In negotiation theory, BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” and it’s one of the key tenets of negotiation theory. Indeed, it describes the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. This simple strategy can help improve the negotiation as each party is (in theory) willing to take the best course of action, as otherwise, an agreement won’t be reached.
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| Origin | Coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book “Getting to Yes” (1981). |
| Overview | BATNA is a critical concept in negotiation and decision-making. It represents the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. BATNA acts as a reference point to assess the value of an agreement and determine whether it’s acceptable. |
| Key Elements | – Best Alternative: The alternative course of action or decision available to a party if negotiations don’t result in an agreement. |
| – Value Assessment: Evaluating the attractiveness and feasibility of the best alternative. | |
| – Negotiation Reference: BATNA serves as a reference point during negotiations to judge proposed agreements. | |
| – Dynamic: BATNA can change over time based on new information or changing circumstances. | |
| How It Works | 1. Identify BATNA: Parties in a negotiation should identify their respective BATNAs. |
| 2. Assessment: Evaluate the value, cost, and feasibility of your BATNA. | |
| 3. Compare: During negotiations, use your BATNA as a benchmark to assess the desirability of proposed agreements. | |
| 4. Decision Making: Decide whether to accept an agreement based on whether it is better than your BATNA. | |
| Applications | – Negotiation: BATNA is a fundamental concept in negotiation strategy, helping parties make informed decisions. |
| – Business Strategy: Used in business strategy to assess the desirability of various options. | |
| – Conflict Resolution: Helps in resolving disputes by exploring alternatives. | |
| Benefits | – Informed Decision-Making: Provides a structured approach to evaluate options. |
| – Enhanced Negotiation: Empowers negotiators to make informed decisions. | |
| Drawbacks | – Complexity: Identifying and assessing a BATNA can be challenging, especially in complex negotiations. |
| – Dynamic Nature: BATNA can change, requiring continuous evaluation. | |
| Key Takeaway | BATNA is a vital concept in negotiation and decision-making. It represents the best alternative course of action if negotiations fail. Parties use BATNA to assess the desirability of proposed agreements and make informed decisions. |
Understanding a BATNA
BATNA is an acronym for the term “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.”
The term was first coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their 1981 book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In.
It’s important to understand that the best alternative to a negotiated agreement is not necessarily the ideal outcome.
Instead, businesses should consider a BATNA to be the best they can do without the cooperation of the other party.
BATNAs are a critical part of negotiation tactics that should be in place before any business enters into a discussion.
This helps decision-makers avoid accepting a worse outcome than they could get elsewhere.
A solid BATNA also helps each party avoid rejecting an outcome that is better than its best alternative.
A BATNA can deliver several important other benefits:
- It gives the business something to fall back on if negotiations fail.
- It increases negotiation power. If a good alternative exists, the business does not need to concede as much. As a result, it can push the other party harder for a better deal.
- It clarifies the reservation point, or the worst outcome the business is willing to accept.
Formulating a BATNA
A BATNA may not be immediately apparent. However, Fisher and Ury also provided a simple framework for stuck businesses:
Brainstorm
Start by brainstorming a list of actions that could be taken in the event an agreement is not reached.
At this point, these actions are purely theoretical. But they must be realistic.
Refine
Refine the list of actions according to their practicality, feasibility, and potential to add value.
The definition of value will vary according to the individual business, context, or market it operates in.
Select
Tentatively select one option that seems to have the best mix of characteristics.
Formulate
Lastly, formulate the reservation point. Remember that this is the lowest-valued deal the business is willing to accept.
BATNA best practices in business
Negotiations are often high-stress environments, so it is crucial to act decisively and strategically to ensure an optimal outcome.
Here are some BATNA best practices.
Do not reveal a weak BATNA
Otherwise known as a WATNA (worst alternative to a negotiated agreement).
This gives the impression of a business with little leverage that will accept any deal that is put in front of them – regardless of whether it benefits them.
Do not bluff about a BATNA
If prompted by the other party, explain that a range of possible alternatives is being assessed.
But maintain a focus on the current deal and do not embellish or fabricate a BATNA to increase bargaining power.
Do not reveal a BATNA too early
This can be misconstrued as hostility by the other party, creating a tense and non-collaborative atmosphere which stifles negotiation.
Even if the business has a robust BATNA, it is better used at the end of the process once all other avenues have been exhausted.
Work to actively improve a BATNA with a longer-term view
The business must do everything it can to actively improve an alternative course of action.
Avoid being talked out of a BATNA
If the other party criticizes or discourages a BATNA, the business must realize that this is nothing more than a negotiation tactic.
In other words, the other party stands to benefit by encouraging you to take a lower-valued course of action.
Drawbacks of Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
Over-Reliance on BATNA:
- Potential for Missed Opportunities: Focusing too heavily on BATNA can lead negotiators to walk away from deals that could have been beneficial if further negotiated.
- Risk of Inflexibility: Over-reliance on a predetermined BATNA may lead to inflexibility in negotiations, reducing the potential for creative or mutually beneficial outcomes.
Misjudgment of BATNA’s Strength:
- Overestimation of BATNA: There’s a risk of overestimating the strength of one’s BATNA, leading to unrealistic expectations and potentially detrimental outcomes in negotiations.
- Underestimation of Opponent’s BATNA: Similarly, underestimating the other party’s BATNA can lead to miscalculations and missed opportunities for agreement.
Dynamic Nature of Negotiations:
- Changing Circumstances: As negotiations progress, the viability and desirability of the BATNA may change, yet negotiators might fail to reassess and adapt their strategies accordingly.
- Difficulty in Accurate Assessment: Accurately assessing and comparing the BATNA to the offers on the negotiation table can be challenging, especially under complex or changing circumstances.
Potential Negative Impact on Relationships:
- Impacts on Relationship Building: A strong focus on BATNA might lead to neglecting the relational aspects of negotiations, potentially damaging long-term business relationships.
- Perception of Aggressiveness or Unwillingness: If a party is perceived as overly focused on their BATNA, it may be interpreted as aggressiveness or unwillingness to collaborate, which can sour negotiations.
When to Use BATNA
Appropriate Scenarios:
- High-Stakes Negotiations: Particularly useful in high-stakes negotiations where understanding one’s fallback position is crucial.
- Complex Business Deals: In complex business negotiations, where clearly understanding one’s alternatives can aid in decision-making.
- Situations Requiring Firm Boundaries: When it’s important to establish clear boundaries and limits for a negotiation.
Strategic Application:
- Empowerment in Negotiations: BATNA can be a source of power in negotiations, providing confidence to negotiators in their decision-making.
- Risk Management: Helps in managing risks by providing a clear alternative should the negotiations fail.
How to Use BATNA
Developing and Utilizing BATNA:
- Identify Your BATNA: Clearly identify your best alternatives outside of the current negotiation.
- Evaluate and Strengthen BATNA: Assess the viability and strength of your BATNA and work to improve it if possible.
- Keep BATNA in Perspective: Use BATNA as a benchmark to evaluate the negotiation offers but remain open to negotiation and compromise.
- Do Not Reveal BATNA Prematurely: Avoid revealing the specifics of your BATNA too early in the negotiation, as it might weaken your position.
Best Practices:
- Regularly Reassess BATNA: Continuously reassess your BATNA throughout the negotiation process, as new information and changes may occur.
- Balance with Relationship Considerations: While leveraging BATNA, also consider the importance of maintaining positive long-term relationships.
- Avoid Using BATNA as a Threat: Use BATNA for internal guidance rather than as a threat or ultimatum in negotiations.
What to Expect from Implementing BATNA
Enhanced Negotiation Power:
- Increased Confidence: Knowing your BATNA can provide increased confidence and clarity in negotiation situations.
- Better Decision-Making: Helps in making more informed decisions about when to walk away from a negotiation or when to push for better terms.
Strategic Advantages:
- Improved Negotiation Outcomes: Understanding your BATNA can lead to better negotiation outcomes, as it provides a clear benchmark against which to measure offers.
- Risk Mitigation: Provides a safety net, ensuring that you do not agree to terms that are worse than your alternative options.
Potential Challenges:
- Balancing Aspirations with Realism: While BATNA can provide a safety net, there’s a need to balance it with the aspiration to achieve the best possible outcome in the negotiation.
- Adaptability to Changing Situations: The dynamic nature of negotiations requires the flexibility to adapt one’s approach if the BATNA or the negotiation context changes.
In summary, while BATNA is a valuable tool in the negotiator’s toolkit, providing clarity and a fallback position, it should be used as part of a broader negotiation strategy that considers relationship dynamics, adaptability, and the potential evolution of negotiation circumstances.
BATNA vs. WATNA
A BATNA is the “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” which sets the best alternative for when ready to walk away from a negotiation.
The WATNA is the opposite of it. It sets the alternative in case the negotiation turns into a sub-optimal mode.
The WATNA, like the BATNA, is critical for any successful negotiation.
Setting both can be extremely powerful to prepare for the negotiation, successfully close it, or know when to walk away from it.
BATNA vs. ZOPA
BATNA and WATNA set the boundaries beyond which a negotiation should not fall.
And it helps you prepare a best and worst alternative in case the negotiation is not moving in the desired direction.
The ZOPA sets the boundaries within which negotiation can successfully happen.
Setting up a ZOPA is also critical to understanding where the negotiation can close by making both parties happy.
WATNA, BATNA and ZOPA
When going into a negotiation, the simple mental exercise of setting WATNA, BATNA, and ZOPA can exponentially increase the chances of making the negotiation successful.
WATNA and BATNA will set the outside boundaries under which the negotiation can’t fall into.
While the ZOPA is the area where negotiation can successfully close.
Understanding these elements on both sides of the negotiation enables both parties to understand where and how to deal with each other during the negotiation.
BATNA vs. Reservation Price
A BATNA is the best option a party has on the table to walk away from a negotiation, thus setting for that party a position of strength.
A reservation price or value is the lowest amount one of the sellers is willing to take into a negotiation to close the deal.
Take the case in which you sell a home, and you had set a market price of $300K.
Yet you are willing to accept also a proposal that moves around $250K.
If a buyer offers $250K, that is not the optimal sum of money you’re willing to take, but that is still the reservation price or point.
Thus the lowest amount still makes you willing to close the deal.
Whether or not the deal will be closed will also depend on your BATNA. Which is not an amount but rather a “what if scenario.”
For instance, take the case of the offer of $250K. You know that you don’t have to sell, as your backup plan is you can always sell later, as the market gets better since you don’t need the liquidity right now.
However, let’s assume that you decide that liquidity might put you in a comfortable position.
Thus, you do accept the reservation price of $250K.
You still closed the deal, even though you had a BATNA. So you could walk away from the deal and have a good alternative on the table.
Thus, BATNA and reservation prices are different, as the BATNA works as a favorable Plan B, in case the negotiation is not moving in the proper direction.
While the reservation price is the lowest amount, you’re willing to accept to close a deal, even if not optimal.
BATNA examples in business
Millennium Pharmaceuticals
Millennium Pharmaceuticals – now known as Takeda Oncology – is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The company’s core focus is the development and commercialization of oncology and inflammation-related products.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals was founded as a small start-up in 1993 but became a multibillion-dollar company less than a decade later.
This impressive growth was fuelled by a series of alliances and acquisitions where the company would negotiate with several parties at the same time to improve its BATNA.
Then-chief business officer Steve Holtzman once explained the rationale behind this strategy:
“Whenever we feel there’s a possibility of a deal with someone, we immediately call six other people. It drives you nuts, trying to juggle them all. But number one, it will change the perception on the other side of the table. And number two, it will change your self-perception. If you believe that there are other people who are interested, your bluff is no longer a bluff; it’s real.”
Kennecott Copper
Kennecott Copper – now a division of resources giant Rio Tinto – once operated the El Teniente underground copper mine in Chile.
But the contract stipulating the terms of use did not require the company to pay significant royalties to the Chilean government.
When the political situation in Chile changed, however, the terms of the contract were rendered unstable.
The country’s government had a very attractive BATNA in terms of the continued operation of the mine. It could force Kennecott to pay more royalties or alternatively, take control of the mine itself.
Conversely, Kennecott’s BATNA became extremely unattractive. The company could either accept the new terms and pay more royalties or relinquish ownership of the mine and cease operations in Chile.
Implementation of the 3-D strategy
For Kennecott, the realities of the situation were stark. With its own experienced personnel, the Chilean government didn’t need the company to run the mine.
What’s more, Kennecott could not move the mine elsewhere and did not have access to any downstream processing or marketing of copper metal.
To add value to its BATNA and make it feasible, Kennett adopted the 3-D negotiation strategy with three dimensions:
- Set up – where the scope, sequence, and negotiation process are established before both parties meet at the table.
- Deal design – to increase value for both parties, the deal design involved Kennecott analyzing the Chilean Government’s position in detail to uncover hidden interests.
- Tactics – once at the table, the focus of the two parties was to create and claim long-term value via joint problem-solving. Value was increased for both parties by increasing the size of the pie, which we’ll explain in more detail later.
How did Kennecott improve its BATNA?
Kennecott’s negotiators developed a six-point plan to improve its BATNA and ensure the upcoming talks started favorably. Points included:
- The offer to sell a majority equity interest in El Teniente to Chilean authorities.
- A proposal to expand the current mine with the proceeds of the deal and an Export-Import bank loan.
- A request that the Chilean Government guaranteed the loan subject to applicable laws in New York state.
- Insurance coverage for as many of Kennecott’s assets as possible to protect the company from a takeover.
- An arrangement to sell the extra output from the mine to North American and European customers on a long-term contract, and
- Collection rights to such contracts that would be sold to a consortium of Japanese, North American, and European financial institutions.
These points fundamentally altered the course of the negotiation. Kennecott expanded the size of the pie by increasing the proposed size of the mine, which meant more money for the Government’s coffers as a majority owner.
The ability of Kennecott to bring in additional customers, creditors, and authorities also impacted the Chilean authorities’ BATNA.
Faced with a multiparty front of industrial, legal, and public players who would have future dealings with Chile, it became far less attractive for the government to remove Kennecott and take over mine operations itself.
Lastly, to improve its own BATNA, Kennecott’s decision to secure insurance, guarantees, and other contracts meant its situation would be less dire in the event the Chilean government decided to walk away.
While the El Teniente mine was nationalized a few years later, Kennecott’s improved BATNA resulted in additional years of cash flow that it would otherwise have missed out on.
BATNA case study: Starbucks vs. Kraft
Starbucks faced a BATNA situation after it was sued by Kraft Foods Group for $2.9 billion. The lawsuit was the result of a dispute between the two companies over the distribution of Starbucks coffee products in grocery stores.
Kraft had been distributing Starbucks coffee products since 1998 under a long-term contract that was set to expire in 2014. But in 2010, Starbucks announced that it was ending the contract and taking over the distribution of its products in stores. With sales of around $500 million, Starbucks offered Kraft $750 million to terminate the agreement.
Kraft disputed the move, claiming that Starbucks had breached the contract and then that it was entitled to compensation.
Kraft asks for an injunction
In October 2010, Starbucks informed Kraft that it would end the agreement within 30 days if certain contract breaches were not addressed. One month later, the company confirmed it would terminate the deal on March 1, 2011.
Starbucks accused Kraft of mismanagement of its brand with the coffee chain’s market share dropping from 33% in 2000 to 25% in 2010. Starbucks also wanted more flexibility to sell single-serve coffee pods, with the Kraft deal limiting sales to a small selection of pods that only worked in Kraft machines. Kraft hit back and demanded that Starbucks should pay it fair value for the business.
On December 6, Kraft asked a federal court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Starbucks from ending the contract before the matter could be resolved in arbitration. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed which enabled Starbucks to sell the business to a private company known as Acosta Inc.
Kraft and Starbucks BATNAs
Kraft and Starbucks subsequently became involved in a protracted arbitration process over the next three years. While the two parties could not reach a consensus, both understood that court proceedings would be expensive, time-consuming, cause reputational harm, and offer no guarantee of a favorable outcome.
It was at this point that BATNAs became important.
For Starbucks, its BATNA was to continue with the plan to distribute its own coffee products in grocery stores. Starbucks understood that its BATNA would expose it to a decision in Kraft’s favor, but it later noted that there was “adequate liquidity” to compensate the company if required. In any case, Starbucks saw tremendous potential in the coffee pod market should it be able to distribute its products under what it considered more favorable terms.
Kraft’s BATNA, on the other hand, was to sue Starbucks for breach of contract if the arbitrator did not rule in its favor. While expensive, this would be a viable option for Kraft which had made a large and sustained investment in Starbucks products. The company also likely felt that its BATNA would make a strong case in court and produce a result commensurate with the $500 million it had lost in annual revenue.
Settlement is reached
In November 2013, arbitrators announced that Starbucks would be required to pay Kraft $2.23 billion (with an additional $527 million in attorney fees) for ending the contract prematurely. For Starbucks, this was lower than the $2.9 billion Kraft initially demanded.
While the company disagreed with the decision, it argued that the decision to take back its packaged coffee business was the correct one. Soon after the deal was finalized in 2013, Starbucks posted revenue of $1.4 billion in its channel development division which includes sales from non-Starbucks branded stores.
Kraft was more circumspect, with executive vice president of legal affairs Gerd Pleuhs remarking that “We’re glad to put this issue behind us. We can now fully focus on growing our global snacks business.”
Additional case studies
- Real Estate:
- BATNA Details: The family has done market research and found that the rental market is strong in their area. They could potentially earn $2,500 per month in rental income. Over a year, that’s an additional $30,000, which, when combined with potential property appreciation, could exceed the current offer. This BATNA gives the family a safety net, ensuring they still have income from the property if they don’t sell immediately.
- Job Negotiation:
- BATNA Details: Jane has gone through several interviews with Company B, and she feels confident about the job role, company culture, and potential salary. She also understands the growth opportunities and benefits that Company B offers. This BATNA gives Jane leverage in her negotiations with Company A, as she has a clear alternative that she finds appealing.
- Mergers and Acquisitions:
- BATNA Details: Company X has conducted an internal feasibility study which shows that by investing in R&D, they can replicate Company Y’s intellectual property within 18 months. While this path would delay their market entry, the overall cost savings and control over the intellectual property might be worth the wait.
- Retail Suppliers:
- BATNA Details: The shoe retailer has sampled products from the alternative supplier and, while they are of slightly lower quality, customer feedback suggests they would still be acceptable. The retailer has also assessed the reliability and reputation of this alternative supplier, ensuring they can meet demand and uphold agreed-upon terms.
- Sports:
- BATNA Details: The basketball player has been approached by agents from international leagues and has also received endorsements offers that are independent of his league affiliation. He’s done the math and knows that even if the salary from the international league is lower, the combined income from playing overseas and the endorsements would match, if not exceed, his expected salary in his home country.
- Entertainment Industry:
- BATNA Details: The author has researched self-publishing and understands the costs, potential royalties, and marketing efforts involved. They’ve also been in touch with smaller publishers who have expressed interest. The author’s BATNA is informed by potential earnings, control over the content, and the speed at which they can get the book to market.
- Manufacturing:
- BATNA Details: The car manufacturer has tested the component from Supplier B and, while it’s more expensive, it offers better fuel efficiency which could be a selling point to end consumers. They’ve also analyzed the reliability and delivery times of Supplier B, ensuring that the switch won’t disrupt their manufacturing schedule.
- International Trade:
- BATNA Details: Country A has previously traded with Country C, so they have data on how such a partnership impacts their economy. They understand the tariffs, trade volumes, and other terms from their past dealings. This historical data provides a clear picture of what to expect if negotiations with Country B fall through.
- Tech Startups:
- BATNA Details: The startup has had detailed discussions with Venture Capitalist B. They’ve been provided with term sheets, valuation estimates, and potential mentorship opportunities. This BATNA is constructed from not just the money on offer, but also the added value that the alternative investor brings to the table.
- Environment and Energy:
- BATNA Details: The energy company has done environmental impact assessments on the alternative land plot. They’ve also done cost analyses on developing this land, considering factors like distance to the grid, accessibility, and potential energy yield. Their BATNA is based on a clear understanding of the costs, benefits, and potential hurdles of this alternative site.
Key takeaways
- A BATNA, or the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, is a course of action to be taken when the negotiation process fails.
- Establishing a BATNA begins with brainstorming a list of theoretical actions and then choosing the one with the highest potential to add value.
- Best practices dictate how a BATNA should be used. A business should avoid fabricating or exaggerating a BATNA, as this could erode the integrity of their position in the negotiation itself.
Key Highlights
- BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement” and is a critical concept in negotiation theory.
- It represents the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement.
- BATNA helps improve negotiations by giving each party a strong position and a viable alternative to the current deal.
- Formulating a BATNA involves brainstorming, refining, and selecting the best possible alternative course of action.
- A strong BATNA provides several benefits, including giving the business something to fall back on, increasing negotiation power, and clarifying the reservation point.
- Implementing the 3-D strategy (Set up, Deal design, and Tactics) can help improve a BATNA and create more value during negotiations.
- Revealing a weak BATNA or bluffing about it can be detrimental to the negotiation process.
- The ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) defines the area where mutual agreement is possible and complements the BATNA and WATNA.
- Real-life examples, such as the case between Starbucks and Kraft, illustrate how BATNA influences negotiation outcomes.
- Understanding and implementing BATNA in negotiations can lead to more successful and satisfactory outcomes for all parties involved.
| Related Frameworks | Definition | Focus | Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) | A concept in negotiation theory referring to the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and no agreement is reached. It represents the alternative option available to a party outside the current negotiation. | Focuses on identifying the most favorable option available to a party if negotiations do not result in a satisfactory agreement, providing a point of leverage in negotiations. | Negotiation Strategy, Decision-making |
| WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) | In negotiation theory, WATNA refers to the worst possible outcome that a party could face if no agreement is reached during a negotiation process. | Focuses on assessing the potential consequences and risks of not reaching an agreement, helping negotiators understand their BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). | Negotiation Strategy, Decision-making |
| ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) | The range of possible outcomes in a negotiation where both parties’ acceptable terms overlap. It represents the area where agreement is possible and negotiations can be fruitful. | Focuses on identifying the space where mutually acceptable terms exist, facilitating negotiation by finding common ground and maximizing value for both parties. | Negotiation Strategy, Conflict Resolution |
| Reservation Price | In negotiation, the reservation price is the lowest (for a seller) or highest (for a buyer) price at which a negotiator is willing to accept a deal. It represents the point beyond which a negotiator is not willing to continue negotiating. | Focuses on determining the threshold beyond which a negotiator is not willing to compromise, helping establish negotiation boundaries and guide decision-making. | Negotiation Strategy, Pricing Strategy |
| Fisher and Ury’s Principled Negotiation | A negotiation approach developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury, emphasizing separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, generating options for mutual gain, and insisting on objective criteria. | Focuses on collaborative negotiation to create win-win outcomes by understanding underlying interests, exploring creative solutions, and maintaining fairness and objectivity. | Negotiation Strategy, Conflict Resolution |
| Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model | A decision-making model that helps leaders determine the appropriate level of employee participation in decision-making based on the nature of the decision and its impact on the organization. | Focuses on selecting the most suitable decision-making style (autocratic, consultative, or collaborative) based on situational factors and desired outcomes. | Leadership, Decision-making, Organizational Behavior |
| Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) | A structured decision-making technique that helps individuals or groups prioritize multiple criteria and alternatives by decomposing complex decisions into simpler components and evaluating them systematically. | Focuses on structuring decision-making by breaking down complex problems, comparing criteria and alternatives, and synthesizing judgments to reach a rational decision. | Decision-making, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) |
| Prospect Theory | A psychological theory of decision-making under uncertainty, suggesting that people make decisions based on potential gains and losses relative to a reference point, and they are risk-averse in gains but risk-seeking in losses. | Focuses on understanding how individuals perceive and evaluate risks and rewards, guiding decision-making by considering cognitive biases and framing effects. | Behavioral Economics, Decision-making, Risk Management |
Connected Business Concepts
Related: Negotiation, Logrolling, BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA.
Read Next: Negotiation, BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA.
Connected Strategy Frameworks
The FourWeekMBA Business Strategy Toolbox
Tech Business Model Framework
Blockchain Business Model Framework
Business Competition
Technological Modeling
Transitional Business Models
Minimum Viable Audience
Business Scaling
Market Expansion
Speed-Reversibility
Growth Matrix
Revenue Streams
Revenue Model
Read Next:
Read next:
Read more:
