個案總覽

This case presents a multi-party negotiation among Yelp, current partner OpenTable, and two startups in the online restaurant reservation industry.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

Peter and Kate Rose are a young couple looking to buy their first home in the Boston area. They have narrowed down a target list to three homes, but are also considering whether it makes sense to buy a home in the first place. They must make decisions regarding which home to buy, a price, a broker, a mortgage package, and how to source a down payment. Both quantitative and qualitative factors are considered in their decision making.

While financial statements are the responsibility of management, they are ultimately a product of collaboration between management and their auditors--likely involving negotiations over proposed audit adjustments. This installment of Accounting Matters discusses the implications of prior research in psychology and social psychology regarding negotiations as applied to the context of auditor-client management negotiations. Specifically, we consider recently published research by Hatfield and colleagues regarding how these auditor-client discussions may be influenced in unexpected ways if not viewed through the lens of negotiation. This research finds that explicit consideration of negotiation characteristics (e.g., whether the unaudited financial statement data is the 'first offer' of client management, whether negotiations have created reciprocity pressures for the current negotiation) can influence these auditor-client discussions in predictable ways. Understanding the unconscious biases resulting from these 'negotiation rules' is key for auditors to effectively translate audit quality into improved financial statement quality.

Following a brief summary of Henry A. Kissinger's career, this case describes three of his most pivotal negotiations: the historic establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, the easing of geopolitical tension with the Soviet Union, symbolized by the signing of the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty ("SALT I"), and the mediation of the agreement on Sinai disengagement between Egypt and Israel. An appendix lists other important negotiations in which Kissinger played key roles.

Fictitious Colburn University boasts many "amenities" for its students, including cafes, a gymnasium, and U.V. tanning salon Campus Tans. Meredith Tang, a law student originally from Australia, and Barbara Holly, a public health student, cannot believe that this insidious industry has infiltrated campus life and worse yet seems to be promoted by the school, or at least is allowed to advertise on campus. Soon these students turned activists begin a campaign to evict the salon; however, they quickly discover that evicting Campus Tans may not be as easy as they thought. As the story ends, the student activists sit down to a meeting with school officials and the owner of the salon to negotiate an agreement that protects the health of Colburn students while balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders.

When contracting in a global environment, basic cultural differences increase the risk of misunderstandings. Culture generally provides the context for contract language and shapes the parties' most basic assumptions regarding their respective rights and responsibilities. Businesses must recognize, respect, and reconcile cultural differences if they hope to contract successfully in the global environment. For U.S. and Chinese businesses to better understand how to successfully negotiate and carry out contractual relations with one another, they must recognize the differences in core cultural values between the two countries and develop strategies for reconciling these differences. Bridging these cultural differences adds value to business transactions and minimizes the risk of failure. To help managers recognize and understand cultural differences between the U.S. and China, this installment of Business Law & Ethics Corner focuses on five dimensions of the culture of the U.S. and China: individualism/collectivism, universalism/particularism, power distance, context, and direction. These aspects explain some of the major differences in viewing the law and approaching contracts. To help managers navigate these cultural differences, this article offers guidance regarding how to respect and reconcile cultural predispositions to achieve true synergies. By bridging these cross-cultural differences between the U.S. and China, managers can achieve the mutual expectations necessary to the long-term success of cross-cultural business transactions.

Alliances have become a core component of many firms' strategy, but they are often characterized by a high level of instability that can lead to failure. Ambiguity is an intrinsic aspect of strategic alliances and effective management of it determines how well the partners are able to make the alliance work. Alliances are subject to three types of ambiguity-partner, interaction, and evaluative-that are important at different stages of alliance evolution. Partner-related ambiguity is most prevalent at the formation stage of the alliance, interaction ambiguity at the operational stage, and evaluative ambiguity at the outcome stage. This article examines the mechanisms by which firms can best manage these different types of ambiguity to achieve a successful alliance.

The case describes a dispute between the management of Dr. Reddy's and a trade union over the employment terms of contract workers. However, as events unfold over a period of 100 days, one realizes that this dispute reflects several underlying issues, such as accommodating untrained and less skilled contract workers when expertise and automation is what is required for meeting global standards, meeting the challenge of operating from a developing country characterized by local/ traditional value systems and approaches and at the same time having to meet the expectations of customers in the developed world. Basically the organization was struggling to reconcile the livelihood needs of it's unskilled contract workers with the competitive realities faced by the corporation. Had it been a straightforward matter of a wage dispute, the negotiation and settlement of the issue would have been far simpler. But when the dispute over service conditions is only a tip of the iceberg in a multi-stakeholder context, the dilemmas and negotiations become far more complex. Thus, the case presents an opportunity to explore several subjects, such as negotiations, dilemmas of companies from developing countries with an internationalization agenda, learning and general management.

Supplement to case 914049. This case is about a compensation change at an automotive service company in the Middle East. The case allows investigation and analysis of many issues related to compensation design and human resource management, and even change management. The focus of the case is all the ways in which bad incentive design leads to dysfunctional behavior. In particular, a crucial issue is whether individual incentives are best or whether team incentives are best, and why. In the B and C cases, the case rolls out in sequence as more and more information is revealed to students so the unfolding of events keeps students interested and engaged in how to solve the various problems that arise, including a near mutiny.

This case is about a compensation change at an automotive service company in the Middle East. The case allows investigation and analysis of many issues related to compensation design and human resource management, and even change management. The focus of the case is all the ways in which bad incentive design leads to dysfunctional behavior. In particular, a crucial issue is whether individual incentives are best or whether team incentives are best, and why. In the B and C cases, the case rolls out in sequence as more and more information is revealed to students so the unfolding of events keeps students interested and engaged in how to solve the various problems that arise, including a near mutiny.

This case is about the response of the US government to the excessive compensation of executives following the market collapse of 2008. In particular, the case focuses on the special committee that was formed to oversee and regulate any financial companies that had borrowed money from the US government to stay afloat. The protaganist is Kenneth Feinberg, who is appointed as Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation and who has the challenging task of negotiating compensation amidst all of the many competing interests.

The bulk of the case consists of background material, explaining why the Bush Administration favored the negotiation of such a pact, though it reversed 30 years of US foreign policy with respect to nuclear weapons proliferation. It summarizes several important topics, crucial to understanding the issues involved in the negotiation of the joint statement: the history of US-Indian relations, India's history with respect to nuclear weapons, and issues in the international nuclear non-proliferation agreements. It gives an example of the kind of word-smithing Burns and Saran would have to engage in, to complete the joint statement. And it explains, in brief, five areas of particular difficulty that the two diplomats would have to address in some fashion. A brief sequel describes an 11th hour crisis in the negotiation and its resolution, provides the text of the final joint agreement, and very briefly summarizes the final outcome of the three-year negotiation that followed. Case Number 2023.0 A 12.5-minute video short, featuring U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, two of the protagonists of the early negotiations that resulted in the India-U.S. Joint Statement of July 2005, provide a behind-the-scenes look at the process that led to that groundbreaking agreement. From the initial distrust between the U.S. and India to the way in which compromises were found to address the two countries' seemingly irreconcilable priorities, Burns and Saran vividly recall the many tense moments and intricate wordsmithing that characterized the meetings and the down-to-the-wire conclusion of the first round of negotiations.

Supplement for HKS890

This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides.Case number 2021.1

This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides. Case number 2021.0