My strength is what counts!...well...

Folks who develop a great position leading into a negotiation, and whose work on their power produces a great alternative to an actual agreement can come to a rude surprise at times. The feeling when one has thought through what one can accomplish without any negotiation is a dangerous assumption unless "the other side's" best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is also well understood (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 2011, p. 167).

One key to a successful process is to know the difference between a bottom line--the absolute minimum you will accept--and the BATNA--what you achieve unilaterally, with no agreement. The bottom line is not something to share ("I can only go as high as $4000" is not a wise opening line to a used car salesperson). The BATNA, on the other hand, is best made quite transparent. Why?

When I am made aware that my opponent is capable of proceeding with another party toward a project that we are negotiating over, and if I really want that project to go forth with me integrally involved, I will tend to negotiate in better faith and look for ways to enhance collaboration, even ceding some power and rights that clearly matter more to the other party and not so much to me. That means it was quite advantageous for the other party to be open about their BATNA so that I understood their ability and willingness to just go ahead without me. And of course I want to be transparent about my BATNA if I want to incentivize them to negotiate in good faith with me, to really see their benefit in trying to work something out.

Of course it's crucial and best practice to do one's due diligence in investigating the BATNA revelation of the other party. If it turns out to be exaggerated, that only makes me the more powerful party in the talks. By the same token, I need to be crystal clear and correct when I reveal my BATNA, understating it a bit to be safe. I want to help them get to yes, not seem as though I'm trying to swindle them or bluff.

Understanding each other's alternatives is often a way to increase the desire to negotiate earnestly. On the other hand, if their BATNA is quite strong and I am not willing to give in much, they will likely see the futility of continuing to spend time and energy on negotiating with me. These are all important considerations that may or may not lead to an agreement, but they do make conditions more efficient for all parties.

In short, all this is essentially the direct opposite of what we often see in "peace talks" or "ceasefire negotiations," when apparently nobody is at the table in good faith, only to provide performative optics for public consumption, the opposite of best practices aiming for wise outcomes.

Reference

Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; Patton, Bruce (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.