Seven years ago, two of the three partners of a company worked in tandem to remove the other partner through legal trickery. Now, if they are to save their company, they need to resolve their differences with the partner they expelled, who is still angry with them. The case depicts a real-life story of a negotiation between former partners where there is a lack of trust, hurt feelings, and an equal potential to create value on the one hand, and misunderstandings and further conflict on the other. It provides the possibility to negotiate either one on one (cases A and B), or in teams of two (cases C, D, E), thereby allowing the instructor to explore the negotiation team dynamics.
Seven years ago, two of the three partners of a company worked in tandem to remove the other partner through legal trickery. Now, if they are to save their company, they need to resolve their differences with the partner they expelled, who is still angry with them. The case depicts a real-life story of a negotiation between former partners where there is a lack of trust, hurt feelings, and an equal potential to create value on the one hand, and misunderstandings and further conflict on the other. It provides the possibility to negotiate either one on one, or in teams of two, thereby allowing the instructor to explore the negotiation team dynamics.
Seven years ago, two of the three partners of a company worked in tandem to remove the other partner through legal trickery. Now, if they are to save their company, they need to resolve their differences with the partner they expelled, who is still angry with them. The case depicts a real-life story of a negotiation between former partners where there is a lack of trust, hurt feelings, and an equal potential to create value on the one hand, and misunderstandings and further conflict on the other. It provides the possibility to negotiate either one on one, or in teams of two, thereby allowing the instructor to explore the negotiation team dynamics.
Seven years ago, two of the three partners of a company worked in tandem to remove the other partner through legal trickery. Now, if they are to save their company, they need to resolve their differences with the partner they expelled, who is still angry with them. The case depicts a real-life story of a negotiation between former partners where there is a lack of trust, hurt feelings, and an equal potential to create value on the one hand, and misunderstandings and further conflict on the other. It provides the possibility to negotiate either one on one, or in teams of two, thereby allowing the instructor to explore the negotiation team dynamics.
Seven years ago, two of the three partners of a company worked in tandem to remove the other partner through legal trickery. Now, if they are to save their company, they need to resolve their differences with the partner they expelled, who is still angry with them. The case depicts a real-life story of a negotiation between former partners where there is a lack of trust, hurt feelings, and an equal potential to create value on the one hand, and misunderstandings and further conflict on the other. It provides the possibility to negotiate either one on one, or in teams of two, thereby allowing the instructor to explore the negotiation team dynamics.
A multi-issue 1-on-1 negotiation between an aging Italian entrepreneur in North Africa (Luca Lombardi) and a young M&A specialist from a large Asian corporation (Anna Chuan). All the due diligence has been completed and the parties are now ready to discuss the price for the Lombardi company. Role-players can either fall into bargaining (an exchange of numbers) since their ideas of what the company is worth are completely at odds, or discuss the assumptions behind their numbers and valuations to reach a legitimate agreement for both parties.
A multi-issue 1-on-1 negotiation between an aging Italian entrepreneur in North Africa (Luca Lombardi) and a young M&A specialist from a large Asian corporation (Anna Chuan). All the due diligence has been completed and the parties are now ready to discuss the price for the Lombardi company. Role-players can either fall into bargaining (an exchange of numbers) since their ideas of what the company is worth are completely at odds, or discuss the assumptions behind their numbers and valuations to reach a legitimate agreement for both parties.
A multi-issue one-on-one negotiation between a young entrepreneur (John Ambitchious) and a close-to-retirement CEO of a large corporation (George Gried). John and George are considering becoming partners on a venture John is setting up. Besides negotiating the partnerhship details, George currently works for a potential competitor, thus raising ethical tensions that should be negotiated before committing to a final deal.
A multi-issue one-on-one negotiation between a young entrepreneur (John Ambitchious) and a close-to-retirement CEO of a large corporation (George Gried). John and George are considering becoming partners on a venture John is setting up. Besides negotiating the partnerhship details, George currently works for a potential competitor, thus raising ethical tensions that should be negotiated before committing to a final deal.
This is a two-party negotiation between a pharmaceutical company and a government agency to decide if a new medication will be put on the reimbursement list. The pharmaceutical company has a valuable new product, the government has semi-monopolistic power over whether (or not) drugs are listed. The role-play allows participants to negotiate given the inherent value-creation limitations of the setting.
This is a two-party negotiation between a pharmaceutical company and a government agency to decide if a new medication will be put on the reimbursement list. The pharmaceutical company has a valuable new product, the government has semi-monopolistic power over whether (or not) drugs are listed. The role-play allows participants to negotiate given the inherent value-creation limitations of the setting.