (Sigurdardottir, Ujwary‐Gil, and Candi 2018).

Finally, research has identified a significant difference between the orientations of buyers and sellers: sellers in B2B negotiations are loss‐averse (more inclined to prevent loss than seek gain) and the opposite is the case for buyers (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990; Huang, Shi, and Wang 2008).

We have not, however, identified any studies of buyers and sellers that directly compared the behaviors of buyers versus sellers during the course of the same negotiation. Hence, our first research question is: which tactics are applied most frequently by buyers and sellers in B2B negotiations?

Researchers have identified five different broad, overall negotiation approaches (K. W. Thomas 1976; Blake and Mouton 1978; Rahim 1983): competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1974) developed the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), a questionnaire used to indicate individuals' conflict behaviors (Shell 2001). The competing style is comparatively more power‐oriented, assertive, and generally uncooperative. An example of a competing negotiator's statement from the TKI is, “I am firm in pursuing my goals.” Collaborating, on the other hand, is both assertive and cooperative. Collaborative negotiators generally attempt to find an integrative solution that satisfies both parties. An example of a collaborating negotiator's statement from the TKI is, “I am very often concerned with satisfying all our wishes.”

The compromising style incorporates elements from both competitive and collaborative styles and has both dominating and integrating elements. A compromising negotiator's statement from the TKI is, “I try to find a fair combination of gains and losses for both of us.” The avoiding style is both unassertive and uncooperative, in many ways the opposite of collaborating. Negotiators using this style sidestep issues and typically refuse to address the conflict (K. W. Thomas and Kilmann 1974; K. W. Thomas 1976), thereby satisfying none of the concerns. An example of an avoiding negotiator's statement from the TKI is “I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.” The accommodating style is unassertive and cooperative and can be seen as the opposite of competing. Negotiators using this style tend to neglect their own positions to satisfy the other party (K. W. Thomas and Kilmann 1974; Thomas 1976) and may even employ selfless generosity or charity. An example of an accommodating negotiator's statement from the TKI is, “I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.”

Research in B2B negotiations (At‐Twaijri 1992) has indicated that 97 percent of purchasing managers surveyed use only three styles (collaborating, compromising, and competing) when dealing with sellers. Hageen, Shahid Siddiqi, and Ahmad Tootoonchi (2007) found that sellers primarily use the collaborative style and the competitive style secondarily. Hageen, Sushilia Kedia, and Diana Oubre (2003) found that the most commonly used style among purchasing managers in Western countries is collaborative, followed by competitive. On the other hand, Lawrence Chonko (1982) studied individual negotiation style with respect to buyers and sellers and found that a competing style, also known as Machiavellianism, is a common personality characteristic among sellers. Researchers have conducted numerous studies on the negotiation behavior of purchasing managers, but few of these have compared buyers and sellers, or focused on the seller's tactical behavior. The gap in the research gave rise to our second research question: are negotiators' tactical choices within the actual B2B negotiation consistent with their expressed style preferences? Because so much research has relied on self‐reported surveys of practitioners' preferred styles, we chose to analyze whether negotiators' actual behavior is consistent with their self‐reported preferences.

As noted above, negotiation is a key B2B function (Geiger 2017), with negotiators employing varied behaviors (referred to here as tactics) throughout the negotiation process to achieve their desired outcome. One study has shown that B2B negotiators increase the likelihood of closing a deal by displaying positive emotions (Kopelman, Rosette, and Thompson 2006), while another study found that verbally or physically disruptive behavior can be effective (Fassina and Whyte 2014). Other research has found that humor increases trust, leaving negotiators more satisfied and increasing the overall value of the negotiated agreement (Kurtzberg, Naquin, and Belkin 2009).

Our survey of the literature identified eighteen categories of tactics, which we used to inform our data gathering and analysis, to develop survey questions, and to generate the coding scheme. The categories of tactics are: traditional competitive bargaining, attacking opponent's network, false promise making, misrepresentation, inappropriate information gathering, tacit bargaining, procedure focus, issue focus, aggression, assertion, reserve, progress seeking, option generating, positional information, restructuring, priority information, concession, and rejection. For the sake of brevity, we only address in detail here those categories we actually observed in the negotiations studied.

Two categories from a taxonomy of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics compiled by Robert Robinson, Roy Lewicki, and Eileen Donahue (2000) were applicable to this study: traditional competitive bargaining and attacking the opponent's network. Traditional competitive bargaining includes such tactics as hiding the bottom line from counterparts or exaggerating demands. Research suggests that this tactic, generally considered to be ethical (Volkema 1999) is effective for extracting concessions (Elahee and Brooks 2004).

The second category from the Robinson, Lewicki, and Donahue (2000) taxonomy, attacking the opponent's network, comprises tactics such as trying to influence counterparts to side with one or the other negotiator, or putting a counterpart in a difficult position in relation to his or her superiors, and is generally considered unethical.

Other classifications of bargaining tactics focus on communication styles rather than ethics. These include: tacit bargaining, defensive tactics, procedure‐focused tactics, reserve tactics, progress seeking, and option generating. Tacit bargaining (Schelling 1960) includes all covert communications, includes non‐explicit vocalizations (i.e., dropping hints) and nonverbal expressions (i.e., gestures, facial expressions) and is often used when there is little trust between the negotiators.

Sai On Cheung, Pui Ting Chow, and Tak Wing Yiu (2009) identified tactics in the literature and ranked them according to usefulness. They found, for example, that negotiators use procedure‐focused tactics (Rahim 2001) such as making counter‐offers and offering trade‐offs across issues. These common tactics help lower the counterparts' expectations.

Issue‐focused tactics aim to rebuild trust through information sharing and commitment (Wong and Cheung 2005). When aggression or aggressive tactics are used, negotiators tend to be firm in their position and attempt to gather personally useful information about the other party.

Progress seeking tactics seek to break stalemates by, for example, focusing on time pressures by emphasizing deadlines (De Dreu and Van Kleef 2004). The last category in Cheung, Chow, and Yu's (2009) taxonomy, option generating, comprises tactics that help the parties identify mutually beneficial options (Walton and McKersie 1965). Mara Olekalns, Philip Smith, and Therese Walsh (1996) proposed a taxonomy of six groups of tactics they categorized broadly as either cuing or responding, including restructuring, priority information, making concessions, positional information, and rejection.

Research suggests that buyers and sellers in B2B settings make different tactical choices. In a study of purchasing managers, Barbara Perdue (1992) found that buyers tend to view purchasing negotiations as a competition and thus use competitive and aggressive tactics, particularly time pressure and threatening to walk away from the table. It remains unclear, however, whether the choice of negotiation tactics differs as a result of negotiation position, that is, buyer or seller, or whether it is a function of the personality of the individual manager. This unknown leads to our third research question: do buyers and sellers use different tactics?

Because drawing results from multiple cases enhances reliability (Miles and Huberman 1994), for this study we used a multiple‐case study design (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2010; Yin 2008). We observed six successful, real‐life, dyadic (two‐party) B2B negotiations. Participants include eight buyers and ten sellers representing twelve different companies as negotiating teams – in other words, although each negotiation comprised just two parties, the parties were sometimes represented by more than one agent.

Our qualitative research methods include both comparative analysis and frequency analysis. The firms involved were German, Danish, and Polish and represented different commercial sectors, that is, the creative sector, food retail sector, production sector, manufacturing sector, and the construction sector, as shown in Table One.

We collected the data over fourteen months. The managers represent diverse backgrounds, with several coming from a nation other than that in which they worked. Among the participants were managers from the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Pakistan, Denmark, and Germany. The negotiations were conducted in the national language of the country where both negotiators worked. The researchers observed the negotiations, which were also audio‐recorded. Researchers transcribed the audio sessions, which were first translated into English by professional translators and then translated back into their original language by a bilingual research assistant to assure that no errors were made and that no content had been lost or misunderstood. We used a comparative method analysis (Ragin 2014) and in each case analyzed either the buyer(s) or the seller(s) or both.

We gathered the following information for each negotiator. 1) Pre‐negotiation survey data. We collected this data thirty minutes to one hour before negotiations. It included personal background and organizational information, as well as a 30‐item questionnaire measuring negotiation styles drawn from the TKI (see Appendix  A). 2) Researcher observation notes. We observed every negotiation session in person. We took notes documenting the negotiation tactics actually used during the course of negotiations. 3) Post‐negotiation survey data. We surveyed participants immediately following the negotiation regarding their use of negotiation tactics during the negotiation (see Appendix  B2), as well as their attitudes toward the just‐concluded negotiation (see Appendix  B1). We explicitly asked negotiators to consider only the specific negotiation that they had just concluded. We analyzed the pre‐ and post‐negotiation questionnaires using a frequency analysis by counting the frequency of the use of particular tactics, compared them, and cross‐analyzed the data.

We used the TKI (Kilmann and Thomas 1977) pre‐survey to categorize participants into one of the five categories of conflict approaches: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating (Appendix  A). To ensure interrater reliability, two researchers coded each transcript by the tactic and style used. Researchers also listened to the audio‐recordings and made and compared their observation notes. Finally, we analyzed the pre‐survey answers and compared them with the post‐survey results and observation data.

Our pre‐test survey revealed that buyers' and sellers' general negotiation styles do not significantly differ, as shown in Table Two. The competing style was the most favored, followed by collaborating, but the sample size was too small to reveal any significant differences. Interestingly, none of our participants fell into the avoiding category, perhaps because people inclined to avoid negotiation do not pursue the kinds of careers that require negotiating.

We coded the observations blindly – for example, the coders did not know which styles the negotiators had revealed in their pre‐negotiation survey – to yield a more reliable result. Our observations of the actual negotiations confirmed that most participants' behavior reflected the negotiating style she or he revealed in the pre‐negotiation survey. Negotiators whose pre‐negotiation survey answers indicated that they favored a compromising approach made statements congruent with this style, such as “We could perhaps consider meeting halfway between forming a partnership and simply selling our product”; “Here, unfortunately, we have to compromise. You need to set the price ceiling and then together we could see which proposals fit under it”; and “OK, let's try it the middle way: the price won't include maintenance.”

Many negotiators were willing to work together and to make concessions to find mutually beneficial solutions at later stages of the negotiations. All of the negotiators were firm in their positions and most used aggressive tactics at some point during the negotiation. We found, however, that to achieve a favorable outcome for both parties each eventually adopted a more compromising style in later phases of the negotiations. Competitive negotiators expressed their style using direct questions, firm statements, and ultimatums, including: “I don't think I would agree to a 25 percent lower price because I am taking the responsibility for transport. So, are you going to pay the transport?”

In this study, we saw evidence of use of thirteen of the eighteen tactical behaviors identified in the literature. The most common tactic used by both buyers and sellers was positional information, in which they made arguments to support their own positions and even used threats and/or promises in an effort to shift their counterparts' positions. Out of the eighteen negotiators observed, sellers used this tactic twelve times to direct the negotiations in their favor while buyers used it four times. Negotiators said, for example: “Yes, you have to consider that the price is 200,000€, and I will also pay for maintenance and transport” (see Appendix  C for additional examples). This was the most commonly used tactic and a comparison of tactics used by buyers and sellers indicates that sellers used it much more frequently than did buyers.

Negotiators used the tactic priority information in which parties communicate “the information necessary for recognizing differing priorities” (Olekalns, Smith, and Walsh 1996: 76) six times during the course of the six negotiations; it was used with equal frequency by buyers and sellers. Sellers used tacit bargaining (silence and expressions of surprise) more often (five times) than buyers (once, silence only).

We noted that both sellers and buyers used aggressive tactics on eight occasions and at least one of these appeared during the course of each negotiation. Negotiators frequently aggressively interrupted their counterparts and pointed fingers at them while speaking: “We are giving you another chance to make amends,” for example.

Buyers engaged in aggressive tactics more frequently than sellers. Some buyers used reputational threats: “Yes, I am really looking forward to doing business with you in the future, but this has to be a bit, you know, it should not be one‐sided; if you are an honorable business man, then I am sure you don't want to be talked about in a negative way.” We found this surprising because of how much damage such a threat could cause for potential long‐term partnerships.

Sellers made concessions more often toward the end of the negotiation than buyers did, often to break a stalemate. Buyers said, for example: “So I would give you … let's compromise, 25 percent was your suggestion; I would say 15 percent”; “You can pay me this price, and I will take care of the transport [fitting].” But we also observed that the concessions sellers made were at times less strategic and some even seemed unnecessary. For example, one seller seemed to have forgotten his previous offer, and proposed a 50 percent decrease from the price he had previously asked for.

Sellers used rejection four times and buyers used it three. Most commonly, negotiators claimed that their power was limited or that their “hands were tied.” For example, “But I think the budget is from the development council on this, so we have to ask them”; “Hmm you know, I need to talk about it with the guys, it's not up to me”; “As I've said before, it's not down to us anymore.” Other forms of rejection – apart from the general “No, thank you” – included cordial admissions of budget limitations: “Thank you very much; it is a nice solution, but due to some restrictions, I don't have enough money to pay for this.” (In this last case, the offer was rejected.) Finally, we found that buyers made more frequent use of aggression and restructuring tactics than did sellers. Overall sellers used a much wider range of tactics. Tacit bargaining and procedure‐focused behaviors were used five times by sellers but only one time by buyers (Figure One).

We grouped the negotiators according to their negotiation styles as indicated by their responses to the TKI pre‐negotiation questionnaire. The negotiation styles that we observed matched the negotiators' assessments of their negotiating styles 79 percent of the time.

Among the tactics we observed (see Table Two), the tactic known as positional information was used most often, significantly more often than any other tactic. Aggressive tactics were used frequently; these included frequent interruptions, direct confrontations, or statements indicating that the negotiator had reached the limit of his or her willingness to continue negotiating. For example, “So why won't you lower the price?”; “No, I told you that you will take care of that yourself. I cannot offer you that plus the discount: the transport and maintenance must be your responsibility.” Negotiators also employed aggressive tones of voice, leading researchers to label as aggressive phrases that might otherwise seem neutral, for example: “You have to understand that I would also like to know what to expect in order to be able to offer you a good deal.”

Our observations revealed that compromising negotiators were more likely to use tacit bargaining and procedure‐focused tactics. Negotiators with a competing style, on the other hand, were more likely to use option generating, concessions, and rejection. Option generating and concession tactics are associated with integrative approaches, so we found this result surprising.

Overall, we found no significant correlation between the styles that participants indicated they preferred in the pre‐negotiation survey and the actual tactics they used. In fact, we note that, irrespective of the negotiators' stated strategy, for example, all used positional information or priority information tactics. The tactics we observed are summarized in Table Three.

Finally, we asked participants during the pre‐negotiation survey to indicate the percentage of time in their daily work routine that they spend negotiating. Participants indicated that the average amount of time they spent negotiating was 25 percent, which is consistent with the literature (Hendon, Henson, and Herbig 1999; Kumar, Rai, and Pati 2009).

Our first research question was: Which tactics do buyers and sellers use in B2B negotiations? Notably, we found that positioning, rejection, and aggressive tactics were used more frequently, which challenges the idea that B2B negotiations favor tactics that promote long‐term relationships. The frequent use of positional information suggests buyers and sellers perceive their B2B negotiations as distributive exchanges rather than opportunities for integrative bargaining and value creation. Indeed, price negotiations are mostly distributive in their nature and finding integrative solutions can be a challenge. The use of these tactics is consistent with our finding that many of the participants expressed a preference for either the competitive or compromising style, both of which require assertiveness.

We also asked whether negotiators' expressed style preferences were consistent with their tactical behaviors within the actual B2B negotiation. Overall, we found only limited differences in the tactics employed by those who expressed a preference for the competing and the compromising styles. A possible explanation is that participants are not aware of the full range of tactics available to them and the impacts of using them, reflecting perhaps insufficient negotiation training. Alternatively, the similarity between tactics used by negotiators who professed a preference for competing styles and those who prefer compromising styles may be due to the differences between buy–sell negotiations – which are typically inherently distributive – and other types of negotiations that offer more opportunities for trade‐offs. Determining this, however, would require research that differentiated negotiation types, for example via producing a morphology of negotiation types and their associated strategies and tactics.

We found a limited correlation between the styles that participants claimed to prefer in the pre‐negotiation surveys and the actual tactics they used during the course of negotiations. This may indicate that they lacked sufficient skill to fully implement the tactics that embodied their preferred strategies. It is also possible that buyer–seller negotiations are characterized by particular routines and underlying rules that require participants to adapt their overall strategy during the course of negotiation.

Finally, our third question was: how do buyers' and sellers' tactics differ? We generally observed that sellers use a greater variety of tactics. In particular, they used positional information, tacit bargaining, and procedure‐focused tactics significantly more often than buyers, perhaps because such negotiation concepts as framing and anchoring are better known among sellers. Buyers used aggression and priority information tactics more often, which suggests that they may take a stronger distributive view of the overall situation.

We did not examine, however, the impact of differing levels of negotiation power on the use of tactics. The use of rejection tactics may reflect greater power – a seller or buyer who perceives that she has better alternatives may be more inclined to reject knowing that she can more easily walk away. We also did not consider or control for other relevant sources of negotiation power, such as information, time, status, or outside threatening potential (Eichstädt, Hotait, and Dahlen 2017; Galinsky, Schaerer, and Magee 2017).

Our findings suggest that assertive negotiation tactics and competitive negotiation styles play a pivotal role in B2B negotiations, which supports some existing research (Saorin‐Iborra and Cubillo 2018). The overall weak correlation between negotiators' preferred styles and the tactics they actually used suggest that negotiators are not always fully aware of how to implement their own preferred strategies, which suggests they have received insufficient negotiation skills training. In a recent study, Uta Herbst and Markus Voeth highlighted a lack of systematic negotiation training in Germany (2018). They reported that 70 percent of all respondents had received no negotiation training. In addition, 62 percent of the surveyed executives stated that they had not been prepared by their employer for upcoming negotiation proceedings (Herbst and Voeth 2018). Insofar as companies and managers have preferences for specific negotiating approaches, they should make their buyer and seller negotiators aware of these priorities.

This study is unusual in that it gathered qualitative data from real‐life B2B negotiations. The small sample size does represent a significant limitation, however; it would require repeating the study on a larger scale to conduct a statistically significant quantitative data analysis.

This study has shown that competitive negotiation strategies and assertive tactics occur frequently in real‐life B2B negotiations. In addition, the results suggest that sellers and buyers may prefer different tactics, although we don't know whether these differences have any significance because of the small sample size. Additional research could not only confirm the differences between buyers' and sellers' tactics but could also further differentiate between behaviors according to specific negotiation situations and be used to develop a corresponding morphology that could reveal correlations between particular negotiation situations and strategies. In addition, the relationship between different levels of negotiation power and negotiation tactics deserves greater attention. Negotiators' deviations from their stated preferred negotiation approaches could reflect that they found themselves in a less or more powerful situation than they initially anticipated.

Although many negotiators professed to favor a compromising style and tactics, we found that many of them in fact employed competitive strategies and tactics – despite the fact that the use of competitive tactics may jeopardize long‐term business relationships, which are highly valued in B2B settings. Our qualitative findings suggest that additional research into competitive behavior in B2B settings could be enlightening, particularly research that identifies which tactics are most effective when negotiators favor a given negotiation approach. Additional research that investigates the extent to which demographic factors such as age and experience affect negotiators' selection of tactics could also be instructive.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research. Please answer all the questions to the best of your knowledge and keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers. Please circle your answers or write where appropriate. Completing the survey should take about ten minutes.

Please answer the following background questions:

Consider situations in which you find your wishes differing from those of another person.

How do you usually respond to such situations?

On the following pages are several pairs of statements describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please circle the “A” or “B” statement, which is most characteristic of your own behavior. In many cases, neither the “A” nor the “B” statement may be very typical of your behavior, but please select the response which you would be more likely to use.

You are asked to assign a rating to each question evaluating how appropriate you considered it to use these tactics based on the just concluded business negotiations. Based on the following scale:

Please rate each statement on how you handled the negotiation you just finished. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement according to the scale below. Based on the following scale:

How satisfied are you with the negotiation and the results? Based on the following scale: