個案總覽

Campbell siblings Thomas and Sally are faced with selling their childhood home. They need to make several difficult consequential decisions, all the while navigating their contentious relationship. Did it make sense to hire a broker, or should they go it alone? How much was the home worth? What should the listing price be? Most importantly, what combination of answers would get them the best outcome? And along the way, as they gather information to answer these questions, several unforeseen events occur.

Campbell siblings Thomas and Sally are faced with selling their childhood home. They need to make several difficult consequential decisions, all the while navigating their contentious relationship. Did it make sense to hire a broker, or should they go it alone? How much was the home worth? What should the listing price be? Most importantly, what combination of answers would get them the best outcome? And along the way, as they gather information to answer these questions, several unforeseen events occur.

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.

Chinese companies are increasingly investing in companies overseas. But to reach advantageous agreements with Chinese direct investors, Western managers need to prepare themselves for differences in negotiating style.

In 1976, a growing crisis in Southern Africa drew the attention of United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. White Rhodesian leader Ian Smith's refusal to accede to black majority rule threatened to widen into a regional conflict involving apartheid South Africa and newly independent leftist African states. Kissinger and others feared that the region was on the brink of becoming a new battleground in the Cold War. In light of these developments Kissinger decided to intervene, seeking a negotiated solution that might bring about a peaceful end to minority rule. The account in this case carefully describes-but does not analyze nor draw lessons from-these challenging circumstances.

In 1976, United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger conducted a series of intricate, multiparty negotiations in Southern Africa to persuade white Rhodesian leader Ian Smith to accede to black majority rule. Conducted near the end of President Gerald Ford's term in office and against substantial U.S. domestic opposition, Kissinger's efforts culminated in Smith's public announcement that he would accept majority rule within two years. This set the stage for the later Lancaster House negotiations that resulted in the actual transition to black majority rule. The account in this case carefully describes-but does not analyze nor draw lessons from-these challenging negotiations.

In the fall of 2016, the Crimson, Harvard's undergraduate newspaper, broke a story revealing that the 2012 Harvard Men's Soccer team had produced a sexually explicit "scouting report" about the Women's Soccer team. The story generated national headlines and thrust gender issues, and the University, into the media spotlight. In the following months, the breadth of this type of practice was revealed; the "scouting reports" had been an annual tradition of the Men's Soccer team, and the Cross Country team admitted to similar practices. This case follows the decision-making of Harvard administrators as they deal with the discovery of the scouting report. In addition to exploring leadership through crisis, the case challenges readers to explore the boundaries of appropriateness in how we think and talk about interpersonal attraction.

Paktor is a popular mobile-based online dating app from Singapore, where a user can swipe right or left on a profile to indicate her interest in a potential match. The case is designed to explore issues related to pricing, market design, and launch strategies in the context of online marketplaces. Students are asked to evaluate Paktor's existing design features and pricing, and formulate recommendations on design choices, pricing, and global expansion.

Drawing from a wealth of negotiation research, my previous installment of Negotiating Life advised negotiators to make the first offer if they can. But sometimes they can't. Sometimes, despite a negotiator's best efforts, the other side moves first. In this article, I provide a framework for responding to another negotiator's first offer, suggesting that the appropriate response varies markedly depending on the quality of the offer. This makes for a more comprehensive strategy for making and managing early offers in a negotiation.

Describes decision analysis, a systemic approach for analyzing decision problems. A running example illustrates problem structuring (decision trees), probability assessment and endpoint evaluation, folding back the tree as a method of analysis, and sensitivity analysis.

Most people believe that negotiators should avoid making the first offer. Yet, decades of research have documented the first-offer effect, wherein the person who moves first achieves a better outcome than the person who moves second. This gap between lay beliefs and research evidence may stem, in part, from the fact that studies on the first-offer effect are scattered across numerous scientific articles and journals. In hopes of bridging the gap and providing useful guidance to negotiators, this installation of Negotiating Life seeks to synthesize the evidence in one place. Reviewing many of the major articles on the first-offer effect, it concludes that negotiators should generally strive to make the first offer for specific reasons, in specific situations, and in a specific fashion.

By June 2012, Stephan Aarstol felt that he had successfully passed the first critical stage of his ecommerce business. As the founder and CEO of a standup paddleboard (SUP) business, he had built a strong relationship with Asian manufacturers, built a small warehouse and fulfillment center, designed an innovative line of inflatable SUPs, and built an ecommerce website that sold boards and accessories to consumers. After the rising trend in interest for the sport provided a strong wave of growth in sales, Aarstol contemplated the next stage at Tower Paddle Boards. Should he partner with Amazon to sell his full line of boards--manufactured under his brand--and accessories--manufactured by other brands? Should he sell to Amazon? Should he sell on Amazon marketplace? Or should he avoid the powerful online retail giant altogether?

In legal disputes, contested insurance claims, and similarly adversarial negotiations, one party is likely to open with an inflated claim or a lowball offer. And if the other side's position is unreasonable, it may make little sense to be reasonable yourself. But if everyone routinely came to a dispute with a realistic starting position, the offers would be more or less aligned, and any negotiation that followed would most likely be relatively civil, speedy, and fair. How can a negotiator who wants to be fair from the start ensure that his or her counterpart will be reasonable as well? The authors propose the "final-offer arbitration" challenge, which leverages an approach first applied in labor negotiations in the 1960s. You can employ this tactic by opening with a demonstrably fair offer and then--if the other party is unreasonable--extending a challenge to take the competing offers to an arbitrator who must choose one or the other rather than a compromise between them (the usual outcome of conventional arbitration). The authors describe how AIG used the approach and how other companies can begin to adopt it.

This two-party case is designed to teach negotiation within the context of turnaround management, stakeholder management, change management or public sector negotiation. The negotiation between Sudhir Kumar, Officer on Special Duty to the Minister of Railways, and Gaurav Malik, Chief Engineer, is about how to maximise revenues for the ailing Indian Railways, notably by increasing rolling stock axle loads without compromising safety. The case emphasizes the tension between commercial gains and social needs, but also lends itself to discussions about safety, corruption, government and business in India.

Supplement to case IN1231. This two-party case is designed to teach negotiation within the context of turnaround management, stakeholder management, change management or public sector negotiation. The negotiation between Sudhir Kumar, Officer on Special Duty to the Minister of Railways, and Gaurav Malik, Chief Engineer, is about how to maximise revenues for the ailing Indian Railways, notably by increasing rolling stock axle loads without compromising safety. The case emphasizes the tension between commercial gains and social needs, but also lends itself to discussions about safety, corruption, government and business in India.

People, including negotiators, lie every day, so when you're trying to make a deal, it's important to defend against deception. The best strategy, says the author, is to focus not on detecting lies but on preventing them. She outlines five tactics that research has shown to be effective: (1) Encourage reciprocity. You can build trust and prompt other parties to disclose strategic information by sharing information yourself. (2) Ask the right questions. Negotiators often lie by omission, keeping mum about relevant facts, but if directly asked, they are more likely to respond honestly. (3) Watch for dodging. Don't let your counterparts sidestep your questions--write them down in advance, take notes on the answers, and make sure you get the information you're seeking. (4) Don't dwell on confidentiality. Studies show that the more you reassure others that you'll protect their privacy, the more guarded and apt to lie they become. So be nonchalant when discussing sensitive topics. (5) Cultivate leaks. People often reveal information unwittingly, so listen carefully for any slips and try indirect approaches to gaining information.