Multiple Goal Approach (MGA)

Maximize sales potential by aligning multiple customer goals for tailored solutions and engagement

Introduction

The Multiple Goal Approach treats a negotiation as a portfolio of goals, not a single price contest. You target economic value, relationship health, process fairness, learning, and implementation success at the same time. Practitioners use MGA when deals are complex, ongoing, or politically sensitive, and when narrow price focus would leave value on the table.

This explainer defines MGA, places it in major frameworks, and shows how to run it from preparation to implementation. You will get checklists, context playbooks, examples, pitfalls, tools, a quick-reference table, and ethical guardrails. Benefits are realistic: better packages, fewer stalls, and smoother execution when you manage multiple goals explicitly and transparently (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007; Thompson, 2015).

Definition & Placement in Negotiation Frameworks

Multiple Goal Approach (MGA) is a strategy that sets and optimizes several concurrent objectives in a negotiation. Typical goals include: value creation, value claiming, relationship strength, procedural fairness, speed, risk allocation, and future option value. You make tradeoffs explicit, measure progress on each, and adapt tactics to keep the portfolio in balance.

Framework placement

•Interests vs. positions. MGA elevates underlying interests by making non-price goals visible and tradable, not hidden behind positions (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

•Integrative vs. distributive. MGA protects integrative moves while preserving disciplined claiming. You design offers that create value across issues, then claim based on objective criteria and leverage (Thompson, 2015).

•Value creation vs. claiming. MGA uses sequencing: create jointly, then claim fairly. It deploys structure like MESO, contingent terms, and standards of legitimacy to avoid zero-sum traps (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

•Game-theoretic framing. In repeated games, multiple goals hedge against short-term maximization that harms long-term payoffs. MGA reduces miscoordination by clarifying what each side optimizes beyond price (Camerer, 2003; Raiffa, 1982).

Adjacent strategies - quick distinctions

•Anchoring vs. MGA. Anchoring sets a numeric reference. MGA sets a portfolio and uses numbers in service of that portfolio.

•MESO vs. MGA. MESO is a tactic that shows multiple equivalent offers. MGA is the overarching strategy that defines and tracks multiple goals across the deal.

Pre-Work: Preparation Checklist

BATNA and reservation point

•BATNA. Quantify your alternative including time, risk, and relationship costs. Keep a BATNA for economics and a BATNA for timing, so you avoid schedule-driven capitulation (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

•Reservation point. Define floors and ceilings per issue. Add a “relationship floor”: the minimum trust and fairness conditions needed for you to proceed.

Issue mapping

List price, scope, timing, success metrics, service levels, data, IP, brand use, risk allocation, governance, renewal, and exit. Mark each as create-then-claim or primarily distributive.

Priority and tradeables matrix

Issue	Importance	You can give	You can get	Goal it supports
Term length	High	Longer commitment	Lower unit price	Economic stability
Pilot phase	Medium	Discounted pilot	Case study rights	Learning and brand

Counterparty map

Identify decision path, incentives, veto players, and risk appetite. Note whether they prize speed, face-saving, or strict fairness benchmarks. This informs your goal weights.

Evidence pack

Prepare benchmarks, cost drivers, reference deals, and risk-sharing options. Evidence is the backbone for principled claiming and for process legitimacy audits later (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Thompson, 2015).

Mechanism of Action (Step-by-Step)

1) Setup

•Publish the process you propose: discovery, option generation, convergence, and implementation review. Invite edits.

•State your goals upfront in neutral language: “We care about total value, reliability of delivery, and a relationship that can handle change.”

Principles: Fairness norms and transparency increase trust and information sharing (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

2) First move

•Run structured discovery. Ask how success will be judged and who judges it.

•Share constraints early to avoid late surprises.

Principles: Reference points and reciprocity. Early candor encourages reciprocation and reduces misreads (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

3) Midgame adjustments

•Use MESO: present 2 to 3 bundles that hit different goal mixes, then ask which direction fits.

•Add contingent terms to handle uncertainty and protect both sides against forecast risk.

•Sequence bargaining: expand the pie, then claim using objective criteria.

Principles: Integrative then distributive sequencing improves joint outcomes without giving away the store (Thompson, 2015; Raiffa, 1982).

4) Close

•Converge on a single text. Document not only price and scope, but governance, review cadence, and exit ramps.

•Note success metrics and who owns them.

Principles: Clear reference points reduce regret and renegotiation later (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

5) Implementation

•Kick off with a mutual scorecard. Track both performance and relationship health. Plan a 30 to 60 day review.

Do not use when...

•You have a one-shot, price-only auction with no relationship or learning value.

•Information is so asymmetric that multiple goals would mask a fundamental trust problem.

•The other side is rewarded only for short-term price wins.

Execution Playbooks by Context

Sales (B2B or B2C)

•Discovery alignment: “How will your team measure success in 90 days and at renewal?”

•Value framing: Tie ROI to risk and speed.

•Proposal structuring: Offer three packages that trade off price, support, and rollout speed.

•Objection handling: Translate objections into goal conflicts and propose a swap.

•Close: Confirm metrics, governance, and review timeline.

Mini-script - enterprise SaaS

Seller: “You prioritize a Q1 launch, low risk, and predictable cost. We can keep price lower if we phase features.”

Buyer: “We also need a strong success story.”

Seller: “Two options. A: Standard price with a 60 day pilot and case rights. B: Lower price, phased rollout, plus premium support to protect Q1.”

Buyer: “Option B if we add a 30 day success review.”

Seller: “Done. We will track adoption and time to value on the scorecard.”

Partnerships and BD

•Emphasize brand safety, IP, and joint learning. Use pilots with clear goals and press rights tied to results. Set a governance board that can shift priorities without reopening price.

Procurement and vendor management

•Weight goals like total cost of ownership, reliability, and resilience. Use indexed pricing, service credits, and dual-sourcing rules that reflect those goals.

Hiring and internal negotiations

•Goals include scope, impact, growth, and fairness. Use staged scope increases, mentorship commitments, and review cadences tied to measurable outcomes.

Fill-in-the-blank templates

1.“Our primary goals are [economic], [timeline], and [relationship]. How would you weight them?”

2.“If we protect [goal A], we can flex on [goal B] by [specific give] if we receive [specific get].”

3.“Offer A focuses on [goal], Offer B on [goal], Offer C balances both. Which direction is closer?”

4.“Let’s add a success review at [day X] with metrics [M1, M2] so we can rebalance if needed.”

5.“If [risk] occurs, then [contingent adjustment] to keep the relationship whole.”

Real-World Examples

1) Sales - platform rollout

Context: Buyer wanted low price and fast launch. Seller needed reference value and stable scope.

Move: MESO with three bundles: low price phased rollout, mid price standard rollout with case rights, premium with dedicated success.

Reaction: Buyer picked phased rollout but granted a case study if adoption reached 60 percent.

Resolution: Signed mid price, premium support for first 60 days.

Safeguard: Scorecard with adoption and time-to-value metrics.

2) Partnership - co-branding risk

Context: Two brands feared reputational risk.

Move: MGA put brand safety equal to revenue. Pilot with pre-approved creative and a joint review board.

Reaction: Trust improved.

Resolution: Full co-marketing after pilot success.

Safeguard: Escalation path that could pause campaigns without penalty.

3) Procurement - logistics resiliency

Context: Buyer valued on-time delivery and cost stability.

Move: Dual-source award with indexed pricing and service credits.

Reaction: Carriers accepted due to transparent indices.

Resolution: Improved reliability with manageable cost.

Safeguard: Independent audits and quarterly resilience drills.

4) Internal - scope and promotion path

Context: IC sought promotion; manager needed proof of impact.

Move: MGA balanced growth and fairness: staged scope increase, mentorship, and a 6 month review.

Reaction: IC accepted.

Resolution: Promotion at review.

Safeguard: Written milestones and neutral reviewer.

Common Pitfalls & How to Avoid Them

Pitfall	Why it backfires	Corrective action or alternative line
Treating all goals as equal	Creates paralysis	Weight goals explicitly and publish the weights (Thompson, 2015).
Hiding non-price goals	Surprises late in talks	State process, relationship, and implementation goals early (Fisher & Ury, 2011).
Anchoring without credibility	Triggers distrust	Tie numbers to benchmarks and cost drivers (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).
Conceding without reciprocity	Trains the other side	“If we move on X, we would need Y to protect [goal].”
Ignoring non-price issues	Value left on table	Expand issues and use MESO or contingencies (Raiffa, 1982).
Hard-line tone on soft goals	Signals insincerity	Use neutral, principled language and objective criteria.
Timing errors	Miss calendar leverage	Align milestones with budget cycles and launch dates.

Tools & Artifacts

Concession log

Item	You give	You get	Value to you or them	Trigger or contingency

MESO grid

Draft Offer A, B, C varying price, scope, support, and timing to reflect different goal weights.

Tradeables library

Payment terms, rollout phases, support tiers, success metrics, review clauses, PR rights, data access, service credits, indexation.

Anchor worksheet

Credible ranges and rationales, with sources you can share.

Move or step	When to use	What to say or do	Signal to adjust or stop	Risk and safeguard
Publish goals and process	Setup	“Our goals are A, B, C. Proposed path is...”	Confusion or pushback	Invite edits to increase buy-in
Weight goals	Early	“How would you rank these 1 to 3?”	Misaligned rankings	Create bundles matching their weights
Generate MESO	Midgame	Share 2 to 3 offers with different goal mixes	Choice overload	Keep to 3 options, label clearly
Add contingencies	Midgame	“If X, then Y to protect Z goal.”	Unverifiable triggers	Use independent data and caps
Converge single text	Pre-close	One contract including governance	Scope creep	Change log and approval path
Scorecard review	Post-close	Day 30 to 60 review on metrics	Drift or regret	Adjust via pre-agreed levers

Ethics, Culture, and Relationship Health

•Respect autonomy and transparency. Make all major goals and tradeoffs explicit. Avoid hidden constraints or dark patterns (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

•Fairness and legitimacy. Use objective criteria for claiming. Explain your logic and invite counter-evidence (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

•Cross-cultural notes.

•Direct styles prefer explicit weights and criteria.

•Indirect or high power-distance contexts benefit from private sponsor previews and face-saving sequencing.

Relationship-safe behavior. Use neutral language, credit good-faith moves, and provide off-ramps such as pilots or pause clauses.

Review & Iteration

•Post-negotiation debrief prompts: Which goals were achieved or missed? Which trades created the most value? Where did tone or process harm a goal?

•Lightweight improvements: Rehearse your goal statement. Red-team your MESO grid. Use a neutral scribe for the single text and change log.

•Institutionalize: Keep a goals-to-tools map so teams can reuse proven bundles and contingencies (Raiffa, 1982; Thompson, 2015).

Conclusion

MGA shines when you must optimize more than price: complex sales, strategic partnerships, resilient procurement, and role design. It converts hidden interests into explicit goals, then uses structured options and principled claiming to reach durable agreements. Avoid MGA only when you face a one-shot, price-only auction.

Actionable takeaway: Before your next negotiation, write three goals, weight them, and prepare a three-option MESO that maps to those weights. Open the meeting by sharing the goals and the path.

Checklist

•Define BATNA and reservation points across issues.

•Publish and weight multiple goals early.

•Use MESO and contingent terms to reflect different goal mixes.

•Converge to a single text with governance and a change log.

•Run a 30 to 60 day review against a shared scorecard.

Avoid

•Hiding non-price goals until late.

•Conceding without reciprocity.

•Vague or unverifiable contingencies.

•One-size-fits-all offers that ignore the other side’s priorities.

•Hard-line tone that undermines trust.

References

•Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton University Press.**

•Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes. Penguin.

•Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. (2007). Negotiation Genius. Bantam.

•Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.

•Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson.