Principled negotiation is a type of bargaining that focuses on mutual interests and finding mutually beneficial outcomes. There are four key elements: mutual gain, focusing on interests rather than positions, separating emotions from issues, and using objective criteria. Team and multiparty negotiations involve multiple people on each side and present additional challenges around fluctuating alternatives and coalition formation. An adversarial approach focuses on hard bargaining and achieving the most aggressive party's interests, while neglecting the other side's problems and interests. Overcoming biases around one's own viewpoints and perceptions of the other side can help reach mutually agreeable solutions.

1. By Prof (Dr) Ashok Patil, Professor of
Law & Mr V Surya, Ph.D Scholar, NLSIU.

2.  Principled negotiation is a type of bargaining
that uses parties' principles and interests to
reach an agreement. This type of negotiation
often focuses on conflict resolution.
 This type of bargaining uses an integrative
negotiation approach to serve the interests of
both parties.
 There are four elements to a principled
negotiation:
 a) Mutual gain: The integrative approach to a
principled negotiation invites parties to focus on
finding mutually beneficial outcomes through
bargaining.

3.  B) Focus on interests: Negotiators can identify
and communicate their motivations, interests
and needs in a principled negotiation.
 C) Separate emotions from issues: In a principled
negotiation, parties can reduce emotional
responses and personality conflicts by focusing
on the issues at hand, rather than how the issues
make them feel.
 d) Objectivity: Parties in a principled negotiation
can agree to using objective criteria as a
baseline for negotiations. Examples of objective
criteria in negotiations include market rates,
expert opinions, laws and industry standards

4.  In a team negotiation, multiple people
bargain towards an agreement on each side
of the negotiation. Team negotiations are
common with large business deals. There are
several people involve in the team
negotiation as:
a) Leader b) Observer c) Relater d) Recorder e)
Critic f) Builder

5.  A multiparty negotiation is a type of bargaining
where more than two parties negotiate toward
an agreement. An example of a multiparty
negotiation is bargaining between multiple
department leaders in a large company. Here are
a few of the challenges of multiparty
negotiations:
 Fluctuating BATNAs: BATNA stands for best
alternative to a negotiated agreement. With
multiple parties in a negotiation, each party's
BATNA is more likely to change, which can make
it harder for parties to agree. Each party can
evaluate their BATNA at each stage in
negotiations to understand the results of a
proposed agreement.

6.  Coalition formation: Another challenge of
multiparty negotiations is the possibility for
different parties to form coalitions, or alliances.
These alliances can add to the complexity of
bargaining. Coalitions can agree to a specific set
of terms to help all parties reach an agreement.
 Process-management issues: Managing the
negotiation process between multiple parties
can lead to a lack of governance and
miscommunications. People in multiparty
negotiations can avoid these issues by choosing a
leader who's willing to collaborate with others
toward an agreement.

7.  An adversarial negotiation is a distributive
approach in which the most aggressive party
in a negotiation achieves an agreement with
a manner of solving the problem.
 The essential elements in the Adversarial
negotiation includes: a) Hard bargaining b)
Future promise c) Loss of interest.

8.  A) Use numbers instead of ranges
 B) Ask open-ended questions
 C) Perform research
 D) Listen during negotiation
 E) Aim for a win-win scenario
 F) Consider your timing

9.  1) Neglecting the other side’s problem: If you
don’t understand the deal from the other
side’s perspective, you can’t solve his
problem or yours.
 Example: A technology company that created
a cheap, accurate way of detecting gas-tank
leaks couldn’t sell its product. Why? EPA
regulations permitted leaks of up to 1,500
gallons, while this new technology detected
8-ounce leaks. Fearing the device would
spawn regulatory trouble, potential
customers said, “No deal!”

10. Most deals involve interests besides price:
• a positive working relationship, crucial in
longer-term deals • the social contract, or
“spirit of the deal,” including goodwill and
shared expectations • the deal-making
process—personal, respectful, and fair to
both sides Price-centric tactics leave these
potential joint gains unrealized

11.  Incompatible positions may mask compatible
interests. Your gain isn’t necessarily your
“opponent’s” loss.
 Example: Environmentalists and farmers
opposed a power company’s proposed dam.
Yet compatible interests underlay these
seemingly irreconcilable positions: Farmers
wanted water flow; environmentalists,
wildlife protection; the power company, a
greener image. By agreeing to a smaller dam,
waterflow guarantees, and habitat
conservation, everyone won.

12.  While common ground helps negotiations,
different interests can give each party what
it values most, at minimum cost to the other.
 Example: An acquirer and entrepreneur
disagree on the entrepreneurial company’s
likely future. To satisfy their differing
interests, the buyer agrees to pay a fixed
amount now and contingent amount later,
based on future performance. Both find the
deal more attractive than walking away.

13.  BATNAs (“best alternative to a negotiated
agreement”) represent your actions if the
proposed deal weren’t possible; e.g., walk
away, approach another buyer. Assessing your
own and your partner’s BATNA reveals
surprising possibilities.

14.  Example: A company hoping to sell a
struggling division for somewhat more than
its $7 million value had two fiercely
competitive bidders. Speculating each might
pay an inflated price to trump the other, the
seller ensured each knew its rival was
looking. The division’s selling price? $45
million.

15.  Two forms of bias can prompt errors:
• Role bias—over committing to your own point
of view and interpreting information in self-
serving ways. A plaintiff believes he has a
70% chance of winning his case, while the
defence puts the odds at 50%. Result?
Unlikelihood of out-of-court settlement.
• Partisan perceptions—painting your side with
positive qualities, while vilifying your
“opponent.” Self-fulfilling prophecies may
result. Counteract these biases with role-
plays of the opposition’s interests.