Abstract:

The BATNA, i.e. the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, is - besides issues such as hierarchy, mental strength and resources - an element that can determine power in negotiations and thus determine their course and outcome. "Plan B", as BATNA can be otherwise called, can actually be given a decisive role, which means that correcting it can provide a significant advantage and can often lead to a better outcome. Due to its importance and the links with the various components of the negotiations, the BATNA is a frequent subject of research in the literature on the subject. This paper attempts to identify the relationship between three different types of the BATNA (strong, weak, non-existent) and the negotiating strategies chosen by negotiators during trade negotiations. The conclusions were drawn from an experiment conducted under university conditions with the participation of those students who, due to their experience and knowledge and in line with the consensus reached among researchers on this issue, were granted the status of experts for the purposes of the study. The concept of the experiment was taken from the literature on negotiation. The study confirmed some of the initial research hypotheses on the impact of BATNA on the choice of one of the two known negotiation strategies, namely the strategies of cooperation and competition. It was found that there is a link between the strategy chosen by the negotiator and - not so much the BATNA itself as - the difference in the assessment of the BATNA by the two negotiating parties.