A negative trading area can be overcome by “widening the pie”. In inclusive negotiations on a variety of issues and interests, parties who combine their interests to create value come to a much more rewarding agreement. Behind each position, there are usually more common interests than contradictory. [4] When both parties know that their BATNA and positions are disappearing, the parties should be able to communicate, evaluate the proposed agreements and, possibly, identify zoPA. However, the parties often do not know their own BATNA and even less often know the BATNA on the other side. Often, parties claim to have a better alternative than they actually do, because good alternatives usually lead to more power in negotiations. This is explained in more detail in the BATNA trial. However, the result of such deception could be the obvious absence of a ZOPA – and thus a failed negotiation if a ZOPA actually existed. Common uncertainties can also affect the parties` ability to assess potential agreements, as parties may be unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic about the possibility of an agreement or the value of other options. [2] Our sales seminar, purchasing skills courses, and other negotiation trainings typically train negotiators to deal with both large areas of possible agreements and narrow areas of possible agreements. The most difficult situations are those where there is little or no ZOPA.
A “possible area of agreement” (ZOPA) exists when there is a potential agreement that would benefit both parties more than their alternative options. For example, if Fred wants to buy a used car for $5,000 or less, and Mary wants to sell one for $4,500, these two have a ZOPA. But if Mary doesn`t go below $7,000 and Fred doesn`t go above $5,000, they don`t have a possible area of agreement. The term Possible Area of Agreement (ZOPA), also known as Potential Area of Agreement [1] or Margin of Negotiation[2], describes the range of options available to two parties involved in sales and negotiations, overlapping the parties` respective minimum objectives. If there is no such overlap, in other words, if there is no rational possibility of agreement, the inverse term noPA (no possible agreement) applies. .