Effective Alternatives Analysis in Mediation: “Batna/Watna” Analysis Demystified
BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
WATNA: Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
Popular Attribution to Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes.
Introduction:
In most settlement negotiations, parties are influenced consciously or unconsciously by their assessment of their alternatives to a negotiated agreement. The better their alternatives, the more they may push for a more favorable settlement. The worse their alternatives, the more accommodating they may be in the settlement negotiations. Unfortunately, parties frequently fail to undertake an accurate and comprehensive analysis of their alternatives and, therefore, negotiate poorly based on unrealistic and uninformed ideas of what they might obtain in the absence of a negotiated agreement. Mediators who can help parties to perform a high quality and comprehensible alternatives analysis will often improve negotiation strategy significantly.
This article explains the concept of alternatives analysis and presents a method for conducting an analysis with parties in mediation, including many of the considerations that may affect the parties’ perception and use of the analysis.
Essential Concept of BATNA and WATNA:
What are the best (“BATNA”) and worst (“WATNA”) possible outcomes along a particular path if I try to get my interests satisfied in a way that does not require negotiation with the other party? In other words, what are my "win" and "lose" scenarios along any given alternative path, and how likely are these outcomes or something in between?
Important Note:
Do not confuse "alternatives" analysis with "options" analysis. In mediator terminology, “options” are ideas that the parties may generate within the context of a negotiation for possible resolution. The parties evaluate these options, formally or informally, to see how well they satisfy their interests. The parties may consider some ideas to be favorable or "winning" options and others to be "losing" options, but all are theoretically
WATNA: Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
Popular Attribution to Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes.
Introduction:
In most settlement negotiations, parties are influenced consciously or unconsciously by their assessment of their alternatives to a negotiated agreement. The better their alternatives, the more they may push for a more favorable settlement. The worse their alternatives, the more accommodating they may be in the settlement negotiations. Unfortunately, parties frequently fail to undertake an accurate and comprehensive analysis of their alternatives and, therefore, negotiate poorly based on unrealistic and uninformed ideas of what they might obtain in the absence of a negotiated agreement. Mediators who can help parties to perform a high quality and comprehensible alternatives analysis will often improve negotiation strategy significantly.
This article explains the concept of alternatives analysis and presents a method for conducting an analysis with parties in mediation, including many of the considerations that may affect the parties’ perception and use of the analysis.
Essential Concept of BATNA and WATNA:
What are the best (“BATNA”) and worst (“WATNA”) possible outcomes along a particular path if I try to get my interests satisfied in a way that does not require negotiation with the other party? In other words, what are my "win" and "lose" scenarios along any given alternative path, and how likely are these outcomes or something in between?
Important Note:
Do not confuse "alternatives" analysis with "options" analysis. In mediator terminology, “options” are ideas that the parties may generate within the context of a negotiation for possible resolution. The parties evaluate these options, formally or informally, to see how well they satisfy their interests. The parties may consider some ideas to be favorable or "winning" options and others to be "losing" options, but all are theoretically