個案總覽

A two-party, multiple-issue dollar-scoring negotiation exercise dealing with the formation and terms of an IT-industry joint venture. Subordinates have made some progress on several issues but have reached an impasse. Division heads will now attempt to reach a resolution.

Most executives know the basics of negotiation; some are spectacularly adept. Yet even experienced negotiators routinely leave money on the table, end up in deadlock, damage relationships, or allow conflicts to spiral. They fall prey to common mistakes that keep them from solving the right negotiation problem. In any negotiation, each side ultimately chooses between two options: accepting a deal or taking its best no-deal option - that is, the course of action if a deal were not possible. As a negotiator, you seek to advance your interests by persuading the other side to say yes to a proposal that meets your interests better than your best no-deal option. Because the other side will say yes only to a proposal that meets its own interests better than its best no-deal option, you must understand and shape your counterpart's decision so that it chooses in its own interest what you want. Far from being exercises in manipulation, understanding your counterpart's interests and shaping the decision so that the other side agrees to a proposal for its own reasons are the keys to jointly creating and claiming sustainable value from a negotiation. In this article, James Sebenius compares good negotiating practice with bad, providing examples from the business world and insights from 50 years of research and analysis on negotiation. The author describes six common mistakes that result in merely effective negotiation: neglecting your counterpart's problem, letting price bulldoze other interests, letting positions drive out interests, searching too hard for common ground, neglecting no-deal alternatives, and failing to correct for skewed vision.

Details former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky's strategic and tactical approach to surmounting the barriers laid out in the (A) case.

Describes the challenges former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky faced while negotiating a trade agreement with China to improve its domestic intellectual property rights enforcement. After briefly describing Barshefsky's past experience with trade negotiations, this case discusses the history of U.S.-China trade relations and analyzes Ambassador Barshefsky's strategy in coalition-building in the United States and abroad.

MBA student Doyle Williams searches for his ideal job in a private equity group and uses his negotiation skills to try to attain the best possible compensation package. A rewritten version of an earlier case.

Supplements the (A) case.

Summarizes contents of two full-length cases. The cases provide examples of two different approaches to managing complex multi-party negotiations with stakeholders. A rewritten version of an earlier case.

Recounts two complex negotiations in which Netscape and Microsoft compete to win a browser contract with AOL--then later with KPMG. After reviewing the web and browser sectors, this case recounts AOL's dramatic negotiations with Netscape and with Microsoft over which firm's web browser would be used by the online service. A path-breaking deal was announced between AOL and Netscape to use Navigator as the "default" AOL browser, only to be undermined the next day by an AOL-Microsoft deal that designated Microsoft Explorer as the "preferred" AOL browser. The deal also put an AOL icon, the Windows desktop, the "world's most valuable cyber-real estate." Describes the first stages of a see-saw negotiation the following year in which Netscape and Microsoft were again competing, but this time for a major deal with KPMG. Concludes as KPMG has awarded the contract to Netscape with Microsoft still scrambling to get the business.

Supplements the (A) case.

The dynamics of a linked series of internal and external negotiations involved in launching, growing, and selling a high-tech, Internet start-up are explored. Steve Perlman unfurled an impressive new technology, recruited a top technical and management team, secured seed capital, laid the groundwork for later stages of financing, initiated alliances with content and Internet service providers, maneuvered into negotiation with major consumer electronics players Sony and Philips (for manufacturing and distribution), and ultimately had to decide on his strategy for possibly selling the firm. WebTV provided a low-cost, easy-to-use set-top box that linked televisions to the Internet, allowing users instant web access.

The dynamics of a linked series of internal and external negotiations involved in launching, growing, and selling a high-tech, Internet start-up are explored. Steve Perlman unfurled an impressive new technology, recruited a top technical and management team, secured seed capital, laid the groundwork for later stages of financing, initiated alliances with content and Internet service providers, maneuvered into negotiation with major consumer electronics players Sony and Philips (for manufacturing and distribution), and ultimately had to decide on his strategy for possibly selling the firm. WebTV provided a low-cost, easy-to-use set-top box that linked televisions to the Internet, allowing users instant web access.

Faced with vexing financial challenges in 1993, British Aerospace (BAe) is determined to shed its loss-making automaker, Rover. It offers to sell its stake in Rover to Honda, Rover's partner since 1979, but Honda is reluctant to raise its stake in Rover. Meanwhile, BMW approaches BAe with a confidential bid to buy out Rover. This case places these developments within the context of the history of the British auto industry, Rover's heritage, evolution of the Honda-Rover partnership, and the rationale for BMW's interest in Rover. The case series describes subsequent developments.

Supplements the (A) case.

Supplements the (A) case.

Supplements the (A) case.

The issues of the impending negotiation between the CEO of Foxwoods and the governor of Connecticut over lifting the ban on slot machines at Foxwoods are presented. Reviews the gaming business in the United States, the special history of Indian gaming, the Pequot Tribe, the battle over casino gambling in Connecticut, and the early success of Foxwoods. A fiscal crisis sets the stage for a possible deal.

The approach taken by Michael Brown and Governor Lowell Weicker and the means by which the agreement's sustainability was enhanced in the face of attacks by other gaming operators are detailed.

Picks up the negotiation between Thermo-Impact and Medallion Capital where the (A1) and A2) cases leave off. The companies began talks in 1995 when Medallion offered to buy Thermo-Impact. This case brings the negotiation through May 1996. Students view developments from the perspective of Thermo-Impact's owners and must make decisions about how to proceed in the negotiation with Medallion. of class.

Carries the negotiation between Thermo-Impact and Medallion Capital through October 1996. The companies began talks in 1995 when Medallion offered to buy Thermo-Impact. Students view developments from the perspective of Thermo-Impact's owners and must make decisions about how to proceed in the negotiation with Medallion. Can be taught over a span of two or three class periods.

Precision Controls is a Minnesota-based manufacturer of electronic control devices. To enhance its product line, Precision would like to establish an artificial intelligence research group, either through internal development or, preferably, by merging with or acquiring a firm that has strong artificial intelligence capabilities. Automated Intelligence Corp. (AIC), a New York-based research and development firm specializing in artificial intelligence, is an attractive candidate for a merger. For accounting reasons, a merger--if it is to take place--must be accomplished through an exchange of shares. It is up to representatives of both companies to negotiate a mutually agreeable ratio at which all of the shares of AIC can be exchanged for shares of Precision. A rewritten version of an earlier case.