Choosing the Path to Bargaining Power : An Empirical Comparison of Batnas and Contributions in Negotiation

Although the negotiations literature identifies a variety of approaches for improving one's power position, the relative benefits of these approaches remains largely unexplored. The empirical study presented in this paper begins to address this issue by examining how the size of the bargaining zone affects the relative benefit of an advantage in one's BATNA (i.e. having a better alternative than one's opponent) versus Contribution (i.e. contributing more to the relationship than one's opponent) for negotiator performance. Results indicate that whereas BATNAs exerted a stronger effect on resource allocations than Contributions when the bargaining zone was small, an advantage in Contributions exerted a stronger effect on resource allocations than BATNAs when the bargaining zone was large. These findings provide needed insight and supporting evidence for how to alter one's power relationship in negotiation