These two approaches offer extremely rational approaches to negotiation. "Negotiating by using compromise or bargaining can be seen as a conciliatory way of doing business, as being fair and reasonable, as acting in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Using these approaches, however, will often not give you the best deal" . Compromising is finding a middle ground between the two parties involved in the negotiating process. Compromising is meeting in the middle or give-and-take until both parties are satisfied with the results. If the parties" positions are relatively close and they would like to get the deal done in a simple and quick manner then compromising is the way to go. Most of the time when a person is face to face with the other party a compromise will develop. However the down side to compromising is that a party is more likely to give up more than anticipated to the other party. On the other hand bargaining is where the parties involved in the negotiation trade options with each other. Bargaining is the true meaning of a give-and-take relationship. The main difference between bargaining and compromise is that bargaining will consist of multiple issues whereas compromise focuses on a single issue. In essence compromise is more of a "midpoint" than bargaining is. The major point about bargaining and compromise is that the parties" involved need to give in before the respective approach will work. .
The next approach in negotiation is coercion. Coercion exists when one party in the negotiation process is in a powerful position. The party in power will then try to force the other party into an agreement. When coercion is used correctly it can be a very effective negotiating approach, but if it is abused then it can be counter-productive. Coercion will most frequently come up when a party is unsuccessful moving the other party through bargaining or logical reasoning, and they become frustrated or angry.