Glossary

The BATNA – Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement describes the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It is the plan B that you can fall back on if a negotiation fails or no acceptable result is achieved. If you know your BATNA, you can negotiate with greater clarity, confidence and realistic room for manoeuvre. At the same time, analysing the BATNA helps the other side to better assess their own positions and act in a tactically clever way. Developing a strong BATNA is a key success factor in modern negotiation training.

Cognitive distortions – are systematic errors in thinking that result in people not processing information objectively. They are caused by unconscious shortcuts in thinking (Heuristics) and influence perception, decisions and behaviour – including in negotiations. Examples include confirmation bias (only considering information that supports one’s own opinion), anchor effects (strong influence of the first value mentioned) or overconfidence (overestimating one’s own abilities). If you recognise and reflect on cognitive biases, you can manage negotiations more clearly, assess the other side better and avoid your own misjudgements.

Decision architecture refers to the way in which decision-making environments are designed and thus influence behaviour and choices. The term originates from behavioural economics and became known primarily through Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (“nudge” theory). Even small changes – such as the order of options, standard specifications or formulations – can strongly influence decisions. In negotiation management, this means that anyone who recognises or consciously designs decision architectures can influence the framework of the negotiation in such a way that clarity is created, options become more transparent and desired results are more likely to occur.

Framing refers to the influence of linguistic and contextual framing on decisions and perceptions in a negotiation. The same offer has a completely different effect depending on how it is presented (“discount” vs. “surcharge”, “opportunity” vs. “risk”). Successful negotiators consciously use framing to control the dynamics of the discussion and recognise when the other side is trying to influence their perception. Understanding framing is a key tool for confidently utilising psychological effects in negotiations.

The Game theory is a branch of mathematics and economics that analyses strategic decision-making processes between multiple players. It analyses how the behaviour of one party depends on the possible actions of the others – and which strategies can lead to optimal results. In negotiation, game theory provides models for anticipating interests, power relations and possible moves by the other side. Concepts such as the “prisoner’s dilemma” or “zero-sum games” show how co-operation and competition intertwine in negotiations.

The Harvard concept is an internationally recognised model of negotiation management developed at Harvard University. It pursues the goal of achieving fair and efficient results by relevant instead of Position-related negotiate. Central principles are: Focus on interests rather than positions, develop mutually beneficial options, use objective criteria and treat people and problems separately. The Harvard concept is regarded as the basis of many modern negotiation training programmes and has significantly shaped international negotiation practice.

At the same time, the model has its limitations: In complex power constellations, multi-party negotiations or highly asymmetrical situations, it often falls short. Recent findings from psychology, game theory and decision research show that successful negotiation requires much more – such as consciously dealing with emotions, cognitive distortions and dynamic interests.

International and intercultural negotiations are often equated, but differ in their focus:

• International negotiations – negotiations that take place between parties from different countries – often in a business, political or diplomatic context. Key challenges are legal differences, markets, institutions and geographical distance.
• Intercultural negotiations – negotiations in which cultural differences between the parties involved play a role and influence the process and the outcome. They focus on the cultural differences between the parties involved – regardless of whether they take place in the same country or internationally. Values, communication styles, understanding of hierarchy or time orientation play the decisive role here.

In practice, the two dimensions often overlap: international negotiations are almost always intercultural. Conversely, intercultural negotiations can also take place within a country, e.g. between teams with different cultural backgrounds.

MESO stands for Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers and refers to a technique in which you present two to four equivalent offers in parallel during a negotiation. “Equivalent” means that, from your perspective, the options are similarly attractive overall, while differing in specific conditions (e.g., price, duration, scope of services, additional benefits, or payment terms).

The advantage is that the counterpart can reveal, through their reactions, which aspects truly matter to them, without requiring you to commit prematurely to a single position. MESO supports information gathering, integrative solutions, and a cooperative negotiation dynamic, reduces the risk of unnecessary concessions, and can accelerate the path to agreement. It requires solid preparation: clear objectives, defined priorities, and consistent anchors across all options.

One Multi-party negotiation is a negotiation in which more than two parties are involved. Such situations are particularly complex because different interests, power relationships and coalitions have to be taken into account at the same time. Decisions are not only made through direct dialogue, but also through alliances, side agreements and implicit dynamics. Successful multi-party negotiations therefore require a systematic approach: understanding the roles of all parties involved, recognising potential coalitions and strategies for effectively incorporating one’s own positions into the web of multiple interests.

The Negotiation psychology analyses how mindsets, emotions and social dynamics influence the course and outcome of negotiations. She incorporates findings from psychology, decision research and behavioural economics and explains why people do not always act rationally in negotiations. Issues such as trust, distortions of perception, framing, power, status and emotions play a central role. In practice, this means that those who understand the psychological mechanisms can better assess the behaviour of the other side, control their own reactions more consciously and shape negotiations more strategically.

A post-settlement settlement is an agreement that is reached after the official conclusion of a negotiation. After both sides have reached an initial agreement or compromise, they jointly examine whether an even better solution is possible for both sides through further talks – without jeopardising what has already been achieved.
The approach extends the view beyond the immediate deal and creates additional opportunities for value enhancement, cooperation and trust. Especially in complex or long-term partnerships, PSS is a strategic tool for ensuring sustainable results.

The reservation point is the threshold beyond which an agreement is no longer beneficial for a party. It lies between one’s aspiration level (target) and one’s BATNA and marks the point at which it is preferable to leave the negotiation or turn to alternative options.

Unlike the BATNA, the reservation point does not describe the alternative itself, but rather the maximum acceptable price or the lowest still acceptable set of terms. It serves as a critical anchor for rational negotiation. Knowing one’s reservation point supports composure, helps prevent premature concessions, and enables decisions based on strategic clarity rather than situational emotion or pressure.

Effective negotiators define their reservation point before the negotiation, keep it confidential during the process, and use it as an internal reference for their tactical choices without becoming mentally rigid too early. This strengthens focus, protects against manipulative tactics, and enhances the ability to consciously say “no” when an offer does not meet minimum criteria.

The term STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It refers to professions and academic fields with an analytical and technical focus. Specialists and leaders in STEM roles are essential for innovation, digitalization, and technological competitiveness.
In negotiations, they are characterized by analytical thinking and a structured approach — yet they benefit from training that builds on these strengths and translates them into effective negotiation strategies.

The ZOPA – Zone of Possible Agreement – refers to the negotiation area in which the interests of both parties overlap. Within this zone, a result acceptable to both sides is possible. If the positions lie outside the ZOPA, an agreement is hardly realistic. Successful negotiators define their own ZOPA at an early stage and analyse the other side’s room for manoeuvre in order to achieve win-win results. Knowing the ZOPA increases efficiency, clarity and the likelihood of reaching an agreement.