1

Negotiation Theory and Practice

Name
University
Course
Tutor’s Name
Date
 2

Negotiation Theory and Practice

Negotiations are a critical part of life, even though most people do not realize it—most
decisions made by individuals, from buying household items and employment contracts, are
based on negotiations. Successful negotiators prepare, plan, and thoroughly evaluate the desires
and conditions of the parties involved. Proficient negotiators establish the form of negotiation
they are engaged in and the negotiators they are dealing with (Germain‐Thomas, Lafarge &
Sidibe, 2019). With the changing business landscape, one must be familiar with the best
negotiation tools that minimize conflict and yield the best results. As explained in the scenario,
ZOPA is one of the best negotiation concepts used to make decisions when a bargaining range
exists. Negotiations should establish their BATNAs to define their walk-away points, ensuring
their interests are protected. Effective negotiation ensures that customers can walk away and look
for other customers that meet their demands in the market.
The Negotiation Experience
Buying my first car was one of the most defining moments in my life as it marked the
start of my adult life and independence. Negotiating would help me to get the best deal in the
market, and I had to use the best strategy. I was interested in buying a used car as I could not
afford a new one. Most people were willing to sell their used vehicles, but only a few were
within my budget and matched my preferences. I narrowed down my options based on the
pricing, and this limited the number of car sellers that I would have to negotiate with. I was
willing to spend $5,000 on the car, which ensured I had enough money to fuel it and make the
necessary modifications. This narrowed my choices to the cars sold for $5 000 or less. I found a
dealer selling a decent vehicle at $5 500. Following a lengthy negotiation, I convinced him to
lower the price to $5, 000 which he agreed to as the car required some repairs. 
The Negotiation Concept
Negotiations have been predictably evaluated as strategic and self-contained interactions
between parties. Various negotiation tools are used, including ZOPA, BATNA, and RP. ZOPA is
one of the most preferred negotiation approaches owing to the simplicity of its application. It
boils down to the concept that negotiations can be examined based on the absence or presence of
a ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) (Watkins & Passow, 1996; Patel & Rubin, 2016). ZOPA
is defined as the intersection between the involved parties, and they can be represented using a
Venn diagram (Caputo, 2013). It is based on critical considerations such as the alternatives,
interests, negotiators' attitudes towards each other, and how ZOPA is established. 
Internal factors, including negotiator preferences and external factors, such as market
forces, play a critical role in defining ZOPAs (Patel & Rubin, 2016). Linkages between
negotiators are also pivotal in establishing ZOPAs. Negotiations in the real world are closely
associated, which shapes the negotiator's attitudes, preferences, and attitudes (Watkins &
Passow, 1996). Efforts have been made to understand intricate negotiations; however, a unifying
analytical concept for inter-negotiation analysis has yet to be established. ZOPA is seen as an
appropriate concept for addressing this challenge. 
Patel and Rubin (2016) liken ZOPA to the distributive purchase process used in decision-
making. Buyers have the target point or an optimal price in mind, and when this point is reached,
they stop negotiating. Additionally, they have a price limit they can only pay up to and will turn
down the offer. Sellers also have a resistance price that they cannot sell their products. The two
resistance points represent the ZOPA (Patel & Rubin, 2016). Prices outside the ZOPA are
rejected by either the sellers or the buyers. The bargaining and negotiation range are found
within the ZOPA (Patel & Rubin, 2016). Negotiations that start with a negative bargaining range
 3

and do not change to a positive range do not yield positive outcomes despite exchanging
information. 

The form of negotiation influences the type of ZOPA. Distributive negotiation is highly
competitive as parties work towards finding a mutually acceptable solution for both parties
(Trötschel et al., 2013). The outcome of a negotiation is easy as there is a loser and a winner. The
parties' interests do not overlap, and reaching a mutually beneficial agreement is impossible. For
instance, if two parties are interested in buying a car being sold at competitive prices, one
believes it first and is the winner, while the other party loses. Conversely, integrative
negotiations entail creating value. Integrative negotiations are possible while addressing various
issues and shared interests. Parties can trade off or combine their interests to create joint value.
Even though the parties do not get what they bargained for initially, they both win. These actions
help parties reach ZOPA and ensure they get the best outcome from the negotiation. For
instance, if a company hires one person, it can hire two and review the employee benefits and
perks to accommodate both. The discussion has shown how ZOPA can be used in purchasing
negotiations and negotiating the terms of an employment contract. 
Analysis of the Negotiation Concept
ZOPA could have been applied in my past negotiation experience to make an appropriate
decision. Buying a car is a straightforward decision that involves a simple agreement between
the buyer and the seller (Wertheim, Glick & Larson, 2019). I learned that the negotiation is
intricate as the options available to both parties are influenced by meetings with other
individuals. For instance, I negotiated with different parties to come up with the best deal. I was
interested in getting the best-used car in my budget. The offers I got from other sellers influenced
the ZOPA (Trötschel et al., 2013). At one point, I was tempted to borrow money to buy a used
car sold at $ 6000, which could have affected my financial stability. The internal negotiations I
had with my family affected my decision. My parents are experienced in dealing with cars, and
their advice influenced my decision. 
Issues may arise during the negotiations, and they should inform the decision made. At
the same time, the price was my leading concern while making the decision. I brought up the
issue of the number of years that the car has been used. I discovered that older cars were more
likely to have mechanical problems. I made the mistake of buying the vehicle from a
salesperson, which cost me more. I learned that I could have gotten a better deal if I had
purchased the car from the owner. I should have evaluated the market price of used cars to
ensure that I established an appropriate RP that could have given me a better deal. The
experience taught me the essence of applying an effective negotiation strategy to get the best
outcome.
Additionally, attitudes are crucial in negotiations (Trötschel et al., 2013; Yao Zhang &
Liu, 2020). I should have been keener on finding out the salesperson’s reputation to establish that
I was getting the best deal. However, attitudes did not play a critical role in the case, making it
easy to reach a mutual agreement. I should have used the history of the respective salespersons to
establish if I would negotiate with them. Further, the salespersons I interacted with were not
honest and detailed in their negotiation. Most of them did not have facts about the car, and I
avoided doing business with them. I made the decision based on external and internal factors. I
used the car before reselling it at a cheaper price of $3 000, and ZOPA improved the negotiation
outcome I got from the car dealership.
 4

Negotiations are intricate, and one should only walk away from a good deal or take a
subpar one. Therefore, ZOPA analyses should be guided by considering the BATNAs (best
alternative to a negotiated agreement). BATNA dictates the course of action taken if an
agreement is not reached in negotiation (Jung, 2022). However, he notes that it is difficult to
apply bargaining power as I experienced the budget constraint. For instance, if I decided to buy a
car for $5500, it would have to be in a better condition and would not require any repairs.
BATNA is the standard that protects parties in negotiations from reaching unfavorable terms. It
helps parties establish their reservation or walkway points, an important ZOPA consideration.
The reservation point (RP) was a critical consideration in the negotiation as, through dialogue;
we reached an agreement based on the ZOPA.
The above discussion has shown a negotiation scenario using the ZOPA tool. The tool is
appropriate for making purchase decisions. ZOPA is also known as the bargaining zone, the
difference between the seller's reservation and the buyer’s prices. The approach can be used to
make mutually beneficial decisions. I will apply the approach in future negotiations owing to its
efficiency in establishing mutual interests. Various negotiation approaches frame arguments that
can give parties a competitive edge. The dominant approach to winning an argument uses the
integrative approach, which aims to get the best deal. I ensured that the seller was aware of my
position during the negotiation by stating the price for which I was willing to buy the car. My
walkaway point was clear as I wanted to spend the money I had set aside on the car.
Additionally, in distributive negotiation, power attitudes are applied in strong negotiations.
Conflicts can also be addressed by walking away and looking for alternatives. BATNA and
ZOPA are beneficial as they establish the reservation point in negotiations. If various resolutions
are considered over gridlock, and a ZOPA is established, it is possible to reach an optimal point
in the negotiation. The approach saves time as the parties have their reservation points, paving
the way for fast and accurate decision-making.
 5

References
Caputo, A. (2013). Systemic stakeholders’ management for real estate development projects.
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal.
https://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/18567/1/Caputo_GBMR_2013.pdf
Germain‐Thomas, P., Lafarge, C., & Sidibe, D. (2019). Collaborative Role‐Play Design:
Teaching Negotiation through a Novel Student–Business Partnership. Negotiation
Journal, 35(3), 387-402
Jung, S. (2021). Acceptable Lies in Contract Negotiations. J. Disp. Resol., 255.
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&context=jdr
Patel, B. N., & Rubin, G. D. (2016). Deal or no deal? Negotiation 101. Journal of the American
College of Radiology, 13(6), 756-758.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303746032_Deal_or_No_Deal_Negotiation_11
Trötschel, R., Bündgens, S., Hüffmeier, J., & Loschelder, D. D. (2013). Promoting prevention
success at the bargaining table: Regulatory focus in distributive negotiations. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 38, 26-39. https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.006
Watkins, M., & Passow, S. (1996). Analyzing linked systems of negotiations. Negotiation
Journal, 12, 325-339. https://sci-hub.ru/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00106.x
Wertheim, E., Glick, L., & Larson, B. Z. (2019). Teaching the Basics of Negotiation in One
Class. Management Teaching Review, 4(2), 95-118.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2379298118758700
Yao, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Liu, L. A. (2020). When there is no ZOPA: mental fatigue, integrative
complexity, and creative agreement in negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research. https://sci-hub.ru/10.1111/ncmr.12178