A key element to mastering the art of negotiation is knowing the value of a deal and the limits of your interests. Going into an agreement, you should know how much you’re willing to sell a product for and the optimal terms that will benefit you or your company the most.

Negotiation science has developed several terms that define key concepts in determining the worth of the agreement and the ability of a negotiator to walk away from the table satisfied. One of these tools is known as the zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA. These negotiations are critical to the practice of negotiation, because they express the financial range in which the terms of an agreement can be reached.

The Definition of ZOPA Negotiation

ZOPA negotiation is concerned with the range in which deals can be made so both negotiating parties can leave the agreement satisfied. ZOPA is also referred to as the “bargaining range.”

For example, imagine you are selling your used car. You purchased your car for $25,000. You hope to sell your car for $18,000 but will go as low as $15,000. A buyer contacts you and explains that they have a budget of $17,000 to purchase a new car. The ZOPA would be between $15,000 and $17,000, as this range is above the seller’s lowest selling price and below the buyer’s highest purchasing price. Both parties will leave the deal satisfied if the car is sold within this range.

ZOPA Versus BATNA and Reservation Price

ZOPA can be easily confused with two other terms that describe the possible outcomes of a negotiation: BATNA and reservation price.

A reservation price is the lowest possible price a negotiator would feel comfortable selling goods and services for. It can also be the highest possible price a buyer would feel comfortable paying for a product or service. The reservation price is also known as the “walk away” point and is always expressed by a number. In the same example, if you are selling your car for $18,000 and you are willing to sell it for as low as $15,000, your reservation price would be $15,000. It is unlikely that you will sell your car to a buyer below that amount.

BATNA stands for the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” Unlike the reservation price, it is not expressed as a number but rather a scenario in which you settle for a “plan B.” Again, imagine that you are selling your car for $18,000, but will go as low as $15,000. Your younger sister has recently gotten her driver’s license and your parents are looking for a cheap used car to give her for her birthday.

Your parents tell you if you are unable to find a buyer, they could give you $10,000 for your car – lower than your reservation price and much lower than your selling price. If you are unable to find a buyer, your parents become your BATNA.

ZOPA is a different concept entirely. It explains the financial range at which an agreement can be met, and both parties can leave happy, neither a worst-case scenario nor absolute lowest selling point. ZOPA can work in tandem with these concepts, however. The reservation point can be the low or high end of the ZOPA range and can be used when determining if a BATNA is the best option to pursue.

Why Are ZOPA Negotiations Important?

ZOPA negotiations are not always as simple as the used car example. When entering a business negotiation, the reservation price of the opposite party is not always explicitly stated or shared beforehand.

A negotiator should always enter a deal knowing their own reservation price and the BATNA. That way, when a negotiator learns the reservation price of the opposite party, they can quickly calculate the ZOPA. From there, the negotiator can begin to sketch out the preliminary terms of the agreement and use collaborative techniques to close a deal.

However, it is possible that no ZOPA is present. For example, a negotiator can enter an agreement with a reservation price for selling their product is $15,000. During the negotiation, the negotiator can discover that the reservation price at which the opposite party would feel comfortable purchasing the product is only $10,000.

From there, the negotiator can try to negotiate with the opposite party to raise the price limit to $15,000. The opposite party will attempt to persuade the negotiator to drop the price to $10,000. Both parties are attempting to create a ZOPA, so they can reach a satisfactory negotiation.

ZOPA, BATNA, and reservation prices are all key concepts to mastering the art of negotiation. To hone these skills, a novice negotiator must familiarize him or herself with the terminology and best practices necessary to effectively close major deals.

To learn more about this practice, contact Shapiro Negotiations today to enroll in our negotiations training program.

People have different communication styles. Individuals bring sets of experiences, skills, and tools that affect the way they interact with others, both at home and in the workplace. Individual communication styles also translate into how they negotiate. From these patterns of communication, five distinct negotiation styles have emerged: competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding.

Negotiators often fall into one or more of these five styles whether they are trying to reach an agreement or resolve a conflict with multiple parties. Master negotiators know how to use their primary negotiation style to their advantage and when it’s beneficial to introduce the others. Read on to learn about the common characteristics of the five negotiation styles, their strengths, and their weaknesses.

Negotiation Style: Compete

A competitive negotiation style follows the model of “I win, you lose.” Competitive negotiators tend to do whatever it takes to reach their desired agreement – even when it comes at the expense of another person or entity. They are results-oriented and focused on achieving short-term goals quickly. Their desire for success motivates them, though the process of negotiation can blind them to potentially harmful impacts.

Competitive negotiators use all tools possible to boost their negotiation success, including:

• Their position within a company structure
• Their personality and humor
• Aggression
• Their economic prowess
• Their company’s strength and size
• Their brand’s visibility and influence

A competitive negotiation style is beneficial when you need to reach a short-term agreement quickly. If the terms of an agreement are critical and must be complied with, a competitive negotiator will be your secret weapon. If the second negotiator is also competitive, having another competitive negotiator on your team will be able to counter-balance their aggression.

Competitive negotiators work best in a highly competitive industry or for once-off sales, such as selling a home or a car. However, for negotiations with another highly competitive body, it is best to blend negotiation styles to avoid gridlock between two competitive negotiators.

These types of negotiators may focus more on winning than reaching a mutually beneficial agreement with the other party. Business relationships might break, and a company’s reputation may tarnish if a negotiation style is too competitive and crosses the line into bullying.

If you are a competitive negotiator, make sure to blend your style with a bit of accommodation or collaboration. Invite a partner to balance out your natural competitive streak. Business is as much about building strong relationships as it is about closing deals!

Negotiation Style: Collaborate

In contrast, a collaborative negotiation style follows the “I win, you win” model. Collaborative negotiators focus on making sure all parties have their needs met in an agreement. They value strengthening, establishing, and building relationships without compromising their company’s best interests.

Collaborative negotiators often evolve into this negotiation style from another. As time goes on and a negotiator gains confidence in reaching agreements, they become more comfortable advocating for their needs. They also become skilled in finding a mutually beneficial balance between their needs and the other party’s.

Individuals with a collaborative negotiation style are willing to invest time in finding innovative solutions and building business partnerships with other organizations. Other negotiation styles are often too impatient to invest this time, but collaborative negotiators are confident that they will benefit in the end.

A collaborative negotiation style is effective in most business negotiations. Collaborating with competitive negotiators is something to be wary of, however; since this negotiation style focuses on winning the most for their company, they might not be interested in developing a collaborative relationship. As a result, the more collaborative company can lose out – so be careful and always keep track of the agreement’s value.

Negotiation Style: Compromise

Many students of negotiation styles confuse the collaborative style with the compromising one. Unlike the “win-win” collaborative style, the compromising negotiation style follows a “I win/lose some, you win/lose some” model. When reaching the terms of the agreement, compromisers often relinquish some terms in favor of gaining others.

For example, if two governments are trying to reach a trade agreement, a compromiser might give the other government greater access to their country’s dairy market to gain protections for digital media trade. Simply put, a compromising negotiation style is a form of bargaining. Compromisers split the agreement’s value between the two parties versus finding a solution so that everyone benefits from an agreement’s full value. A competitive negotiator can easily take advantage of a compromising negotiator.

A compromising negotiation style is most useful in situations where the opposite party is trustworthy, and the agreement is under a tight deadline. However, compromising will cause your company to lose out on collaborative partnerships and innovative solutions.

Negotiation Style: Avoid

An avoiding negotiation style follows a “I lose, you lose” model. People who identify with the avoiding negotiation style highly dislike conflict and tend to talk in vague terms about the issue at hand rather than the issue itself. If an agreement is reached and an avoiding negotiator dislikes the outcome, they may try to take revenge on the opposite party before the party even knows that they were unhappy with the agreement.

Since avoiders dislike conflict and struggle with direct communication, they come off as passive-aggressive. This can cause rifts in interpersonal business relationships. Avoidance is a typical reaction when a negotiator is pitted against someone who is highly competitive. Avoiding negotiation styles work best in situations where the negotiation concerns a matter that is trivial to both parties. In conflict resolution, avoiding negotiators work best in situations where the investment of time to resolve the issue outweighs the outcome of the discussion.

Negotiation Style: Accommodate

An accommodating negotiating style follows the “I lose, you win” model – which does not seem to be in a negotiator’s best interest. Accommodating negotiators are the direct opposite of competitive negotiators. They focus on preserving relationships and building a friendly rapport by sacrificing some of their company’s interests in favor of the opposite party’s interests.

Accommodators tend to try to win people over by giving in to their requests. They tend to share more information than they should. They are often well-liked by their colleagues because of their kindness – but kindness doesn’t work in every negotiation situation. Accommodating negotiation styles work best in situations where your company has caused harm to another and needs to repair a significant relationship. These negotiators are skilled at peacemaking between different bodies.

However, don’t send a pure accommodator alone to a negotiation with a competitive body. They can easily be taken advantage of. An accommodating style can easily turn into a collaborative style with proper training and teamwork.

Which negotiation style describes your negotiation practices the best? Do you tend to compete, collaborate, compromise, accommodate, or avoid? Or do you practice a mixture of negotiation styles, expertly bringing in competition or accommodation to fit the environment? To learn more about how to use your negotiation style to your advantage, visit Shapiro Negotiations today to schedule a negotiation training session.

The art of negotiation requires that people know the definitions of some confusing terms. Reservation price, BATNA, surplus, demand, ZOPA – these words can easily overwhelm a new negotiator.

However, once you know the simple definitions of these not-so-simple words, you will be able to use them with ease and authority and apply their concepts to negotiate successfully.

Reservation Price Definition and Examples

Reservation price is the least favorable price at which a negotiation will be accepted. This price is always a numeric amount. Simply put, the reservation price is the lowest amount that a seller will accept for an agreement and the maximum amount a buyer will pay. This is also known as the “walk away” point.

For example, imagine that you are selling the house you purchased 15 years ago at $500,000. Your house is worth $1.5 million, but with the current state of the housing market and the demand for purchasing a house, you would be okay with selling your home for $1 million.

You meet with a prospective buyer, and they tell you that the highest they are willing to pay would be $1 million. This would be your reservation price. From this point, you can decide whether to sell your home to this buyer or wait for a higher offer.

Many people confuse reservation price with BATNA. BATNA stands for “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” and, unlike reservation price, it expresses a scenario rather than a number. BATNA answers the following question: “What will you do if you are unable to reach a negotiated agreement with your partner?” While the reservation price is dependent upon reaching a negotiation, the BATNA is a back-up plan in case negotiation fails.

Using the previous example, imagine that you are still selling your home worth $1.5 million. Your reservation price is $1 million, as it will be the lowest price you would accept from a buyer. However, a close relative is moving to your city from out of state and is looking for a place to live. She offers you $900,000 for your home, a little more than half of its current worth but nearly twice what you paid for it.

If you are unable to reach a negotiated agreement with an outside buyer, your BATNA would be selling your home to your relative. Your reservation price will remain the same and while you would not be able to sell your home at the desired price, you will still make money off the negotiation.

Often, reservation price and BATNA do not yield such a wide profit margin. Imagine you are selling a guitar online. You purchased the guitar five years ago for $500, and it is still in good condition. You decide to list the guitar for $350 and decide that your reservation price is $200.

A buyer contacts you after six months of waiting for a response. He offers you $150 for your guitar, which is lower than you’ll go. You negotiate for $200, but he refuses. You decide to wait for another offer to come along but inform the buyer that if no one gets back to you, he can have the guitar for $150. This buyer would be your BATNA.

Why Is Reservation Price Important?

Simply put, reservation price is important because it allows a negotiator to define their baseline. For consumers and sellers alike, reservation prices help us make rational, informed decisions during negotiations, ensuring that no shady deals or lowballing takes place. Reservation prices protect everyone during negotiations and enable appropriate discourse.

To learn more about the art of negotiation, contact Shapiro Negotiations to schedule an expert training session today.

Negotiation is a critical business skill for all sectors of an organization, from sales representatives to high-level leadership. However, for an optimal learning experience, a negotiation course or program requires more than PowerPoint lectures and worksheets.

For a negotiations skills training course to be as effective as possible, students must obtain hands-on experience, learn tools that they can take with them and use later, and learn how to apply these tools to multiple scenarios. Using innovative learning strategies to administer a negotiation course can turn a class of untrained negotiators into masters of the art.

Negotiation Skills Training Programs Must Be Interactive

Using hands-on activities and roleplay scenarios are effective learning tools for multiple subjects, and they are especially effective for negotiation skills training.

When designing the training program, make sure to insert interactive activities to break up the monotonous instruction. Allowing participants to get their hands dirty will allow them to develop their own influencing styles and negotiation skills in a safe environment. This will also help participants practice the tools they are learning in the course, making them more likely to retain those tools for future use.

To administer a simple but effective scenario exercise, follow these three steps:

1. Make sure to make the scenario realistic. Participants want it to be in “their world” and will take it more seriously if that is the case.

2. Don’t overcomplicate the scenario with too many details. While participants want it to be real, too much information can be overwhelming and can have unintended consequences. Keep in mind that the more information the scenario has the more “outs” and “justifications” the participant’s have if it doesn’t go their way.

3. Have clear objectives in mind when creating scenarios. What specific negotiation aspects do you want it to test? Participants ability to ask questions? Conviction with which they deliver a first offer? Preparation process? Figure out what you want to address with the scenario and then build it.

Negotiation Skills Training Programs Must Supply Useful Tools

If students can use what they learn during the course in future situations, that is the sign of a successful training program. For this to occur, negotiation skills training programs can supply participants with tangible tools, such as training manuals or worksheets for future referral. Design the training program so that participants can easily answer the following question: “What will you do differently in your job as a result of this training?”

The goal of a negotiation skills training course is to ensure participants’ success in conflict. The program should be practical, and solutions should not be hard to find. Designing training materials that explicitly state the best practices for negotiations will be simple guides for participants to refer to in future situations.

Negotiation Skills Training Programs Must Be Customizable to Multiple Situations

Negotiation skills training programs must be relevant to the participants’ organizations or companies. Without this relevance, the facilitator will lose credibility. In addition, the participants will have to make their own connections to the material while learning new skills, which decreases their ability to retain information.

Implementing scenario exercises that are relevant to the participants’ industry is a correct approach to negotiation course design. If multiple industries are involved, design multiple scenarios. Using multiple examples throughout instruction will also allow connections to develop between practice and theory.

Negotiation skills training programs are tricky to administer effectively but following these easy steps will turn a program from mediocre to excellent. To learn more about negotiation skills training and to schedule an expert session for your organization, visit Shapiro Negotiations today.

We understand that conducting contract negotiations can be overwhelming at times. Emotions can run high, and one party may feel as though their ideas are not being heard. Learning to approach talks in a more positive way, using principled negotiation, will help to avoid conflict. When you are at the negotiating table and you see there are options for you both to get what you want, it’s an idea time to use principled negotiation.

The Definition of Principled Negotiation

Principled negotiation is an approach that resolves disagreements between parties. It is also referred to as a “win-win” outcome. It focuses on bettering the interests of everyone and finding solutions that are mutually beneficial. Principled negotiation can help people achieve objectives and satisfy expectations by removing the “all-or-nothing” attitude. Consider these guidelines to ensure your negotiations go as smoothly as possible.

Separate Emotions from the Problem

Sometimes, emotions can cloud negotiations. If you feel as though you are at a disadvantage, you may react defensively. During any mediation, it’s important to maintain composure and not be influenced by fear or anger. Principled negotiation draws on principles instead of opinions. Seeing each other as partners will help keep the lines of communication open between parties.

What Is Most Important?

Instead of focusing on winning your position, start by discussing common interests you share and specific details of agreement during negotiations. From there, identify the interests of each party. You may discover that the underlying motivations of both parties are similar and will allow you to stay focused on the solutions instead of the problems.

Use Objective Criteria

If there is a strong conflict between the parties, using objective criteria may be useful. Objective criteria can include scientific evidence, legal rulings, industry standards, and cost estimates. For example, if purchasing property is under negotiation, presenting the market value of comparable properties in the area will validate the price. The goal is to establish a fair outcome.

Make Options Available

Think beyond having only one avenue for settling conflicts. Instead, generate diverse options to reach solutions. During brainstorming sessions, propose ideas that will offer mutual gain and refrain from judging. Consider ideas that are more important and more widely used. Begin with the most promising ideas and don’t get hung up on small discrepancies. Keeping an open mind to all ideas presented is key and prevents hindering the negotiations.

Avoid Pressure

Again, a win-win situation is the ideal for principled negotiations. Deny the temptation to pressure the other party to accept your terms. Pressure from either side is considered a power tactic. The great thing about principled negotiation is that it works even if you’re the only one practicing it. If the other party does not use principled negotiating, its tools still have power at the negotiating table. Instead of responding to attacks, redirect to solve the problem. Do not take it as a defeat if you need to walk away from a mediation.

However, no one should walk about from the negotiations feeling as though they had to make a sacrifice. Principled negotiations won’t work for every situation. Scenarios that may not be a good fit for principled negotiation are:

• When one party is set on winning at the other party’s expense.
• When negotiating for inexpensive, widely available products that do not have a significant role in business.

Keep in mind: with proper principled negotiation tactics in place, both parties can get what they want – a win-win and a desirable outcome for all.