Zone Of Possible Agreement Ppt
kenty9x | December 22, 2020 | 0The nature of ZOPA depends on the nature of the negotiations. [3] In a (competitive) negotiation where participants try to share a “solid cake,” it is more difficult to find solutions acceptable to both parties because both parties want to claim the cake as much as possible. Distribution negotiations on a single topic tend to be zero sums — there is a winner and a loser. There is no overlap between the parties; Therefore, no mutually beneficial agreement is possible. The best thing to do – sometimes – is to split the desired result in half. If the parties to the negotiations fail to reach the ZOPA, they are in a negative negotiating area. An agreement cannot be reached in a negative negotiating area, as the needs and wishes of all parties cannot be met by an agreement reached in such circumstances. Let`s say, for example, that Dave wants to sell his mountain bike and equipment for $700 to buy new skis and ski equipment. Suzy wants to buy the bike and equipment for 400 dollars and can`t go higher. Dave and Suzy did not reach ZOPA; they are in a negative bargaining area.
However, negative negotiating areas can be overcome if the negotiating parties are willing to learn about each other`s wishes and needs. Suppose Dave explains to Suzy that he wants to use the proceeds from the sale of the bike to buy new skis and ski equipment. Suzy has a pair of soft, high-quality skis that she would like to part with. Dave is willing to take less money for mountain biking when Suzy throws used skis there. The two sides have reached an agreement on ZOPA and can therefore reach a fruitful agreement. It is a great advantage to know the upper and lower limits of a ZOPA. It is understandable that a negotiator is reluctant to take a step forward, or ultimately, because it is the least attractive activity they would accept before moving away from the negotiations. If you know the limits of a ZOPA, it is possible to bring your opponent closer to his limits to get an advantageous deal. As the master`s course in negotiation has shown, interaction in a negotiation is to shape the perception of ZOPA through conviction and other tactical measures, as this will lead to an agreement. On the other hand, inclusive negotiations are designed to create values or “increase the cake.” This is possible when the parties have common interests or deal with several issues. In this case, the parties can combine their interests and negotiate between several topics in order to create a common value.
In this way, both parties can “win,” even if neither side receives everything they originally thought possible. If, in the example above, the rewriting of the job description could create additional employment, distribution negotiation would become an inclusive negotiation between the employer and the two potential workers. If both candidates are qualified, they can now get both jobs. ZoPA exists in this case when two jobs are created and each candidate prefers one of the two. The Concept Zone of a Possible Agreement (ZOPA), also known as the Zone of Potential Agreement [1] or bargaining margin[2], describes the range of options available to two parties in the sale and negotiations when the respective minimum objectives of the parties overlap. In the absence of such an overlap, i.e. in the absence of a possibility of rational agreement, the opposite concept of noPA (no possible agreement) applies. Where there is a ZOPA, an agreement within the area is reasonable for both parties.
Recent Comments