What the paper asks for
Negotiation courses usually pair a role-play exercise with a written analysis. The paper is not a retelling of the conversation. It should show how you prepared, how the interaction unfolded, how the outcome compares with what was possible and what you would change. Instructors often have the other side's confidential information and can see how much value was left unclaimed or uncreated.
| Part | Question it answers | Share of paper |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | What were our interests, alternatives and limits? | 25 percent |
| Process | What strategies and moves did each side use? | 25 percent |
| Outcome | What was agreed, and how good was it? | 20 percent |
| Analysis | What concepts explain the result? | 20 percent |
| Lessons | What would we do differently? | 10 percent |
Preparation: interests, BATNA and reservation value
Distinguish positions (what someone says they want) from interests (why they want it). Positions conflict; interests often do not. A supplier who insists on a higher price may care about cash flow, in which case faster payment could substitute for price.
Your BATNA, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, is your walk-away option and the source of your power. The reservation value is the least favorable deal you would accept, and it should be at least as good as your BATNA after adjusting for non-price factors. The zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) exists when the buyer's reservation price exceeds the seller's.
ZOPA (hypothetical)
A seller will not accept less than $100,000 because the next-best buyer would pay that. The buyer will not pay more than $120,000 because an alternative supplier would cost that much.
ZOPA = $100,000 to $120,000, a width of $20,000. A deal at $110,000 splits it evenly. A deal at $105,000 gives the buyer $15,000 of the surplus and the seller $5,000, which tells you who negotiated better, assuming the reservation prices were real.
Improve your BATNA before negotiating, and never reveal that you have none. If you do not know the other side's reservation value, estimate it and say how.
Distributive and integrative bargaining
| Distributive (claiming value) | Integrative (creating value) | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Fixed pie, one issue, such as price | Several issues with different priorities |
| Goal | Get the largest share | Expand the total, then divide |
| Tactics | Anchoring, concessions, deadlines | Sharing information, asking why, trading issues (logrolling), packaging |
| Risk | Damaged relationship, impasse | Exploitation if only one side shares |
Most real negotiations contain both. The best negotiators create value first by finding trades, and then claim their share. The key to value creation is that the parties value issues differently.
A worked multi-issue example
Logrolling (hypothetical)
A buyer and a seller negotiate price, delivery speed and warranty length. Each side distributes 100 points of importance.
| Issue | Buyer's importance | Seller's importance |
|---|---|---|
| Price | 30 | 40 |
| Delivery speed | 50 | 10 |
| Warranty length (shorter is better for seller) | 20 | 50 |
Package A: split every issue 50/50. Buyer score = 0.5 x 100 = 50; seller score = 50.
Package B: price split 50/50; the buyer gets all of the delivery speed; the seller gets the shorter warranty.
Buyer score = 0.5 x 30 + 1.0 x 50 + 0 x 20 = 15 + 50 = 65. Seller score = 0.5 x 40 + 0 x 10 + 1.0 x 50 = 20 + 0 + 50 = 70.
Both do better than under Package A (65 and 70 versus 50 and 50) because each gave up what mattered less to them in exchange for what mattered more. That 35-point gain in the joint total (135 versus 100) is the value created by trading across issues.
In your analysis, identify the trades you made or missed. Missed trades are among the most useful insights in a debrief.
Tactics and traps to analyze
- Anchoring: the first number sets the range. Research shows the opening offer strongly influences the result, even when it is arbitrary.
- Concession pattern: large early concessions teach the other side to expect more. Decreasing concessions signal that you are near your limit.
- Information exchange: asking why uncovers interests. Honest sharing of priorities, not reservation prices, tends to create value.
- Fixed-pie assumption: believing that the other side wants the same thing, which blocks trades.
- Escalation and ego: positional fights that damage relationships and reduce joint outcomes.
- Cultural and communication style: differences in directness, hierarchy and time can create misunderstandings.
Ethics matter too. Bluffing about your BATNA, as opposed to withholding information, can damage trust and cross legal lines in some contexts. If you discuss deception, apply the ethical lenses in our guide to business ethics cases.
Working on this assignment now? Get a price for help with your paper.
Get an instant quoteReading the sequence of offers
The pattern of offers and concessions often says more about a negotiation than the final price. Record the sequence and interpret it.
Offer sequence (hypothetical, seller's ZOPA from earlier: $100,000 to $120,000)
| Round | Buyer offer | Seller offer | Seller concession | Buyer concession |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $92,000 | $130,000 | ||
| 2 | $98,000 | $124,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 |
| 3 | $102,000 | $119,000 | $5,000 | $4,000 |
| 4 | $105,000 | $115,000 | $4,000 | $3,000 |
| 5 | $108,000 | $113,000 | $2,000 | $3,000 |
Both sides make shrinking concessions, which signals approaching limits. The gap closes from $38,000 to $5,000, and a deal near $110,500 is a natural meeting point. The seller's early large concessions and the buyer's lower opening offer meant the final price sat just above the middle of the ZOPA, a good result for the buyer given the opening anchors.
In your paper, link the pattern to concepts: anchoring set the range, decreasing concessions signaled limits, and a first offer that was far outside the ZOPA may have slowed progress.
A preparation sheet you can reuse
| Item | Questions to answer in writing |
|---|---|
| Our interests | What do we need, want and fear? Which matter most? |
| Their interests | What do they probably need? What evidence do we have? |
| Our BATNA and reservation value | What is the best alternative and how good is it, in the same units as the deal? |
| Their BATNA | What is their alternative, and how might it change? |
| Issues and trades | Which issues can we trade, and what is each worth to each side? |
| Opening and targets | Opening offer, target and walk-away, with reasons |
| Process and ethics | Who speaks, what information we will share, and what we will not say |
Include a version of this sheet in an appendix. It shows preparation, which instructors value highly, and it gives you something to compare with what actually happened.
Common weaknesses in negotiation papers
- Retelling the conversation Analyze moves and outcomes; do not narrate every turn.
- Ignoring the other side's information If you saw it in the debrief, use it to evaluate what was missed.
- Judging only by price Compare the whole package and the relationship.
- Blaming the counterpart Focus on what you could have done differently.
- Concepts without evidence Tie each concept to a specific moment.
Debrief and lessons
- Compare the outcome with the ZOPA Where in the range did the deal fall, and why?
- Count the value created Did you trade across issues, or only split price?
- Name one missed opportunity A question you did not ask or an interest you did not explore.
- Link to concepts BATNA, anchoring, logrolling and the fixed-pie bias, each tied to a moment in the negotiation.
- Commit to change Specific preparation and behavior for the next negotiation.
Use first person for the reflective part and the structure in our reflection paper guide. If you want help with a negotiation paper, you can order MBA assignment help.