Zone of possible agreement

Last updated

The term zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), also known as zone of potential agreement [1] or bargaining range, [2] describes the range of options available to two parties involved in sales and negotiation, where the respective minimum targets of the parties overlap. Where no such overlap is given, in other words where there is no rational agreement possibility, the inverse notion of NOPA (no possible agreement) applies. Where there is a ZOPA, an agreement within the zone is rational for both sides. Outside the zone no amount of negotiation should yield an agreement.

Contents

Zone of Possible Agreement shown graphically Zone of Possible Agreement.jpg
Zone of Possible Agreement shown graphically

An understanding of the ZOPA is critical for a successful negotiation, [2] but the negotiants must first know their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), or "walk away positions". [3] To determine whether there is a ZOPA both parties must explore each other's interests and values. This should be done early in the negotiation and be adjusted as more information is learned. Essential is also the ZOPA's size. Where a broad ZOPA is given, the parties might use strategies and tactics to influence the distribution within the ZOPA. Where the parties have a small ZOPA, the difficulty lies in finding agreeable terms.

Identifying a ZOPA

To determine whether there is a positive bargaining zone each party must understand their bottom line or worst case price. For example, Paul is selling his car and refuses to sell it for less than $5,000 (his worst case price). Sarah is interested and negotiates with Paul. If she offers him anything higher than $5,000 there is a positive bargaining zone, if she is unwilling to pay more than $4,500 there is a negative bargaining zone.

A ZOPA exists if there is an overlap between each party's reservation price (bottom line). A negative bargaining zone is when there is no overlap. With a negative bargaining zone both parties may (and should) walk away. Through a rational analysis of the ZOPA in business negotiations, you will be better equipped to avoid the traps of reaching an agreement for agreement's sake and viewing the negotiation as a pie to be divided. [4]

Negative Bargaining Zone

It occurs when people negotiate and cannot reach a ZOPA,so they are in negative bargaining zone. So they cannot reach a deal in negative bargaining zone, as there is no mutual understanding among them. For example: Sam wants to sell his house for $9200 to buy a better apartment. but Alex wants to buy it for $7800 and cannot go higher, here the negative bargaining zone occurs.

Overcoming a negative bargaining zone

A negative bargaining zone shown graphically NOZOPA.png
A negative bargaining zone shown graphically

A negative bargaining zone may be overcome by "enlarging the pie". In integrative negotiations when dealing with a variety of issues and interests, parties that combine interests to create value reach a far more rewarding agreement. Behind every position there are usually more common interests than conflicting ones. [5]

In the example above, Sarah is unwilling to pay more than $4,500 and Paul won't accept anything less than $5,000. However, Sarah may be willing throw in some skis she received as a gift but never used. Paul, who was going to use some of the car money to buy some skis, agrees. Paul accepted less than his bottom line because value was added to the negotiation. Both parties "win".

A negotiator should always start considering both parties' ZOPA at the earliest stage of his or her preparations and constantly refine and adjust these figures as the process proceeds. For every interest there often exists several possible solutions that could satisfy it. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mediation</span> Dispute resolution with assistance of a moderator

Mediation is a negotiation facilitated by a third-party neutral. It is a structured, interactive process where an impartial third party, the mediator, assists disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of specialized communication and negotiation techniques. All participants in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the process. Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties. The mediator uses a wide variety of techniques to guide the process in a constructive direction and to help the parties find their optimal solution. A mediator is facilitative in that they manage the interaction between parties and facilitates open communication. Mediation is also evaluative in that the mediator analyzes issues and relevant norms ("reality-testing"), while refraining from providing prescriptive advice to the parties. Due to its voluntary nature, a person cannot be compelled to use mediation to resolve their dispute. However, a suggestion from the Court may be difficult to resist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negotiation</span> Dialogue intended to reach an agreement

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more parties to resolve points of difference, gain an advantage for an individual or collective, or craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. The parties aspire to agree on matters of mutual interest. The agreement can be beneficial for all or some of the parties involved. The negotiators should establish their own needs and wants while also seeking to understand the wants and needs of others involved to increase their chances of closing deals, avoiding conflicts, forming relationships with other parties, or maximizing mutual gains. Distributive negotiations, or compromises, are conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining the success of a negotiation.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA refers to the most advantageous alternative course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. The BATNA could include diverse situations, such as suspension of negotiations, transition to another negotiating partner, appeal to the court's ruling, the execution of strikes, and the formation of other forms of alliances. BATNA is the key focus and the driving force behind a successful negotiator. A party should generally not accept a worse resolution than its BATNA. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that deals are accurately valued, taking into account all considerations, such as relationship value, time value of money and the likelihood that the other party will live up to their side of the bargain. These other considerations are often difficult to value since they are frequently based on uncertain or qualitative considerations rather than easily measurable and quantifiable factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bargaining</span> Negotiation between a buyer and seller over the price and nature of their transaction

In the social sciences, bargaining or haggling is a type of negotiation in which the buyer and seller of a good or service debate the price or nature of a transaction. If the bargaining produces agreement on terms, the transaction takes place. It is often commonplace in poorer countries, or poorer localities within any specific country. Haggling can mostly be seen within street markets worldwide, wherein there remains no guarantee of the origin and authenticity of available products. Many people attribute it as a skill, but there remains no guarantee that the price put forth by the buyer would be acknowledged by the seller, resulting in losses of profit and even turnover in some cases. A growth in the country's GDP Per Capita Income is bound to reduce both the ill-effects of bargaining and the unscrupulous practices undertaken by vendors at street markets.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

In law and economics, the Coase theorem describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem is significant because, if true, the conclusion is that it is possible for private individuals to make choices that can solve the problem of market externalities. The theorem states that if the provision of a good or service results in an externality and trade in that good or service is possible, then bargaining will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property. A key condition for this outcome is that there are sufficiently low transaction costs in the bargaining and exchange process. This 'theorem' is commonly attributed to Nobel Prize laureate Ronald Coase.

The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision-making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theories distinguishes between Structural Analysis, Strategic Analysis, Process Analysis, Integrative Analysis and behavioral analysis of negotiations.

In economics, a reservationprice is a limit on the price of a good or a service. On the demand side, it is the highest price that a buyer is willing to pay; on the supply side, it is the lowest price a seller is willing to accept for a good or service.

In negotiation, leverage is the power that one side of a negotiation has to influence the other side to move closer to their negotiating position. A party's leverage is based on its ability to award benefits or impose costs on the other side. Another conceptualization holds that the party that has the most to lose from a "no deal" outcome has less leverage than the party that has the least to lose.

The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA) to negotiation is a process model, based on experimental findings and hundreds of real-world cases, that lays out four steps for negotiating better outcomes while protecting relationships and reputation. A central tenet of the model, and the robust theory that underlies it, is that a vast majority of negotiations in the real world involve parties who have more than one goal or concern in mind and more than one issue that can be addressed in the agreement they reach. The model allows parties to improve their chances of creating an agreement superior to existing alternatives.

Bargaining power is the relative ability of parties in an argumentative situation to exert influence over each other in order to achieve favourable terms in an agreement. This power is derived from various factors such as each party’s alternatives to the current deal, the value of what is being negotiated, and the urgency of reaching an agreement. A party's bargaining power can significantly shift the outcome of negotiations, leading to more advantageous positions for those who possess greater leverage.

Cooperative bargaining is a process in which two people decide how to share a surplus that they can jointly generate. In many cases, the surplus created by the two players can be shared in many ways, forcing the players to negotiate which division of payoffs to choose. Such surplus-sharing problems are faced by management and labor in the division of a firm's profit, by trade partners in the specification of the terms of trade, and more.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zopa</span> British financial services company

Zopa Bank Ltd. is a British online bank which offers deposit accounts, personal loans and credit cards. It began as the world's first peer-to-peer lending company in 2005 and gained a full banking licence in 2020. The peer-to-peer side of its business closed in December 2021.

<i>Getting to Yes</i> 1981 book about negotiation methods by Roger Fisher

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is a best-selling 1981 non-fiction book by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Subsequent editions in 1991 and 2011 added Bruce Patton as co-author. All of the authors were members of the Harvard Negotiation Project.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lawrence Susskind</span>

Lawrence E. Susskind is a teacher, trainer, mediator, and urban planner. He is one of the founders of the field of public dispute mediation and is a practicing international mediator through the Consensus Building institute. He has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1971.

Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers (MESO) is a technique used in negotiations. The principle behind MESO is to make multiple offers that are mutually equal in one's mind. By doing this, one can better understand one's partner in a negotiation—his or her interests, expectations, etc.

In international relations theory, the bargaining model of war is a method of representing the potential gains and losses and ultimate outcome of war between two actors as a bargaining interaction. A central puzzle that motivates research in this vein is the "inefficiency puzzle of war": why do wars occur when it would be better for all parties involved to reach an agreement that goes short of war? In the bargaining model, war between rational actors is possible due to uncertainty and commitment problems. As a result, provision of reliable information and steps to alleviate commitment problems make war less likely. It is an influential strand of rational choice scholarship in the field of international relations.

Asymmetric negotiation is an influence that occurs between counterparts of significantly different sizes as measured by the parties' relative resources and clout in a particular context. The context for these negotiations or conflicts can range from mergers & acquisitions and international trade deals, to hostage-takings and initiating change at a local school board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Lax</span> American academic

David Lax is an American negotiation expert, author, speaker, statistician and academic. He is currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project, Managing Principal of Lax Sebenius LLC, a firm that advises companies and governments in challenging and complex negotiations, and a former professor at Harvard Business School.

References

  1. Harvard Law School, Program on Negotiation, Deal Negotiation and Dealmaking: What to Do On Your Own, published 9 February 2015, accessed 15 April 2020
  2. 1 2 Spangler, Brad (June 2003). "Zone of possible agreement (ZOPA)". beyondintractability.org. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
  3. Shonk, Katie (February 2020). "How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations". www.pon.harvard.edu. Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
  4. "how to find ZOPA in business negotiation" . Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  5. 1 2 Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; Patton, Bruce (2011) [1981]. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN   9780143118756. OCLC   609540048.

Further reading