When values collide: The NeuroNet Dilemma

Welcome to our blog where we will discuss how to guide a successful multi-party negotiation. Before we start, it is important to have some basic negotiation concepts in mind. For this, we want you to imagine that you want to buy a table for £10: 

·       Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) – the best choice someone has if they don’t come to an agreement. In this scenario your BATNA would be to go back home without getting a table

·       Aspiration price (AP) – the best outcome someone is hoping to get from an agreement. Here your AP is £10 (what you would like to pay for a table)

·       Reservation price (RP) – the least someone is willing to get out of an agreement. In this case your RP would be how much more are you willing to pay for a table, for example £15

·       Zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) – zone where all parties would be happy to make an agreement, usually between everyone’s RP’s (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Imagine you found a shop selling a table you like and one of the or £12 but theyworkers offers it to you f are willing to take £5 for it. In this case the ZOPA would be anything between £5 and £15, to make a satisfying agreement for both parties.

Having these concepts in mind and aiming to know what your negotiation partner is looking for, should set you in the right direction of a successful negotiation. However, identifying these is often hard when negotiating with multiple people at the same time, as the ZOPA may become unclear (Robert, 2017). We’ve created a multi-party negotiation scenario to highlight key strategies, guiding you on what to do and what to avoid. Please read the description below before watching our negotiation to place it in context:

NeuroNet is a small software development company dedicated to providing people with the tools to understand their emotions and mental health. They often sell software and partner with other companies to increase the reach and visibility of their tools. NeuroNet has been developing an AI-based emotion recognition tool designed to help HR departments assess job candidates during interviews. A big corporate company is very interested in buying this software from NeuroNet, offering them a life changing amount of money for the software, and NeuroNet has to decide if they will take the deal soon, otherwise they risk losing it. However, there is a flaw in their software, which causes it to consistently give lower scores to neurodivergent people. Going ahead with this deal could have a negative impact on user’s mental health and damage the long-term reputation of NeuroNet.

Daniel, Sarah and Maya are the three founders of NeuroNet; Daniel is focused towards maximising profit to attract investors and doesn’t mind drifting from NeuroNet’s mission to do so; Sarah is very passionate about NeuroNet’s mission and doesn’t care about losing profit; Maya is the main staff manager and wants to get profit soon, as their staff have been promised bonuses from this sale. The three founders will have a meeting to negotiate whether they should accept this deal, regardless of the flaw in the software, or if they should turn down the offer and try to sell to a different company when the software is ready for significantly lower profit.

https://youtu.be/sKPQqp792HU

One way NeuroNet’s negotiation could have been improved is by showing understanding. Negotiation literature emphasises how showing empathy makes it more likely for parties to make compromises by understanding each others’ concerns and values (O'Connor et al., 2017). Additionally, we could invite the idea of perspective-taking as it has been shown to result in promising outcomes beneficial to most parties, if not all, and this effect is heightened in individuals with personal/stronger ties (Ramirez-Fernandez et al., 2018), like the colleagues in our negotiation. 

By focusing on each other’s values and concerns, and approaching the conversation with empathy and a willingness to compromise, Sarah and Maya could have reached a more positive and mutually beneficial outcome. After all, they both wanted the best for the future of the company, just from different perspectives, based on their roles and commitments. 

The colleagues could have also avoided escalation, specifically when finding out about the bonuses promised by Maya to investors and staff, which relied on selling the tool as soon as possible. Regarding disputes in the workplace specifically, experiments have found that the most appropriate strategies to overcoming these difficult negotiations is ‘problem-solving’ and, following the previous point about taking in others’ perspectives, compromise/concession (Medina & Benítez, 2011). Additionally, what does not help these situations is assertiveness. A theory surrounding this is the PACT Framework: Power balance, Accountability, Cooperative motivation and Time (De Dreu, 2005). This supports the idea that avoiding escalation in negotiations can be done by switching individuals’ underlying assertive inclinations to a more positive attitude aiming for compromise through these factors. 

Essentially, Sarah could have avoided escalating the concern over early promises of bonuses to investors and staff by turning to problem-solving strategies and focusing on compromise, instead of targeting Maya and imposing power balance and blame. It would have benefitted all parties and the business more for the colleagues to try to have a learning and flexible  conversation over dealing with the promises of bonuses.

Ultimately, we can see that Sarah’s proposal of a conditional acquisition could have had a positive impact on the negotiation and deal, which may have had the potential of benefitting all parties involved, hitting their profit margins (Daniel and Maya) and resolving the discriminatory issues with the tool (Sarah). This focuses on the idea of brainstorming everyone’s RP’s (Shonk, 2025) and understanding their concerns and liabilities in order to aim for and get closer to a common ground, hence establishing a ZOPA to gradually reach a mutual decision that benefits NeuroNet in the end (Merino, 2017). Shonk (2025) also highlights this process and brings in an additional element of the ‘agreement trap’, and can be explained through the colleagues’ present situation. 

Furthermore, the colleagues at NeuroNet could have avoided an outcome worse than everyone’s BATNA, losing Sarah while risking long-term profits, by stepping back to assess both their own and the buyer’s alternatives. Instead of rushing the sale, a focus on their reservation points and small concessions could have led to a middle ground, such as a 3-month extension to fix the tool’s flaws, retain Sarah, and still achieve their profit goals. Understanding both your own and your counterpart’s BATNA is essential, as it provides leverage and helps avoid unfavourable deals (Fisher & Patton, 2011). As Sebenius (2001) notes, recognising the other party’s BATNA can also uncover hidden value. In this case, the founders’ fixation on the deadline blinded them to better options that could have preserved both profit and reputation. Effective negotiators stay clear-eyed about external pressures and alternatives, which is something NeuroNet’s leadership overlooked in a moment of stress.

Another powerful tool is asking good questions. Huang et al. (2017) show that asking increases both information sharing and likability, two key factors for success. Similarly, Brooks and John (2018) argue that thoughtful questioning deepens understanding and builds trust. Questions uncover how a counterpart values outcomes, possible trade-offs, and hints about their BATNA. NeuroNet’s leadership might have discovered a ZOPA if Maya’s idea to propose a conditional acquisition had been explored earlier. Many negotiators hesitate, fearing they seem pushy, yet Hills (2014) reminds us that asking directly increases the chances of success because people underestimate how often others will agree. Asking turns negotiation into an exploration of possibilities, not rigid bargaining, a shift that could have saved NeuroNet from a lose-lose outcome. 

Additionally, many negotiators also fall into mental traps. Gilbert (1991) explains that people accept their first perceptions as truth, misjudging flexibility. Sebenius (2001) warns against tunnel vision, something clearly seen in NeuroNet’s fixation on the deadline rather than possibilities for alternative outcomes. Thompson (2005) highlights biases like reactive devaluation and confirmation bias, which cloud judgment and reduce negotiation to haggling. Daniel’s overconfidence in securing an immediate sale and Maya’s escalation of commitment to promised bonuses blinded them to better solutions. Better preparation, questioning, and a BATNA-driven mindset might have saved NeuroNet’s long-term reputation.

References 

Brooks, A. W., & John, L. K. (2018). The surprising power of questions. Harvard business review, 96(3), 60-67.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). A PACT against conflict escalation in negotiation and dispute resolution. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00349.x

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). FisherR. Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed.). Penguin.

Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American psychologist, 46(2), 107

Hills, T. (2014, February 10). If you want more out of life, just ask: Asking for what you want is highly correlated with getting it. Statistical Life.

Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of personality and social psychology, 113(3), 430.

Medina, F. J., & Benítez, M. (2011). Effective Behaviors to De-escalate Organizational Conflicts in the Process of Escalation. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 789–797. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.26

Merino, M. (2017). Understanding the Zone of Possible Agreement | HBS Online. Business Insights - Blog. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/understanding-zopa

O'Connor, K., Arnold, J., & Gladstone, E. C. (2017). Empathy makes negotiators generous, but only toward stigmatized counterparts. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 11464. 

Ramirez-Fernandez, J., Ramirez-Marin, J. Y., & Munduate, L. (2018). I expected more from you: The influence of close relationships and perspective taking on negotiation offers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(1), 85–105. 

Robert, H. (2017). Strategic Barriers to Dispute Resolution: A Comparison of Bilateral and Multilateral Negotiations. Multi-Party Dispute Resolution, Democracy and Decision-Making: Volume II, 3.

Shonk, K. (2025). How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations. PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/how-to-find-the-zopa-in-business-negotiations/

Thompson, L. (2005). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (3rd ed.). Pearson.