BATNA and Negotiation BATNA History:

BATNA and Negotiation

BATNA History:

The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) concept was first introduced in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991)

is, in its simplest form, an alternative one party has in a negotiation. The process involves planning and preparation prior tot he negotiation process ("BATNA -- Best," 2010). This allows the party to have more control of the outcome of the negotiation, by having a fallback plan, should negotiations not head in the direction they had hoped. As Subramanian (2007) surmises, a strong BATNA allows the party to continue to demand more favorable terms in the negotiation process or walk away from the table, with an acceptable alternative they already know will work for their needs.

Foundational Concepts of BATNA:

Thompson and Leonardelli (2004) state, "There have been few^ instances in the history of social science in which a practitioner-oriented book served as the wellspring for cutting-edge academic research for over two decades" (p. 113). The foundational concepts that led to the development of this innovative negotiation theory center on separating the people for the problem, through three basic facets: relationships, emotions and subjective perceptions. In regards to the relationship facet, BATNA asserts that each negotiator has two types of interests -- the substance and the relationship. This means that although negotiators strive to reach the most favorable outcomes in a negotiation, they also place a significant amount of value on the relationship they have with the other party. This results in negotiators often allocating resources equally, rather than selfishly.

Emotions also plat a role in the negotiation process. "Negative emotions tie people to the problem; positive emotions partition people from the problem" (Thompson & Leonardelli, 2004, p. 113). When negotiators are happy, according to Thompson and Leonardelli, they are more likely to be cooperative and work to identify instances where there is greater mutual gain. These positive emotions also positively affect the other parties involved in the negotiation.

However, as Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) note, what often matters most in a negotiation is the perceptions of the parties involved in the negotiation. These perceptions can undermine the negotiation process through reactive devaluation. Reactive devaluation occurs when one party subconsciously devalues negotiations being made by the other party, assuming that the concession really won't benefit them, otherwise the other party wouldn't have made it. To avoid this, the authors encourage negotiators to evaluate concessions objectively by their merits, not in response to the negotiator's own fears.

The BATNA Process: