Forcing is a tough approach that makes high demands from the start. Emotions are frequently displayed, few concessions are made, and the end result may be hidden. This technique is used when the other side is determined to make you lose, or in one-time deals. An advantage of this approach is that it typically takes less time than other approaches and leads to total victory if you have more power than the other side. The downside to forcing is that it can lead to deadlock if the other party uses the same approach. The other side can also become resentful and vindictive.

The forced approach to negotiation attributes value only to the substance of the negotiations and not to the relationship between the parties. A forced negotiator would be pleased if he won 100% of the issues, even if the relationship between the parties was irreversibly damaged or even destroyed. This approach has limited use within organizations. It is foolish and dangerous to burn bridges with anyone you work with. Perhaps if you are negotiating with someone you will never deal with again (for example, a used car salesman), you may want to experiment with the forced approach. Otherwise, this type of isolation negotiation is not relevant to most managers.

In the compromise approach, both negotiators start with exaggerated demands and then slowly work their way to an intermediate position. The parties only care about their own needs and can also stereotype and defame each other. Compromise is used when the parties are interdependent and the ongoing dispute would be more costly than the agreement. The benefits of compromising are that it is a natural style for most people, and it seems fair enough as both parties win and lose. The downside to compromising is that it can lead to extreme starting positions, as both parties anticipate splitting the difference and thus produce deals that neither party is really happy with.