To begin our course, we�re going to analyze the structure of a negotiation from the dynamic perspective of negotiators� offers and counteroffers, in their attempt to achieve a satisfactory agreement. Let�s begin by working in one dimension (distributive or positional negotiation) to facilitate our introduction to the subject and later we will complement the positions by also incorporating interests. I hope you�ll start putting these principles into practice as we advance in the course so that you can develop your own skills. the name Negotiation Analysis in English was first used by its creator, professor Howard Raiffa from Harvard University in his seminal work: �The Art and Science of Negotiation.� To understand the principles guiding the negotiation process, it�s necessary to refer to the grammar and architecture of negotiation analysis because the argot that is used belongs to this discipline, and the graphic structures that are used to represent it also belong to this discipline. So the nomenclature (or Grammar) as well as the structure (or Architecture) need to be considered from the first stage (and one of the most important) of the negotiation process, which is preparation. In a distributive transaction or negotiation in which, for example, the variable is price (of an automobile, or a property, etc.), a negotiator needs to have three concepts clearly identified before even beginning to negotiate: 1) The reservation value, which is the least value that he is willing to accept, whether as a seller or buyer. It is important to clarify that this amount is confidential and not revealed (for obvious reasons) to the counterpart in a negotiation; 2) The BATNA which means Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, and is considered the best alternative for the negotiator if the negotiation can�t be realized; in other words, what are the negotiator�s alternatives if his reservation value is surpassed (as the buyer) or not reached (as the seller). And finally, 3) A negotiator must have clearly identified his objective for negotiating: What are the interests behind his position; in other words, his objective. Returning to the concept of reservation value, we need to introduce another term known as ZOPA (which means Zone of Possible Agreement ). This zone is delimited by the reservation value of the buyer and seller. Its value is determined by the difference between these two values, presumed unknown by both negotiators. Its importance resides in the probability that achieving an agreement is great when the ZOPA (the price that the seller is willing to accept is less than the price that the buyer is willing to pay, in the example of a purchase/sale transaction). During preparation, the negotiator must think very carefully about what his first offer (known as the �Anchor�) will be and if he is willing to take the initiative. In the literature, there are authors that recommend making the first step, arguing that the probability of achieving the better part of the agreement increases when we take the initiative. Other authors disagree, insisting that it is better to wait for the second proposal (after the other party sets the first anchor), which leads to greater creativity in the negotiation process. In my experience, however, I believe that what is most important is determining a realistic anchor that doesn�t derail the negotiation by leaving the ZOPA, for example when we set an arbitrary value that is too high or too low, it can be counterproductive if later we must make important concessions that alert the other negotiator so he resists accepting. At the same time, waiting for the second offer can allow us time to interpret the other party�s intentions and reformulate our negotiation strategy. Nevertheless, above all, we must remember that naming the anchor creates a psychological effect (such as an anchored boat) and negotiators tend to revolve around its value, so if it is too far from the ZOPA, it will be impossible to achieve an agreement. Keeping these ideas in mind, we can begin to look at the architecture of the negotiation (in one dimension: price) imagining a line that we have made between the reservation values of both negotiators. After identifying the ZOPA as the distance between the reservation values, (remembering that this only happens if the reservation value of the seller, or minimum amount that he is willing to accept, is less than the reservation value of the buyer (or maximum amount he is willing to pay). When these conditions are not met, (the most that the buyer is willing to pay is less than the minimum that the seller is willing to receive) we say that there is no ZOPA but rather we are in the ZONA (Zone of No Agreement) that is the zone without an agreement (the probability that an agreement is made is very low, for obvious reasons). Now we begin the negotiation process when one party sets an anchor and the counteroffers begin, with concessions coming and going, and the phenomenon known as the �Negotiation Dance� begins. Finally, we wait to see whether or not a final agreement is reached in which the goods are shared between the negotiators. If an agreement is reached, the final value will fall within the range of the ZOPA (not necessarily in the middle) and another term can be included, which is the �Pie�, a popular term to represent the surface of the Pareto and we say that each negotiator has taken a piece of the pie, so that colloquially we speak of a �win-lose� negotiation, depending on the amount of ZOPA that each negotiator will receive. A good negotiator knows the terminology (grammar) of the negotiation and of the architecture on which these concepts are based. The stages of the negotiation include: a) The preparation or preliminary design of this architecture; b) the opening and the tactics for setting the anchors with due precautions; c) The Negotiation Dance and finally; d) The closing or final agreement and the distribution of the ZOPA. In the next topic, we will go deeper into these dynamics and will talk about the importance of observation through the dynamics of the negotiation process.
