In 2019, members of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team (WNT) filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation. The case describes the history of the WNT's quest for equal pay leading up to this event.
This case follows the co-founder and president, Marla Felcher, of The Philanthropy Connection (TPC). TPC is a nonprofit organization that centers around collective giving: members of TPC make an annual contribution that is then distributed to select nonprofit organizations via grants. As Felcher works to maximize how much money they can give out via grants, this case allows for a deep dive into the motives for giving and how the organizational structure and processes can tap into why people give. As this case begins with Felcher's founding of TPC and concludes with Felcher desiring to step down from her role as president, this case also allows for a rich discussion around if and when a nonprofit founder should step aside to let the next round of leaders takeover.
Legal Time is a two-party dynamic negotiation simulation. Students take the role of either the prosecution or the defense in a case that centers on a client who has been accused of spear-heading a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This conflict-resolution scenario gives students the opportunity to see how their negotiations are influenced by important situational and behavioral factors - specifically, (i) fairness considerations and self-serving motives, (ii) time pressure, and (iii) learning from one's own experience and the experiences of others.
Legal Time is a two-party dynamic negotiation simulation. Students take the role of either the prosecution or the defense in a case that centers on a client who has been accused of spear-heading a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This conflict-resolution scenario gives students the opportunity to see how their negotiations are influenced by important situational and behavioral factors - specifically, (i) fairness considerations and self-serving motives, (ii) time pressure, and (iii) learning from one's own experience and the experiences of others.
Legal Time is a two-party dynamic negotiation simulation. Students take the role of either the prosecution or the defense in a case that centers on a client who has been accused of spear-heading a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This conflict-resolution scenario gives students the opportunity to see how their negotiations are influenced by important situational and behavioral factors - specifically, (i) fairness considerations and self-serving motives, (ii) time pressure, and (iii) learning from one's own experience and the experiences of others.
This case follows Amira Rashad as she founds BulkWhiz, a Dubai-based buy-in-bulk grocery delivery platform. Following its launch in September 2017, BulkWhiz experiences rapid growth of 30 percent per month in the United Arab Emirates. Despite this initial success, Rashad finds herself at a critical juncture just nine months later, with a number of internal and external negotiations awaiting her. First, she is eager to convince her Chief Technology Officer to come on-board full-time, and needs to finalize details on his transition and compensation. Second, she is wrestling with how to expand her business beyond the UAE market. Finally, she is seeking series A fundraising, to fuel the company's growth. How should she approach and sequence these negotiations, and what obstacles might loom?
This case follows the Program Director of La Ceiba, a Honduras-based microfinance institution, as he navigates four challenging negotiation scenarios involving the organization's loan clients. Students are asked to adopt the perspective of the Program Director and to consider how they would act in these negotiation scenarios that are characterized by unclear objectives and severely asymmetric power dynamics. How should they approach negotiation situations in which the power balance is heavily in their own favor? Should they exert this power and engage in a "hard" negotiation approach? Or, are there circumstances where a "soft" negotiation approach is warranted? In addition to helping students to develop a framework about when to use soft versus hard negotiation approaches, two of the notable lessons that arise are (i) the role of apologies after misusing power, and (ii) how even "using one's power for good" can translate into paternalistic outcomes.
This case follows the Program Director of La Ceiba, a Honduras-based microfinance institution, as he navigates four challenging negotiation scenarios involving the organization's loan clients. Students are asked to adopt the perspective of the Program Director and to consider how they would act in these negotiation scenarios that are characterized by unclear objectives and severely asymmetric power dynamics. How should they approach negotiation situations in which the power balance is heavily in their own favor? Should they exert this power and engage in a "hard" negotiation approach? Or, are there circumstances where a "soft" negotiation approach is warranted? In addition to helping students to develop a framework about when to use soft versus hard negotiation approaches, two of the notable lessons that arise are (i) the role of apologies after misusing power, and (ii) how even "using one's power for good" can translate into paternalistic outcomes.