Negotiation study as a tool in conflict management has been in vogue since long and spans the disciplinary boundaries. The outcome of business negotiations depends on bargainer characteristics, situation, and the negotiation process, which also drive the style adopted by a negotiator. Negotiation as a universal phenomenon does not have a universal style as the notion of consistent improved results for an individual's business value has multiplicity of measures. Also, when it comes to negotiation style studies, they have either been packaged with other constructs or have been confused with them. For the clarity of the construct therefore it is essential that separation needs to be maintained between the definition of negotiating style as a construct and other closely related constructs. It is therefore proposed that works in negotiation need to be broadly divided into three types, involving the constructs of: • Negotiating style • Negotiating ability • Negotiating strategy. Literature review suggests that the researchers are divided regarding the number of dimensions of negotiating style. In most of the studies, the proposed dimensions range from one to five. Also, no scale on negotiating style has been validated. In recent years, there has been an increased recognition of need to look at negotiations in Asia-Pacific context. Therefore we developed a scale to measure negotiating style of people and tested it in the Indian context. The sample included a cross-section of working executives and management students and the research design for the exploratory study included item generation, scale development, and assessment of scale's psychometric properties. On analysis, the scale showed robust psychometric properties. Based on the results obtained, there are four types of negotiation style adopted by people: • Analytical • Equitable • Amicable • Aggressive. The findings can be used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the extent to which one would like to have an attribute on a particular kind of negotiating style as well as a tool to enable in bridging the gap in the value systems.