case study conflict and negotiation

Managing conflict effectively in negotiations

Expectations for purchasing professionals have reached new heights, driven substantially by the confluence of global supplier networks, increasing supplier performance expectations, expanding definitions of value, and disruptive digital and analytical capabilities. When these trends overlap, they drive unprecedented complexity in commercial agreements and negotiations. Complexity is hard enough on its own, but it also adds stress to supplier relationships.

One effect we observe in our work with clients is a trend of failed or unsatisfactory negotiations. Unfortunately, when negotiations fail, it is easy to blame the economics of the deal—that there was not enough common economic ground to support a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA). This is by far the most frequent excuse.

However, McKinsey’s research confirms what the most seasoned practitioners postulate: that “process” and “people” problems account for most failed deals—in other words, the deals that don’t happen. In particular, over 70 percent of deal discussions fail to materialize due to these two non-content dimensions. By “process” we mean the actions related to the negotiation, including the overall schedule of negotiations, interaction cadence, meeting locations and agenda, and escalation provisions. By “people” we mean the behaviors of individuals or teams, including tactics and gambits deployed during negotiation; the approach to cooperation and exchanging information; the responsiveness to the counterparty’s requests; general mind-set regarding empathy and understanding the others’ needs; and other related factors.

A second significant finding from McKinsey’s research is a corollary of the first. Specifically, negotiation teams frequently compromise on economics when they could (or should) have solved for process and people . The results are avoidable value loss and, in the longer term, unsustainable deal terms on lead times, quality, intellectual property ownership, volume guarantees, exclusivity provisions, termination clauses, and the like. And, of course, the critical process and people issues remain unaddressed—a threat to the next negotiation.

Why do negotiation teams avoid the process and people dimensions? In most cases, we observe that it is to avoid conflict or to stay out of “the soft stuff.” By contrast, great negotiators confront and control these factors throughout a negotiation. Here are five core techniques that practitioners can use to get started.

Improve communication. Increasing the volume and quality of communication with your counterparty helps to avoid misunderstandings and provides a channel for trust-building techniques, including active listening, deferring judgement, playing back what you hear, and demonstrating empathy where appropriate. The quality of communication is conditioned on behaviors that help to isolate (rather than conflate) points of disagreement, for example by using temperate language and tone, focusing on questions rather than accusations, and providing opportunities for the counterparties to explain, to reason, and to describe their expectations, assumptions, and so forth. A familiar example in this category (in English) is avoiding adverbs such as “never” and “always” which tend to be too absolute.
Take perspective. Putting yourself in the shoes of your counterparties requires authentic curiosity about their needs, interests, and motivations and it can be the fastest way to remove biases in your own thinking and accurately anticipate your counterparty’s next moves. The objective here is to understand their real interests—as opposed to their positions. A questioning attitude and a desire to understand not only improve your chances of doing so; they may also engender mirroring behaviors from the other side of the table.
Eliminate unnecessary escalation. Having a short fuse can complicate any situation. It usually increases the risk of slipping into a downward spiral of negative countermoves, the highly destructive tit-for-tat cycle that presages a failed deal. Avoiding the first step in that cycle means staying away from even the suggestion of a punitive course of action. It can also be helpful to think critically ahead of time whether moves that are intended to be neutral might come across as punitive; for example, stating that senior stakeholders should become involved or consulted can, under some circumstances, imply a threat to escalate over the counterparty’s head.
Uncover issues sooner rather than later. When you suspect that an issue or question may be sensitive for either party, delaying a discussion of it only intensifies the urgency when it is finally addressed. Furthermore, if some dimensions of a solution have already been decided in earlier stages of negotiation, one or more parties may feel cornered or deliberately maneuvered into a foreclosed position. Whether intentional or not, this raises the probability of an angry counter-response. An effective negotiator takes the time to identify and address the most sensitive issues early in the process.
Hit the pause button. When all else fails (and it will), the best course of action is to take a break. Budget substantial time for breaks and use all of it. Fifteen minutes is not so much of a break as four hours or four days. A break should give teams time to reflect and reconstruct what they have experienced, to decide on new behaviors, and to practice them.

In conclusion, the value at stake from mastering the process and people dimensions of negotiation are high. To get started, practice specific behaviors that control conflict, with the objective of securing both better economics and improved relationships with your suppliers.

Milan Prilepok is a senior expert in McKinsey’s New York office, and a lecturer at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Explore a career with us

The era of advanced analytics in procurement has begun

Image_20150310_finding_right_size_for_purchasing_organization

Finding the right size for the purchasing organization

A better procurement incentive model

Editorial Board
Author Guidelines
Review Process
Author Copyright
More for Authors
Reviewer Guidelines
Special Issue Editors
Open Research
Publication Ethics

About the Journal

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (NCMR) publishes articles that develop theory and report research on negotiation and conflict management across levels, including interpersonal conflict, intergroup conflict, organizational conflict, and cross-cultural conflict, across a range of domains including environmental conflict, crisis negotiations, and political conflict, as well as across a variety of approaches, including formal and informal third party intervention, mediation and arbitration.

Our readership includes scholars and practitioners studying conflict management in family, organizational, societal, and international settings.

As of January 2021, NCMR has transitioned from the Wiley Online Library to become an Open Access and Open Science journal hosted by the Carnegie Mellon University Library Publishing Service .

Featured Articles

Tamara Montag-Smit, Cassondra Batz-Barbarich, Karoline Evans, Ursula Sanborn-Overby

Transparency increases negotiation initiation likelihood when it is fair

Micheale Kihishen Gebru, Kjetil Tronvoll

Examining the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Non-Interference Principle as a Conflict Management Strategy in the Horn of Africa

Chih-Chieh Chu, Raymond A Friedman, Shu‐Cheng Steve Chi

Early-Life Power and Self-Interested Behavior: The Interplay Between Past and Present

Shannon Cruz, Xun Zhu, Rachel A Smith, James P Dillard, Lijiang Shen, Xi Tian

Different Politics, Different Realities? The Structure of Partisan Sensemaking About COVID-19

Colleen Tolan, Deborah A Cai, Edward L. Fink

Expectations, Conflict Styles, and Anchors in Negotiation

Mei-Ju Huang

Burnout among Sports Centers’ Frontline Service employees: Does Service Climate matter?

Dominik Sondern, Guido Hertel

Building Negotiator Trust Through Social Presence – Effects of Communication Media and Information Reprocessability on Trust in Negotiations

Mark H Davis, Jake Duggan, Madison [email protected], Octavia Loll, Brittany Poulo

Testing the assumptions underlying the dual concerns model: the role of motivation and emotion regulation skills

Nazli Bhatia, Rosalind Chow, Laurie Weingart, Matthew Diabes

Your Cost or My Benefit? : Effects of Concession Frames in Distributive Negotiations

David Hunsaker, Teng Zhang, McKenzie Rees

An Angry Face and a Guilty Conscience: The Intrapersonal Effects of Fake Anger in Negotiation

Carolin Schuster, Fieke Harinck, Roman Trötschel

Activating an Integrative Mindset Improves the Subjective Outcomes of Value-Driven Conflicts

Catherine Elizabeth Kleshinski, Kelly Schwind Wilson, D Scott DeRue, Donald E Conlon

Does Justice Need to be in the Eyes of Both Beholders? Examining Face-to-Face and Virtual Negotiators’ Interactional Justice Congruence

Jan Alexander Häusser, Emma Halfmann, Joachim Hüffmeier

Negotiating Through the Night: How Sleep Deprivation Can Affect Negotiation Outcomes

Peter Kaiser, Gerald Eisenkopf, Andrej Marc Gabler, Felix L. B. Lehmann

Qualities and Long-Term Effects of Mediation

Wolfram Emanuel Lipp, Remigiusz Smolinski, Peter Kesting

Toward a Process Model of First Offers and Anchoring in Negotiations

Dorit Alt, Yoav Kapshuk

Linking Achievement Goal Orientation to Socio-Cognitive Conflict Regulation in Higher Education

Patricia Oehlschläger, Sandra Haggenmüller, Uta Herbst, Markus Voeth

The Future of Business Negotiations – Current Trends and New Perspectives on Negotiation Behavior

David Hunsaker, Teng Zhang

Getting off to a “Hot" Start: How the Timing of Expressed Anger Influences Relational Outcomes in Negotiation

Yi-Hui Christine Huang, Qinxian Cai

Negotiating Disciplines: A Model of Integrative Public Relations from a Conflict-Resolution Perspective

Deborah A Cai

From Theory to Practice and Back Again: Lessons from Hostage Negotiation for Conflict Management

Michael A Kern, Amanda G Murphy

What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance

Volume 17 • Issue 1 • 2024

Tamara Montag-Smit, Cassondra Batz-Barbarich, Karoline Evans and Ursula Sanborn-Overby

2024-03-10 Volume 17 • Issue 1 • 2024 • 1-40

Micheale Kihishen Gebru and Kjetil Tronvoll

2024-03-10 Volume 17 • Issue 1 • 2024 • 41-71

Chih-Chieh Chu, Raymond A Friedman and Shu‐Cheng Steve Chi

2024-03-10 Volume 17 • Issue 1 • 2024 • 72-105

ConflictandResolution →

No results found in working knowledge.

Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
Try removing some search filters.
Use different search filters.

Masters Degrees
Bachelors Degrees
Associate Degrees
Career Pathways Bridge Program
Online Degree Programs: Bachelor’s, Master’s & Associate’s
Global Offerings
Faculty Spotlight
Faculty Directory
Open Faculty Positions
Policies and Documents
Professional Studies
Continuing Education
Executive Education for Industry Leaders
High School Academy
Areas of study
Divisions & Departments
Professional Pathways
Degree Directory
Graduate Admissions Criteria
Graduate Application Requirements and Deadlines
Graduate Financial Aid
Summer Publishing Institute
Undergraduate
Undergraduate Admissions Criteria
Undergraduate Application Requirements and Deadlines
Undergraduate Financial Aid
Transfer Students
Adult Learning
Your Community
New Students
DAUS: Military Veterans
Global Perspective
Graduate Events
Undergraduate Events
Frequently Asked Questions
Student Success
Academic Advising
Student Life
Resources and Services
University Life
Arts, Culture, and Entertainment
Health and Wellness
Studying in New York City
Travel and Transportation
Policies and Procedures
NYU SPS Wasserman Center
Career Success
Industry Engagement
Hire NYU Talent
Faculty Engagement
STUDENTS & ALUMNI: GET STARTED
Events Central
Office of Events
Meet the Team
SPS Conference Room and Event Spaces
Event Request Form
Event Guidelines
Conferences
Hospitality Conference
Capital Markets in Real Estate
Women in Real Estate
REIT Symposium
NYU Coaching and Technology Summit
Future Workforce Global Summit
NYU SPS Events
Undergraduate Convocation
Graduate Convocation
Student Events
Capstone Fair
Alumni Advantage
Alumni Stories
Current Alumni
Give to NYU SPS
Parents Council
SPS Reunion
NYU SPS Home

International Negotiation: Cases and Lessons

Resources Negotiation case studies

Follow our real-life negotiation case studies and learn how to prepare a humanitarian negotiation step by step.

Understand how to apply the Naivasha Grid , a conceptual framework that supports humanitarian workers to prepare for and manage field negotiations more systematically.

For a more detailed explanation of our negotiation tools, check the CCHN Field Manual on Frontline Humanitarian Negotiation .

Negotiate a vaccination campaign in a conflict area

Negotiate access and assistance in an idp camp, negotiate a vaccination campaign in a conflict area es, negotiate access and assistance in an idp camp es, negotiate a vaccination campaign in a conflict area fr.

Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation

Our main activities

Individual capacity-building workshops
Peer-to-peer activities
Support for humanitarian organisations

Quick links

Terms and conditions
Privacy policy

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Youtube

What is humanitarian negotiation?
Community of practice
Work with us
Individual capacity building workshops
Our research
Field Manual
Negotiation tools
Case studies
Self-care resources
Publications
World Summit on Humanitarian Negotiation

The efficiency of humanitarian response following a disaster depends on how fast coordination structures are established, supply chains are enabled, and human and financial resources are mobilised.

Negotiating in disaster contexts becomes challenging because of the many parties involved. Often, survivors are turned into first responders until traditional humanitarian response mechanisms are set up. Then, when humanitarian actors step in, it’s necessary to negotiate and coordinate the response among the multiple actors.

In 2023, the CCHN launched its research on negotiating in the context of disasters. Since then, we have conducted a series of interviews to understand field practices, produced a report and developed a thematic session with the project to expand this topic in the future.

The CCHN first started researching the topic of communities at the centre of negotiations in the framework of the Middle East Think Tank, a year-long project developed in collaboration with the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.

A group of CCHN community members shared experiences, reviewed litterature and worked with experts from other sectors to identify the main challenges related to the topic.

The group then led focus group discussions to develop good practices and tools that support frontline workers when negotiations involve communities.

Negotiating and operating in contexts affected by gang violence requires a strategic approach. These contexts tend to be volatile, unpredictable and hard to access. Establishing clear communication lines is hindered because gangs are highly fragmented and command changes often.

Research conducted by the CCHN points towards the importance of staff continuity, the need for long-term psychological support and building trust as best strategies to operate in gang-controlled areas.

We continue to work on this topic and offer practical advice to humanitarians working in these contexts.

To assist affected populations, humanitarian professionals often carry out negotiations with the support of interpreters. Communication changes when interpreters are involved, and if the negotiator or interpreter have little experience doing this, challenges arise, and negotiation outcomes suffer.

The CCHN regularly talks to negotiators and interpreters who work together in humanitarian contexts to understand what obstacles they face and how to remove them. Since 2022, we have developed a report, guidelines and learning modules to help interpreters and negotiators improve their working relationship.

Unlike negotiators in other fields, humanitarian negotiators are often exposed to extremely stressful environments over prolonged periods of time in addition to episodic intense pressure peaks.

Research conducted by the CCHN focuses on the causes and consequences of pressure, and best practices to counter it. We have developed a programme to help humanitarians to prepare, handle and reduce pressure, and offer regular meetings to discuss this topic in our community.

Humanitarian negotiations and humanitarian diplomacy are inherently intertwined, but what differentiates them isn’t always clear. Some see humanitarian negotiations as one of the many instruments of humanitarian diplomacy, whereas others see the latter as efforts made at a “higher” level by heads of agencies, heads of state and diplomats.

The CCHN continues to investigate this link to bring more clarity and identify opportunities of synergy between the two types of negotiations.

Humanitarians working in displacement contexts negotiate with multiple counterparts, including governments, camp authorities, host communities and affected people themselves. Negotiations often take place in a politically charged environment where humanitarians operate in a legal grey zone.

Since 2020, the CCHN collects information on negotiations in displacement contexts to understand the challenges faced by humanitarians. We have developed contextual simulations, case studies and workshops to support humanitarian practitioners working in these contexts.

Negotiations around health care are distinctive. They involve not only armed actors, but patients and their families, and are often highly emotional. Humanitarian practitioners must also navigate complex public health systems while maintaining humanitarian principles.

At the request of humanitarian professionals, the CCHN launched its research on the topic of healthcare and negotiations in 2019. Since then, we have developed negotiation workshops and case studies tailored to health care contexts, as well as a learning module on how to de-escalate a tense situation.

Protection remains one of the most challenging humanitarian outcomes to negotiate. It’s considered a “sensitive, abstract, non-priority, and controversial” topic by most humanitarians. This lack of consensus is what makes protection negotiations particularly difficult.

Together with its community, the CCHN has identified common challenges and best practices when negotiating protection outcomes. Out of this research, we developed a negotiation workshop on protection, simulations and a thematic group.

Private military companies, state militaries, government forces and armed groups are some of the most common counterparts humanitarians negotiate with.

These actors, however diverse, follow their own values, beliefs, honour codes and hierarchies. Understanding what makes them tick is key to building trust and negotiating effectively.

At the CCHN, we conduct research on how to best engage with state- and non-state armed groups and make it available for the wider humanitarian community through webinars, thematic sessions and publications.

Negotiating for safe and durable access often feels unstructured and speculative. Working conditions for humanitarian agencies can be difficult, local authorities may not be open to collaboration, and the compromise humanitarian practitioners achieve may not be appropriate to respond to humanitarian needs. So, how do humanitarians gain safe access?

The CCHN conducts research on humanitarian access negotiations. Our work aims to understand how humanitarians gain trust, establish guarantees and evaluate the impact of compromises. We collect best practices and lessons learned and share them during our workshops and in our publications.

Since 2018, the CCHN has investigated the impact of diversity in humanitarian negotiations.

Humanitarian practitioners at different managerial levels have shared their views in how their identity and their counterpart’s identity influenced negotiations they have conducted.

Experiences vary, but most humanitarians explained that during negotiations they stress specific elements of their identity, skills, and background — playing up those that allow them to establish a rapport more easily with their counterparts, and downplaying those that are perceived to be detrimental.

To continue the conversation around diversity, we regularly organise informal discussions to collect experiences, impressions and insights and bring back our findings to the community.

The CCHN supports humanitarian agencies in expanding their internal negotiation capacity by providing bespoke learning and development support for all staff members.

This activity is for you if...

…you are looking to strengthen staff members’ negotiation skills within your organisation. …you would like your internal negotiation training to be informed by recent research and by the practice of hundreds of humanitarian professionals working around the globe.

What will you learn?

The CCHN can support your internal Learning department in the design of a specific curriculum (either ad-hoc or permanent), based on our methodology and in line with your agency’s current challenges and learning strategy.

The curriculum may take a peer-to-peer online/onsite format, or it may be an individual experience through e-learning materials and self-learning.

We provide the requesting agency with access to the complete CCHN learning methodology. Alternatively, we embed learning sessions based on our methodology in an existing learning programme delivered by the agency.

We also support your agency in responding to specific challenges through tailored learning content with a thematic or regional focus.

Who can sign up?

Any humanitarian agency or learning institution.

What language will we speak?

English, French, Spanish and Arabic.

How to sign up?

Please contact us to obtain more information and a tailored proposal.

We support humanitarian agencies or field teams by advising them on negotiating access and protection based on our analytical tools and policy work.

…you are looking for tailored guidance navigating a complex humanitarian scenario. …you wish to be supported in the application of CCHN’s strategic tools to your local challenges.

The CCHN provides different levels of advisory support. Level 1 – Bilateral technical support . We provide guidance to community members and partner organisations through the expertise of CCHN staff and specialised consultants. Level 2 – Specialised research and policy response . The CCHN’s Research and Development team will provide in-depth analysis and guidance, in collaboration with the Operations team and selected members of our community of practice. Level 3 – Direct advisory support . You will be supported by a CCHN Mobile Advisory Team comprising our internal operational capacity as well as external resources.

Discover state-of-the-art negotiation tools, apply them to your own negotiations, and critically reflect with peers while contributing to the advancement of research.

… you would like to “deep dive” into CCHN negotiation tools learned during Peer Workshops, Advanced Humanitarian Negotiation Workshops or Thematic Sessions. … you are testing and practising these tools in your daily professional life and engaging in critical reflection about the tools and your practice with peers and with potential support of CCHN mentors. …you wish to be among the first to test and validate innovative negotiation tools that have been recently developed by CCHN researchers and community members. …you are available and committed to joining at least three Negotiation Lab sessions.

Negotiation Labs are critical discussions and exchanges among field practitioners around existing or pilot tools and models that have been recently elaborated by CCHN researchers or by community members in the context of Thematic Groups. Labs may be co-facilitated by CCHN mentors and other selected members of the CCHN community with extensive humanitarian experience and excellent knowledge of CCHN tools. You will have the opportunity to test the tools, apply them in your negotiations and provide feedback for further development, while also supporting ongoing research efforts.

You should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme.

What is the event format?

Negotiation Labs are organised in small groups, based on demand, over three to five sessions. They take place online and include three to five participants.

Will you receive a certificate?

You will not receive a certificate for this activity.

Negotiation Labs are organised on demand.

Join other humanitarian practitioners and mental health experts over the course of a few days and strengthen your capacity to prepare, manage and recover from high-pressure negotiations.

…you are seeking a safe and confidential space to discuss with other humanitarian professionals about the personal challenges and dilemmas of negotiating under pressure or in high-risk contexts. …you wish to explore the latest tools and methods to identify, manage and cope with stress in complex environments. …(for retreats aimed at training facilitators) you are willing to facilitate similar activities in the future and to organise additional ones in your region.

Retreats will provide you with a safe environment to exchange and new techniques to better prepare, manage, and recover from high-pressure situations. You will learn how to build your resilience and support colleagues facing personal, ethical, and professional dilemmas.

Among the topics tackled during retreats are the mental, emotional and physical dimensions of pressure management and self-care as well as the “before”, “during” and “after” of negotiating under pressure.

You should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme. Retreats are particularly suitable for community members with a strong interest in the CCHN’s mental health and pressure management activities.

Some retreats aim to train new facilitators, providing them with the tools to organise their own workshops. In this case, you should have completed a Training of Facilitators and have a strong interest in the topic of resilience in negotiation under pressure. You should have the commitment and resources to organise at least two sessions / series of sessions / a retreat in your local context within the 12 months following the training.

English, French or Spanish; additional languages may be available for self-organised workshops, depending on the context where the retreat takes place.

Retreats take place in person. They typically last five days (some parallel activities may take place online for the wider community). They feature group discussions and exercises.

Retreats include a maximum of 25 participants. In-person participants should be able to cover flight expenses and visa fees.

Yes. Those who attend the event in its entirety receive a Certificate of Completion.

Visit the special events calendar reserved for CCHN community members and sign up online for the next event.

Learn helpful techniques to become more resilient to pressure during high-stakes negotiations and provide similar support to the members of your team.

…you wish to learn techniques to better prepare, manage, and cope with high-pressure negotiations. …you feel a need to share and exchange confidentially about issues relating to mental health and self-care during negotiation processes. …you would like to become more resilient and prevent the negative impact of pressure in the future. …you are planning to use self-management tools to support your team members through complex negotiations.

The “Prepare for Pressure” programme will help you better understand your behaviour, master your emotions, and learn methods to reduce the impact of pressure during high-stakes negotiations.

The workshop is provided regularly in English, French and Spanish.

The workshops, facilitated by expert pressure management consultants, take place online and are based on the sharing of the participants’ experiences. They include breathing and other body exercises.

The programme is composed of four modules lasting 10 hours in total. Workshops are normally organised every two months. Each event features a maximum of 25 participants.

Create a one-on-one relationship with another humanitarian professional within the CCHN community. Learn from and with a colleague who understands your negotiation context in a safe space for exchange and reflection.

… you are currently negotiating at the frontlines of humanitarian action. … you are looking for ways to strengthen your negotiation skills while discussing your own experience. … you would like to connect with other professionals while stimulating reflection, critical thinking, exchange of ideas, and brainstorming.

Mentors expand their negotiation expertise while developing soft skills like active listening, critical thinking, and providing feedback.

Mentees gain access to a safe, confidential space of reflection and exchange with an experienced peer negotiator.

Both mentors and mentees should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme. Mentors join the programme upon invitation, depending on the skills and expertise they demonstrate. They attend an onboarding workshop before becoming listed in the CCHN mentors’ database. Mentees can join the programme by submitting an online application. The CCHN team provides them with guidance so they can fully take advantage of the mentoring relationship.

Training and onboarding materials are available in English, French and Spanish; however, the mentoring exchanges can take place in any language shared by the mentor and mentee. The mentors currently available in our database collectively speak more than 80 languages.

Before entering a mentoring relationship, mentors attend an onboarding workshop where they learn about mentoring practices and skills including structuring a mentoring relationship, active listening and providing feedback. They later practice these skills during role-play simulations. Mentees who apply gain access to the CCHN mentoring database, where they can autonomously select and contact the mentor(s) whose profile or expertise best matches their needs. The one-on-one relationship between a mentee and a mentor takes place privately and confidentially according to the participants’ preferences.

The CCHN organises “Mentoring Coffee” events twice per month. All participants are welcome to attend and discuss mentoring practices as a group.

The mentors who attend an onboarding workshop in its entirety receive a Certificate of Completion.

Mentees do not receive a certificate.

Join an informal, regular gathering of humanitarian professionals to discuss a specific negotiation challenge and produce practical guidance for humanitarian colleagues.

…you’re looking to receive practical guidance from other frontline negotiators on your operational challenges. … you are committed to working with other community members towards developing concrete tools, guidelines, or frameworks that can support humanitarian practitioners. …you wish to discuss with experts and researchers, engage yourself in operational research, create space for discussion, and think outside the box to find creative solutions to shared challenges. … you can commit to attending periodic discussions around the group’s topic.

You should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme. You should be committed to developing a particular topic related to humanitarian negotiation.

English or any other language depending on the preference of the group.

Thematic group meetings take place online at regular intervals (typically every 4-6 weeks).

Thematic groups are informal exchanges, and you will not receive a certificate for this activity.

Informal but structured group discussions around a specific negotiation angle or context, either online or in person.

…you’re looking for an informal group exchange on a certain challenge relating to humanitarian negotiations. …you wish to rely on the support of a global network to help you plan and carry out future humanitarian negotiations.

Anyone who has previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme.

Arabic, English, French, or Spanish depending on the geographical focus of each event.

Peer circles may take place online or in connection with in-person events. Their length varies depending on the theme; online events typically last one to two hours. Each event has an average of 20 participants.

Peer circles are informal exchanges; you will not receive a certificate for this activity.

Test your negotiation skills in a realistic scenario and put your knowledge of the CCHN tools into practice.

…you would like to test your understanding of the negotiation tools and methods learned during previous workshops. …you are looking to strengthen your problem-solving skills through roleplay and better prepare for your next negotiation.

Arabic, English, French, or Spanish.

Simulations can take place either in person or online, with the use of virtual interactive boards. They are usually organised as a complement to a Peer Workshop or another learning activity.

A simulation lasts between two and four hours and features a maximum of 30 participants.

Become a CCHN workshop facilitator and help other humanitarian professionals strengthen their negotiation skills while benefitting from their collective expertise. Take your engagement in the CCHN Community of Practice to the next level and lead Peer Workshops for your team or for the wider humanitarian community, with support from the CCHN.

…you are interested in learning facilitation techniques that are applicable across different domains. …you would like to benefit from the expertise of frontline negotiators sharing their own experience and practice. …you wish to share your learning on humanitarian negotiation with members of your organisation or other professionals across the sector. … you are available to facilitate CCHN Peer Workshops both online and onsite.

You will learn facilitation techniques to guide other humanitarian professionals in applying the negotiation methodology developed by the CCHN.

The topics discussed include active listening, effective communication, storytelling and delivering presentations without making use of PowerPoint.

At the end of the training, you will be able to facilitate CCHN Peer Workshops, including by using case studies and simulation exercises.

Active CCHN facilitators gain access to dedicated learning and sharing opportunities, including the Facilitators Annual Meeting.

You should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop as an engaged participant. You should demonstrate a very good understanding of the CCHN negotiation tools and commitment to share your learning with other professionals.

Trainings of Facilitators are available both online and in person. Online workshops include four sessions lasting two hours each and welcome a maximum of 25 participants; they focus on building facilitation skills for online events.

In-person workshops last four full days and welcome a maximum of 15 participants. They are aimed at building skills to facilitate in-person events.

Once you complete the training, you will be invited to join Peer Workshops as a facilitator.

Yes. Those who attend the workshop in its entirety and consequently facilitate at least one Peer Workshop will receive a Certificate of Completion.

Advanced Humanitarian Negotiation Workshops offer participants an opportunity to consolidate their previous learning while acquiring advanced skills and tools to plan, manage or evaluate humanitarian negotiations. You will dive deeper into the behavioral aspects of negotiation through CCHN tools, putting them into practice in context-specific scenarios.

…you took stock of the negotiation tools and strategies discovered during a Peer Workshop and feel the need of more solid or in-depth grounding. … you are interested in advanced and more complex tools to plan and evaluate your negotiations and critically reflect about your current practice. … you wish to improve your negotiations and communication skills, experimenting and learning from mistakes. …you are a mid- or senior-level humanitarian professional carrying out regular negotiations at the frontlines.

Advanced Humanitarian Negotiation Workshops tackle different topics over four days:

Day 1: Designing and understanding the mandate of the negotiation.
Day 2: Understanding your counterpart.
Day 3: Building trust and crafting an argument.
Day 4: Designing a negotiation strategy (optional).

A negotiation simulation completes the workshop on the fourth day. The Advanced Humanitarian Negotiation Workshop is based on the sharing of the participants’ negotiation experience and simulations. You will be asked to (confidentially) share your negotiation stories with the group as a basis for joint discussion and exercises.

You should have previously attended a CCHN Peer Workshop or Executive Programme. You should also have several years of experience negotiating in the field.

English, Spanish and French – with the possibility of live interpretation into other languages.

Advanced Humanitarian Negotiation Workshops may take place online or in person. In-person workshops last for three or four full days, welcoming 16-20 participants. Online workshops can be organised on demand.

Applied Negotiation Workshops help humanitarian professionals develop additional skills to plan and carry out negotiations in specific contexts or around particularly challenging operational topics. Participants are introduced to context-tailored methods, tools and case-studies based on the latest CCHN research and on humanitarian practice.

… you’re seeking to consolidate your previous learning from attending a Peer Workshop. …you wish to acquire advanced skills and tools to plan and evaluate humanitarian negotiation and issue a mandate. …you are a mid- or senior-level humanitarian professional carrying out regular negotiations at the frontlines.

Applied Negotiation Workshops tackle different topics over three days:

Day 1: Humanitarian negotiation as a personal endeavour and institutional process.
Day 2: Humanitarian negotiation as a professional relationship: managing and leveraging risks.
Day 3: Building trust and fostering legitimacy and strategic planning in complex environments.

In-person workshops last for three full days. They feature 16- 20 participants.

A successful negotiation does not only rely on the tools and strategies applied; it also depends on how the negotiator interacts with the counterpart. Learn how to develop negotiation skills including communication, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and conflict management.

… you wish to become more aware of how your behaviour and body cues may affect the outcome of a negotiation. …you’d like to discover additional approaches helping to build a relationship of trust with a counterpart.

Each workshop is divided into four sessions, respectively focusing on:

Self-awareness (social and emotional intelligence, microexpression and emotional triggers, conflict handling styles).
Leading the team into the negotiation process (decision making, delegation and empowerment, making appropriate decisions).
Communicating and transaction (local codes, influencing, listening skills, linguistics, creating trust, intercultural communication).
Roleplay and the behavioural aspects of a negotiation.

Soft skills workshops are usually delivered online over the course of two days; they include roleplay and simulations. They are often organised in connection with another in-person workshop. Each event welcomes an average of 20 participants.

A first step into your CCHN learning pathway and an opportunity to join a global community of humanitarian negotiators. Peer Workshops provide you with knowledge of fundamental negotiation tools which are essential to plan, carry out and evaluate field negotiations. This knowledge will come in handy as you expand your negotiation expertise and prepare for more advanced workshops. Completing a Peer Workshops is a pre-requisite to join the CCHN community of practice and to attend other CCHN learning activities.

…you want to gain a fundamental understanding of negotiation tools and methods, share your negotiation experience and learn from others, connect with frontline negotiators in your region or around a specific topic, and set the foundation to attend more advanced workshops in the future.

Carrying out a context analysis to understand the environment in which the negotiation takes place.
Developing a tactical plan and assembling the right negotiation team.
Critically reflecting on your role in the negotiation and how your counterpart may perceive you.
Identifying the actors that may influence your counterpart.
Understanding your counterpart’s position, reasoning and values.
Defining your own position, your institutional limitations and bottom lines.

You will also discover some basic techniques to de-escalate a high-tension situation. You will then put your new learning into practice during a simulation exercise at the end of the workshop.

You should be a humanitarian professional with a minimum of three years of negotiation experience in a field context. Peer Workshops are open to both national and international staff of humanitarian organisations.

Arabic, English, French, Spanish or Portuguese, depending on the regional focus of each workshop. Learning materials can be translated into additional languages.

Peer Workshops are based on the sharing of the participants’ negotiation experiences. You will be invited to (confidentially) share your own stories with the group as a basis for joint discussion and learning.

Online workshops include six sessions, each lasting two hours (10 hours in total), taking place over the course of either three or five days.

In-person workshops are held over three full days and may feature additional thematic sessions.

The CCHN will accept a maximum of 30 people for in-person workshops and a maximum of 50 people for online workshops.

Visit our public events calendar to discover which of our upcoming workshops is most relevant for you, then submit your application online.

An interactive and confidential safe space for humanitarian decision-makers and senior management to share complex negotiation experiences and better lead negotiation teams as they navigate relationships with difficult counterparts. Completing the Executive Programme allows access into the CCHN community of practice as well as other advanced learning opportunities.

…you are a decision-maker within a humanitarian agency (Country Representative, Country Director, Deputy Director or equivalent level) and act as the mandator in frontline negotiation processes. …you wish to strengthen your leadership in guiding your agency’s negotiation teams. …you wish to build advanced negotiation skills in complex environments while becoming part of a professional network of senior managers.

The Executive Programme makes use of practical exercises, peer exchanges and simulations to encourage learning around the following topics:

Designing adequate strategies for complex humanitarian negotiations.
Sorting information and coping with disinformation in complex environments.
Leading high-stakes negotiations while managing competing agendas.
Managing and leveraging risks in frontline negotiations.
Facing difficult counterparts and regaining trust.
Constructing a positive dialogue on controversial issues.
Developing a collaborative approach and professional culture in complex environments.

Seasoned humanitarian managers currently covering a Country Director, Deputy Director, or equivalent role.

Executive Programme workshops are usually held in person over the course of three days. However, different formats may be available upon request. Each event welcomes an average of 30 participants.

…you want to take a closer look at a specific topic or challenge you face as part of your negotiation processes and receive practical guidance from other professionals.

Thematic sessions are based on CCHN research and on the sharing of the participants’ negotiation experiences. We select operational themes or contexts and tailor the session around them.

Some of the topics we tackled in previous thematic sessions include: negotiating humanitarian access and corridors in sensitive contexts, negotiating with the help of interpreters, managing mis- and disinformation in humanitarian contexts, negotiating with armed groups, negotiating in the context of protection or healthcare operations.

Arabic, English, French, or Spanish depending on the geographical focus or topic of each session.

Thematic sessions may take place either online or in person. Length varies depending on the theme discussed. Each session has an average of 30 participants.

No, you will not receive a certificate for this activity.

Each event welcomes an average of 30 participants.

Visit our public events calendar to discover which of our upcoming workshops is most relevant for you, then submit your application online. frontline-negotiations.org/events [email protected]

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Rethinking Negotiation

Barry Nalebuff
Adam Brandenburger

For decades, negotiators have been working out agreements by focusing on interests, not positions. But the messy problem of how to share the gains created by deals has remained unresolved—until now. The answer, argue Yale’s Nalebuff and NYU’s Brandenburger, lies in accurately identifying and sizing the negotiation “pie,” which they define as the additional value produced by an agreement to work together. It’s the value over and above the sum of the two sides’ best alternatives to a negotiated agreement, or BATNAs.

The pie most people have in their heads, however, is the total value available to be split. Because of this, they argue over the wrong numbers and issues, taking positions that they think are reasonable but that are in fact self-interested.

Once the pie is properly understood, the allocation rule is simple: The parties in a negotiation have an equal claim on the pie, so it should be divided evenly. This is true regardless of what they can accomplish on their own, because both are equally needed to create the gains. This principle can be applied in a variety of increasingly complicated real-world scenarios, which the authors walk readers through in this article.

A smarter way to split the pie

Idea in Brief

The problem.

People don’t understand what’s really at stake in a negotiation. Their misconceptions make it much harder to reach an agreement.

Why It Happens

Negotiators focus on the total amount to be divided, not on the value created by an agreement. That leads to conflicting views on power and fairness.

The Solution

Recognize that the gains to be shared are the additional value the agreement creates over and above the sum of the two sides’ best alternatives. This negotiation pie should be divided equally, because both sides are equally essential to creating it.

Negotiation is stressful. A great deal is at stake: money, opportunity, time, relationships, reputations. Often that brings out the worst in people as they attempt to take advantage of the other side or try to look tough. So wouldn’t we all be better off if there was a way to treat people fairly in a negotiation and get treated fairly in return? In the following pages we’ll offer a simple, practical, field-tested approach that enables you to do just that.

Barry Nalebuff is the Milton Steinbach Professor at Yale School of Management and a cofounder of Honest Tea.
Adam Brandenburger is the J.P. Valles Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University, distinguished professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering, and faculty director of the Program on Creativity and Innovation at NYU Shanghai.

Partner Center

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Appendix A: Case Studies

List of case studies, case study 1: handling roommate conflicts, case study 2: salary negotiation at college corp, case study 3: oecollaboration, case study 4: the ohio connection, case study 5: uber pays the price, case study 6: diverse teams hold court.

Chapter Reference: Section 2.2 Approaches to Conflict

Whether you have a roommate by choice, by necessity, or through the random selection process of your school’s housing office, it’s important to be able to get along with the person who shares your living space. While having a roommate offers many benefits such as making a new friend, having someone to experience a new situation like college life with, and having someone to split the cost on your own with, there are also challenges. Some common roommate conflicts involve neatness, noise, having guests, sharing possessions, value conflicts, money conflicts, and personality conflicts (Ball State University, 2001). Read the following scenarios and answer the following questions for each one:

Which conflict management style, from the five discussed, would you use in this situation?
What are the potential strengths of using this style?
What are the potential weaknesses of using this style?

Scenario 1: Neatness. Your college dorm has bunk beds, and your roommate takes a lot of time making their bed (the bottom bunk) each morning. They have told you that they don’t want anyone sitting on or sleeping in the bed when they are not in the room. While your roommate is away for the weekend, your friend comes to visit and sits on the bottom bunk bed. You tell your friend what your roommate said, and you try to fix the bed back before your roommate returns to the dorm. When they return, your roommate notices that the bed has been disturbed and confronts you about it.

Scenario 2: Noise and having guests. Your roommate has a job waiting tables and gets home around midnight on Thursday nights. They often brings a couple friends from work home with them. They watch television, listen to music, or play video games and talk and laugh. You have an 8 a.m. class on Friday mornings and are usually asleep when they returns. Last Friday, you talked to your roommate and asked them to keep it down in the future. Tonight, their noise has woken you up and you can’t get back to sleep.

Scenario 3: Sharing possessions. When you go out to eat, you often bring back leftovers to have for lunch the next day during your short break between classes. You didn’t have time to eat breakfast, and you’re really excited about having your leftover pizza for lunch until you get home and see your roommate sitting on the couch eating the last slice.

Scenario 4: Money conflicts. Your roommate got mono and missed two weeks of work last month. Since they have a steady job and you have some savings, you cover their portion of the rent and agree that they will pay your portion next month. The next month comes around and your roommate informs you that they only have enough to pay their half of the rent.

Scenario 5: Value and personality conflicts. You like to go out to clubs and parties and have friends over, but your roommate is much more of an introvert. You’ve tried to get them to come out with you or join the party at your place, but they’d rather study. One day your roommate tells you that they want to break the lease so they can move out early to live with one of their friends. You both signed the lease, so you have to agree or they can’t do it. If you break the lease, you automatically lose your portion of the security deposit

Works Adapted

“ Conflict and Interpersonal Communication ” in Communication in the Real World by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Ball State University. (2001). Roommate conflicts. accessed June 16, 2001, from http://cms.bsu.edu/CampusLife/CounselingCenter/VirtualSelfHelpLibrary/RoommateIssues.asx.

Chapter Reference: Section 2.4 Negotiation

Janine just graduated college, she’s ready to head out on her own and get that first job, and she’s through her first interviews. She receives an offer of a $28,000 salary, including benefits from COLLEGE CORP, from an entry-level marketing position that seems like a perfect fit. She is thrown off by the salary they are offering and knows that it is lower than what she was hoping for. Instead of panicking, she takes the advice of her mentor and does a little research to know what the market range for the salary is for her area. She feels better after doing this, knowing that she was correct and the offer is low compared to the market rate. After understanding more about the offer and the rates, she goes back to the HR representative and asks for her preferred rate of $32,500, knowing the minimum that she would accept is $30,000. Instead of going in for her lowest amount, she started higher to be open to negotiations with the company. She also sent a note regarding her expertise that warranted why she asked for that salary. To her happy surprise, the company counter offered at $31,000—and she accepted.

What key points of Janice’s negotiation led to her success?
What could have Janice done better to get a better outcome for her salary?

“ Conflict and Negotiations ” in Organizational Behaviour by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

“Good & Bad Salary Negotiations,” Salary.com , April 19, 2018, https://www.salary.com/articles/good-bad-examples-of-salary-negotiations .

Herner, M. (n.d). 5 things HR wishes you knew about salary negotiation. Payscale.com, accessed October 21, 2018, https://www.payscale.com/salary-negotiation-guide/salary-negotiation-tips-from-hr .

Chapter Reference: Section 3.2 Creating, Maintaining, and Changing Culture

At OECollaboration, a technology company that develops virtual collaboration software for new companies, Mike Jones is a new manager. One of the biggest challenges he has faced is that the team that he is managing is well established and because he is an outsider, the team members haven’t yet developed trust in him.

Two weeks into his new employment, Mike held a meeting and discussed all of the changes to the remote work agreements as well as implementing new meeting requirements for each employee to have a biweekly meeting scheduled with him to discuss their projects. The team was outraged, they were not excited, and the following days he wasn’t greeted in a friendly way; in addition, his team seemed less engaged when asked to participate in team functions.

Tracy James is also a new manager at OECollaboration who started at the same time as Mike, in a similar situation where she is a new manager of an existing team. Tracy was able to hold a meeting the first day on the job to listen to her team and get to know them. During this meeting she also told the team about herself and her past experiences. Additionally, she held one-on-one meetings to listen to each of her team members to discuss what they were working on and their career goals. After observation and discussion with upper management, she aligned her own team goals closely with the skills and experiences of her new team. She met with the whole team to make changes to a few policies, explaining why they were being changed, and set the strategy for the team moving forward.

Because she got her team involved and learned about them before implementing her new strategy, this was well received. Her team still had questions and concerns, but they felt like they could trust her and that they were included in the changes that were being made.

What challenges can a new manager encounter when starting to manage an existing team?
What strategies can a new manager implement to ensure that their new team is engaged with them and open to change and growth?

Adapted Works

“ Organizational Power and Politics ” in Organizational Behaviour by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Giang, V. (2013, July 31). The 7 types of power that shape the workplace. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-7-types-of-power-that-shape-the-workplace-2013-7

Morin, A. (2018, June 25). How to prevent a workplace bully from taking your power. Inc. https://www.inc.com/amy-morin/how-to-prevent-a-workplace-bully-from-taking-your-power.html

Weinstein, B. (n.d.). 10 tips for dealing with a bully boss,” CIO , accessed October 13, 2018, https://www.cio.com.au/article/198499/10_tips_dealing_bully_boss/.

Chapter Reference: Section 4.1 Power

Janey worked as an executive assistant to a product manager at her company: Ohio Connection. Overall, she loved her job; she was happy to work with a company that provided great benefits, and she and found enjoyment in her day-to-day work. She had the same product manager boss for years, but last year, her manager left Ohio Connection and retired. Recently her new manager has been treating her unfairly and showcasing bullying behavior.

Yesterday, Janey came into work, and her boss decided to use their power as her manager and her “superior” to demand that she stay late to cover for him, correct reports that he had made mistakes on, and would not pay her overtime. She was going to be late to pick up her son from soccer practice if she stayed late; she told him this, and he was not happy.

Over subsequent days, her boss consistently would make comments about her performance, even though she had always had good remarks on reviews, and created a very negative work environment. The next time she was asked to stay late, she complied for fear of losing her job or having other negative impacts on her job. Janey’s situation was not ideal, but she didn’t feel she had a choice.

What type of power did Janey’s boss employ to get her to do the things that he wanted her to do?
What negative consequences are apparent in this situation and other situations where power is not balanced in the workplace?
What steps should Janey take do to counteract the power struggle that is occurring with her new manager?

Chapter Reference: Section 5.1 Interpersonal Relationships at Work

Uber revolutionized the taxi industry and the way people commute. With the simple mission “to bring transportation—for everyone, everywhere,” today Uber has reached a valuation of around $70 billion and claimed a market share high of almost 90% in 2015. However, in June 2017 Uber experienced a series of bad press regarding an alleged culture of sexual harassment, which is what most experts believe caused their market share to fall to 75%.

In February of 2017 a former software engineer, Susan Fowler, wrote a lengthy post on her website regarding her experience of being harassed by a manager who was not disciplined by human resources for his behavior. In her post, Fowler wrote that Uber’s HR department and members of upper management told her that because it was the man’s first offense, they would only give him a warning. During her meeting with HR about the incident, Fowler was also advised that she should transfer to another department within the organization. According to Fowler, she was ultimately left no choice but to transfer to another department, despite having specific expertise in the department in which she had originally been working.

As her time at the company went on, she began meeting other women who worked for the company who relayed their own stories of harassment. To her surprise, many of the women reported being harassed by the same person who had harassed her. As she noted in her blog, “It became obvious that both HR and management had been lying about this being his ‘first offense.’” Fowler also reported a number of other instances that she identified as sexist and inappropriate within the organization and claims that she was disciplined severely for continuing to speak out. Fowler eventually left Uber after about two years of working for the company, noting that during her time at Uber the percentage of women working there had dropped to 6% of the workforce, down from 25% when she first started.

Following the fallout from Fowler’s lengthy description of the workplace on her website, Uber’s chief executive Travis Kalanick publicly condemned the behavior described by Fowler, calling it “abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in.” But later in March, Uber board member Arianna Huffington claimed that she believed “sexual harassment was not a systemic problem at the company.” Amid pressure from bad media attention and the company’s falling market share, Uber made some changes after an independent investigation resulted in 215 complaints. As a result, 20 employees were fired for reasons ranging from sexual harassment to bullying to retaliation to discrimination, and Kalanick announced that he would hire a chief operating officer to help manage the company. In an effort to provide the leadership team with more diversity, two senior female executives were hired to fill the positions of chief brand officer and senior vice president for leadership and strategy.

Critical Thinking Questions

Based on Cox’s business case for diversity, what are some positive outcomes that may result in changes to Uber’s leadership team?
If the case had occurred in Canada, what forms of legislation would have protected Fowler?
What strategies should have been put in place to help prevent sexual harassment incidents like this from happening in the first place?

“ Diversity in Organizations ” in Organizational Behaviour by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Della Cava, M. (2017, June 13). Uber has lost market share to Lyft during crisis. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/13/uber-market-share-customer-image-hit-string-scandals/102795024/

Fowler, T. (2017, February 19). Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber. https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber.

Lien, T. (2017, June 6). Uber fires 20 workers after harassment investigation. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-uber-sexual-harassment-20170606-story.html

Uber (2017, February). Company info. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/company-info/

Chapter Reference: Section 5.3 Collaboration, Decision-Making and Problem Solving in Groups

Diverse teams have been proven to be better at problem-solving and decision-making for a number of reasons. First, they bring many different perspectives to the table. Second, they rely more on facts and use those facts to substantiate their positions. What is even more interesting is that, according to the Scientific American article “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” simply “being around people who are different from us makes more creative, diligent, and harder-working.”

One case in point is the example of jury decision-making, where fact-finding and logical decision-making are of utmost importance. A 2006 study of jury decision-making, led by social psychologist Samuel Sommers of Tufts University, showed that racially diverse groups exchanged a wider range of information during deliberation of a case than all-White groups did. The researcher also conducted mock jury trials with a group of real jurors to show the impact of diversity on jury decision-making.

Interestingly enough, it was the mere presence of diversity on the jury that made jurors consider the facts more, and they had fewer errors recalling the relevant information. The groups even became more willing to discuss the role of race case, when they hadn’t before with an all-White jury. This wasn’t the case because the diverse jury members brought new information to the group—it happened because, according to the author, the mere presence of diversity made people more open-minded and diligent. Given what we discussed on the benefits of diversity, it makes sense. People are more likely to be prepared, to be diligent, and to think logically about something if they know that they will be pushed or tested on it. And who else would push you or test you on something, if not someone who is different from you in perspective, experience, or thinking. “Diversity jolts us into cognitive action in ways that homogeneity simply does not.”

So, the next time you are called for jury duty, or to serve on a board committee, or to make an important decision as part of a team, remember that one way to generate a great discussion and come up with a strong solution is to pull together a diverse team.

If you don’t have a diverse group of people on your team, how can you ensure that you will have robust discussions and decision-making? What techniques can you use to generate conversations from different perspectives?
Evaluate your own team at work. Is it a diverse team? How would you rate the quality of decisions generated from that group?

Sources: Adapted from Katherine W. Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific American, October 2014, p. 7–8.

“ Critical Thinking Case ” in Organizational Behaviour by OpenStax is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Share This Book

About our Courses
Sales Negotiation Training
Procurement Negotiation Training
Essential Negotiator
Negotiation Simulation Game
Advanced Negotiation Training
Customized Negotiation Training
Open Enrolment Calendar
Course Comparison
All Resources
Case Studies
Definitions

Home » Resources » Case Studies » Win-Win Negotiation Case Study

Win-Win Negotiation Case Study

This case study discusses some of the critical errors that can be made in a Management and Union Labour negotiation, where Management were trying to achieve a win-win negotiation.

In trying to create win-win negotiation agreements, one of the biggest mistakes made by negotiators who haven’t taken negotiation training seminars is to deal with the issues on an issue-by-issue basis. This often results in a breakdown in negotiations. Why? Invariably, conflicting monetary issues arise that result in a showdown between the two sides. Negotiating on an issue-by-issue agenda does not present the opportunity to make concessionary trade-offs between the different issues.

This case study typifies the kinds of mistakes it’s easy to make without the right training when aiming for a win-win .

Unexpected Strike

In January 1993, management and labor of Bayou Steel in Laplace, Louisiana, sat down to negotiate a new contract. In this case, neither side dreamed that these talks would lead to a strike. So, each side believed that they had built a solid relationship. In effect, management went into the negotiations believing that if they used a win-win negotiation concept, they would enhance the relationship between the shop floor and management. Even Ron Farraro, president of United Steel Workers of America, didn’t conceive of the possibility that talks would collapse into a strike, and that a negotiated contract would be reached with little or no difficulty.

Management of Bayou Steel enlisted the help of two facilitators from the FMCS (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services). They were to guide management through a win-win style negotiation with its workers. The president of Bayou said that the facilitators helped them identify and study each side’s objectives and concerns, and led him to believe that they had, in effect, resolved 90% of the contract issues.

The facilitators set up an issue-by-issue agenda. They left the economic issues as the final issues for the sides to discuss. These included:

Vacation time

Management believed that they had correctly addressed the employees’ concerns about these pay issues.

What Went Wrong?

However, union members became suspicious about the management’s good intentions to take a win-win approach. They began to believe collectively that the management’s negotiation approach was a disguised ploy meant to undermine their position. This was especially so in the case of the economic issues.

At first, negotiations went relatively well and as predicted. Yet, as the economic issues were placed on the table for discussion, the situation quickly turned upside down into a hard-nosed bargaining negotiation. Management attempted to stay the course with a win-win approach, but this no longer washed with the union. Can you guess what happened? That’s right – union members walked and went out on strike.

By using an agenda to address the format of the contract negotiations, Bayou Steel failed to consider that any single issue could be so divisive. As the economic issues rose to the foreground of the talks, Bayou Steel no longer had leeway in considering trade-offs. They painted themselves into a corner because of their structure of agenda items.

Planning an Effective Agenda

We need to be able to study, compare and contrast all the issues collectively, and by order of relative importance. Package or multiple offers give a greater latitude in finding creative solutions. This is because it gives us more to work with, as opposed to dealing with, issues on a one-on-one basis through a pre-designed case agenda. Planning and using a concession strategy effectively can give one side a big power advantage over the other. So, be careful to plan your agenda wisely.

Share your Feedback Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Chapter 10: Conflict and Negotiations

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

Understand the different types of conflict.
Understand the causes of conflict.
Understand the consequences of conflict.
Understand how to manage conflict effectively.
Understand the stages of the negotiation process.

10.1 Negotiation Failure: The Case of the PointCast

In 1997, a company called PointCast Network Inc. was the hottest start-up in Silicon Valley. Its founder and CEO, Christopher Hassett, was “the most famous guy on the Internet,” said Hassett’s former attorney, Allen Morgan. Hassett was named CNET’s newsmaker of the year—an honour previously bestowed on giants such as Bill Gates of Microsoft and Larry Ellison of Oracle. The “push technology” that PointCast pioneered was making headlines as well as being featured on the cover of Wired as “The Radical Future of the Media beyond the Web.”

Figure 10.1 Patrick Nouhailer – Silicon Valley from above – CC BY-SA 2.0.

All the attention around PointCast motivated one of the world’s largest communications companies—Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation—to make them an offer of $450 million. Negotiations were intense and lasted weeks. With media speculation that PointCast—a company with almost no revenue—deserved to be valued at $750 million, some people say Hassett started believing the hype and, with the support of his board, asked for more money. “People involved in the company thought they’d be the next Netscape. They hung out for more,” Murdoch said. News Corporation instead lowered its initial offer to $400 million but added incentive clauses that brought the offer close to the original $450 million if PointCast met its financial projections.

PointCast also rejected that offer, and News Corporation walked away from the bargaining table. The timing couldn’t have been worse for PointCast, as “push technology” became old news thanks to the maturing of alternatives such as Yahoo! By the time PointCast decided to go public in 1998, the company was valued at half of News Corporation’s last offer. Worse, the process of filing an initial public offering (IPO) requires the company to disclose all potential dangers to investors. PointCast’s disclosures—such as news that customers had left because of poor performance—scared off so many investors that PointCast ultimately withdrew its IPO. By that time Hassett had been forced out by the board, but the company never fully recovered. In the end, PointCast was acquired in 1999 by Idealab for $7 million. In this case, stalled negotiations cost the firm a steep price of $443 million.

Referring to the missed opportunity, an industry expert said, “It may go down as one of the biggest mistakes in Internet history.” According to Steve Lippin, writing in the Wall Street Journal , “Merger professionals point to these euphemistically called ‘social issues’—ego and corporate pride, that is—as among the most difficult aspects of negotiating multibillion-dollar mergers these days. Although financial issues can be vexing too, these social issues can be deal-breakers.”

In a similar and more recent situation in 2008, Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang was ousted by the board of directors following failed deals with Microsoft and Google. Yang’s behaviour during negotiations indicated that he wasn’t interested in bargaining as much as playing “hard to get.” He “kept saying we should get more money, we should get more money, and [he was] not realizing how precarious their position was,” says high-tech analyst Rob Enderle. In other words, even deals that look great financially can fall apart if participants fail to pay attention to organizational behaviour issues such as perception, groupthink, and power and influence (Arnoldy, 2008; Auletta, 1998; Lipin, 1996).

10.2 Understanding Conflict

Let’s take a closer look at these social issues such as conflict to understand how they can derail companies and individuals alike—and what to do to prevent such consequences from happening to you. In this chapter, you’ll see that managing conflict and engaging in effective negotiation are both key for effective organizational behaviour within organizations as well as daily life. Conflicts range from minor annoyances to outright violence. For example, one million workers (18,000 people per week) are assaulted on the job in the United States alone (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1997). One of the major ways to avoid conflicts escalating to these levels is through understanding the causes of conflict and developing methods for managing potential negative outcomes. Negotiation is one of the most effective ways to decrease conflict and will also be examined in depth in this chapter.

Similar to how conflicts can range from minor to major, negotiations vary in terms of their consequences. A high-stakes negotiation at work might mean the difference between a company’s survival and its demise. On the other end of the spectrum, we deal with minor negotiations on a regular basis, such as negotiating with a coworker about which movie to see. Maybe you make a concession: “OK, we’ll watch what you want but I get to pick where we eat.” Maybe you hold tough: “I don’t want to watch anything except a comedy.” Perhaps you even look for a third option that would mutually satisfy both parties. Regardless of the level, conflict management and negotiation tactics are important skills that can be learned. First, let’s take a deeper look at conflict.

Conflict is a process that involves people disagreeing. Researchers have noted that conflict is like the common cold. Everyone knows what it is, but understanding its causes and how to treat it is much more challenging (Wall & Callister, 1995). As we noted earlier, conflict can range from minor disagreements to workplace violence. In addition, there are three types of conflict that can arise within organizations. Let’s take a look at each of them in turn.

Types of Conflict

Intrapersonal conflict.

Intrapersonal conflict arises within a person. For example, when you’re uncertain about what is expected or wanted, or you have a sense of being inadequate to perform a task, you are experiencing intrapersonal conflict. Intrapersonal conflict can arise because of differences in roles. A manager may want to oversee a subordinate’s work, believing that such oversight is a necessary part of the job. The subordinate, on the other hand, may consider such extensive oversight to be micromanagement or evidence of a lack of trust. Role conflict, another type of intrapersonal conflict, includes having two different job descriptions that seem mutually exclusive. This type of conflict can arise if you’re the head of one team but also a member of another team. A third type of intrapersonal conflict involves role ambiguity. Perhaps you’ve been given the task of finding a trainer for a company’s business writing training program. You may feel unsure about what kind of person to hire—a well-known but expensive trainer or a local, unknown but low-priced trainer. If you haven’t been given guidelines about what’s expected, you may be wrestling with several options.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict happens between individuals such as coworkers, managers, or CEOs and their staff. For example, in 2006 the CEO of Airbus S.A.S., Christian Streiff, resigned because of his conflict with the board of directors over issues such as how to restructure the company (Michaels, Power, & Gauthier-Villars, 2006). This example may reflect a well-known trend among CEOs. According to one estimate, 31.9% of CEOs resigned from their jobs because they had conflict with the board of directors (Whitehouse, 2008). CEOs of competing companies might also have public conflicts. In 1997, Michael Dell was asked what he would do about Apple Computer. “What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to shareholders.” Ten years later, Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple Inc., indicated he had clearly held a grudge as he shot back at Dell in an e-mail to his employees, stating, “Team, it turned out Michael Dell wasn’t perfect in predicting the future. Based on today’s stock market close, Apple is worth more than Dell” (Haddad, 2001; Markoff, 2006). In part, their long-time disagreements stem from their differences. Interpersonal conflict often arises because of competition, as the Dell/Apple example shows, or because of personality or value differences. For example, one person’s style may be to “go with the gut” on decisions, while another person wants to make decisions based on facts. Those differences will lead to conflict if the individuals reach different conclusions. Many companies suffer because of interpersonal conflicts. Keeping conflicts centered around ideas rather than individual differences is important in avoiding a conflict escalation.

Intergroup Conflict

Figure 10.2 Conflicts such as the Air Canada pilot strike can have ripple effects. For example, Air Canada’s parent company threatened to cancel a $6.1 billion contract with Boeing for new planes if they were unable to negotiate an agreement with the pilots who would fly them. Conflict consequences such as these could affect those working at this Boeing Factory in Seattle, Washington. Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Intergroup conflict takes place among different groups. Types of groups may include different departments or divisions in a company, and employee union and management, or competing companies that supply the same customers. Departments may conflict over budget allocations; unions and management may disagree over work rules; suppliers may conflict with each other on the quality of parts. Merging two groups together can lead to friction between the groups—especially if there are scarce resources to be divided among the group. For example, in what has been called “the most difficult and hard-fought labour issue in an airline merger,” Canadian Air and Air Canada pilots were locked into years of personal and legal conflict when the two airlines’ seniority lists were combined following the merger (Stoykewych, 2003). Seniority is a valuable and scarce resource for pilots, because it helps to determine who flies the newest and biggest planes, who receives the best flight routes, and who is paid the most. In response to the loss of seniority, former Canadian Air pilots picketed at shareholder meetings, threatened to call in sick, and had ongoing conflicts with pilots from Air Canada. The conflicts with pilots continue to this day. The history of past conflicts among organizations and employees makes new deals challenging.

Is Conflict Always Bad?

Most people are uncomfortable with conflict, but is conflict always bad? Conflict can be dysfunctional if it paralyzes an organization, leads to less than optimal performance, or, in the worst case, leads to workplace violence. Surprisingly, a moderate amount of conflict can actually be a healthy (and necessary) part of organizational life (Amason, 1996). To understand how to get to a positive level of conflict, we need to understand its root causes, consequences, and tools to help manage it. The impact of too much or too little conflict can disrupt performance. If conflict is too low, then performance is low. If conflict is too high, then performance also tends to be low. The goal is to hold conflict levels in the middle of this range. While it might seem strange to want a particular level of conflict, a medium level of task-related conflict is often viewed as optimal, because it represents a situation in which a healthy debate of ideas takes place.

Figure 10.3 The Inverted U Relationship Between Performance and Conflict

10.3 Causes and Outcomes of Conflict

There are many potential root causes of conflict at work. We’ll go over six of them here. Remember, anything that leads to a disagreement can be a cause of conflict. Although conflict is common to organizations, some organizations have more than others.

Figure 10.4 Potential Causes of Conflict

Organization Structure

Conflict tends to take different forms, depending upon the organizational structure (Jaffe, 2000). For example, if a company uses a matrix structure as its organizational form, it will have decisional conflict built in, because the structure specifies that each manager report to two bosses. For example, global company ABB Inc. is organized around a matrix structure based on the dimensions of country and industry. This structure can lead to confusion as the company is divided geographically into 1,200 different units and by industry into 50 different units (Taylor, 1991).

Limited Resources

Resources such as money, time, and equipment are often scarce. Competition among people or departments for limited resources is a frequent cause for conflict. For example, cutting-edge laptops and gadgets such as a BlackBerry or iPhone are expensive resources that may be allocated to employees on a need-to-have basis in some companies. When a group of employees have access to such resources while others do not, conflict may arise among employees or between employees and management. While technical employees may feel that these devices are crucial to their productivity, employees with customer contact such as sales representatives may make the point that these devices are important for them to make a good impression to clients. Because important resources are often limited, this is one source of conflict many companies have to live with.

Task Interdependence

Another cause of conflict is task interdependence; that is, when accomplishment of your goal requires reliance on others to perform their tasks. For example, if you’re tasked with creating advertising for your product, you’re dependent on the creative team to design the words and layout, the photographer or videographer to create the visuals, the media buyer to purchase the advertising space, and so on. The completion of your goal (airing or publishing your ad) is dependent on others.

Incompatible Goals

Sometimes conflict arises when two parties think that their goals are mutually exclusive. Within an organization, incompatible goals often arise because of the different ways department managers are compensated. For example, a sales manager’s bonus may be tied to how many sales are made for the company. As a result, the individual might be tempted to offer customers “freebies” such as expedited delivery in order to make the sale. In contrast, a transportation manager’s compensation may be based on how much money the company saves on transit. In this case, the goal might be to eliminate expedited delivery because it adds expense. The two will butt heads until the company resolves the conflict by changing the compensation scheme. For example, if the company assigns the bonus based on profitability of a sale, not just the dollar amount, the cost of the expediting would be subtracted from the value of the sale. It might still make sense to expedite the order if the sale is large enough, in which case both parties would support it. On the other hand, if the expediting negates the value of the sale, neither party would be in favor of the added expense.

Personality Differences

Personality differences among coworkers are common. By understanding some fundamental differences among the way people think and act, we can better understand how others see the world. Knowing that these differences are natural and normal let’s anticipate and mitigate interpersonal conflict—it’s often not about “you” but simply a different way of seeing and behaving. For example, Type A individuals have been found to have more conflicts with their coworkers than Type B individuals (Baron, 1989).

Communication Problems

Sometimes conflict arises simply out of a small, unintentional communication problem, such as lost emails or dealing with people who don’t return phone calls. Giving feedback is also a case in which the best intentions can quickly escalate into a conflict situation. When communicating, be sure to focus on behaviour and its effects, not on the person. For example, say that Jeff always arrives late to all your meetings. You think he has a bad attitude, but you don’t really know what Jeff’s attitude is. You do know, however, the effect that Jeff’s behaviour has on you. You could say, “Jeff, when you come late to the meeting, I feel like my time is wasted.” Jeff can’t argue with that statement, because it is a fact of the impact of his behaviour on you. It’s indisputable, because it is your reality. What Jeff can say is that he did not intend such an effect, and then you can have a discussion regarding the behaviour.

Outcomes of Conflict

One of the most common outcomes of conflict is that it upsets parties in the short run (Bergman & Volkema, 1989). However, conflict can have both positive and negative outcomes. On the positive side, conflict can result in greater creativity or better decisions. For example, as a result of a disagreement over a policy, a manager may learn from an employee that newer technologies help solve problems in an unanticipated new way.

Positive outcomes include the following:

Consideration of a broader range of ideas, resulting in a better, stronger idea
Surfacing of assumptions that may be inaccurate
Increased participation and creativity
Clarification of individual views that build learning

On the other hand, conflict can be dysfunctional if it is excessive or involves personal attacks or underhanded tactics.

Examples of negative outcomes include the following:

Increased stress and anxiety among individuals, which decreases productivity and satisfaction
Feelings of being defeated and demeaned, which lowers individuals’ morale and may increase turnover
A climate of mistrust, which hinders the teamwork and cooperation necessary to get work done

Given these negative outcomes, how can conflict be managed so that it does not become dysfunctional or even dangerous? We’ll explore this in the next section.

10.4 Conflict Management

There are a number of different ways of managing organizational conflict, which are highlighted in this section. Conflict management refers to resolving disagreements effectively.

Ways to Manage Conflict

Change the structure.

When structure is a cause of dysfunctional conflict, structural change can be the solution to resolving the conflict. Consider this situation. Vanessa, the lead engineer in charge of new product development, has submitted her components list to Tom, the procurement officer, for purchasing. Tom, as usual, has rejected two of the key components, refusing the expenditure on the purchase. Vanessa is furious, saying, “Every time I give you a request to buy a new part, you fight me on it. Why can’t you ever trust my judgment and honour my request?”

Tom counters, “You’re always choosing the newest, leading-edge parts—they’re hard to find and expensive to purchase. I’m supposed to keep costs down, and your requests always break my budget.”

“But when you don’t order the parts we need for a new product, you delay the whole project,” Vanessa says.

Sharon, the business unit’s vice president, hits upon a structural solution by stating, “From now on, both of you will be evaluated on the total cost and the overall performance of the product. You need to work together to keep component costs low while minimizing quality issues later on.” If the conflict is at an intergroup level, such as between two departments, a structural solution could be to have those two departments report to the same executive, who could align their previously incompatible goals.

Change the Composition of the Team

If the conflict is between team members, the easiest solution may be to change the composition of the team, separating the personalities that were at odds. In instances in which conflict is attributed to the widely different styles, values, and preferences of a small number of members, replacing some of these members may resolve the problem. If that’s not possible because everyone’s skills are needed on the team and substitutes aren’t available, consider a physical layout solution. Research has shown that when known antagonists are seated directly across from each other, the amount of conflict increases. However, when they are seated side by side, the conflict tends to decrease (Gordon et al., 1990).

Create a Common Opposing Force

Group conflict within an organization can be mitigated by focusing attention on a common enemy such as the competition. For example, two software groups may be vying against each other for marketing dollars, each wanting to maximize advertising money devoted to their product. But, by focusing attention on a competitor company, the groups may decide to work together to enhance the marketing effectiveness for the company as a whole. The “enemy” need not be another company—it could be a concept, such as a recession, that unites previously warring departments to save jobs during a downturn.

Consider Majority Rule

Sometimes a group conflict can be resolved through majority rule. That is, group members take a vote, and the idea with the most votes is the one that gets implemented. The majority rule approach can work if the participants feel that the procedure is fair. It is important to keep in mind that this strategy will become ineffective if used repeatedly with the same members typically winning. Moreover, the approach should be used sparingly. It should follow a healthy discussion of the issues and points of contention, not be a substitute for that discussion.

Problem Solve

Problem solving is a common approach to resolving conflict. In problem-solving mode, the individuals or groups in conflict are asked to focus on the problem, not on each other, and to uncover the root cause of the problem. This approach recognizes the rarity of one side being completely right and the other being completely wrong.

Conflict-Handling Styles

Individuals vary in the way that they handle conflicts. There are five common styles of handling conflicts. These styles can be mapped onto a grid that shows the varying degree of cooperation and assertiveness each style entails. Let us look at each in turn.

The avoiding style is uncooperative and unassertive. People exhibiting this style seek to avoid conflict altogether by denying that it is there. They are prone to postponing any decisions in which a conflict may arise. People using this style may say things such as, “I don’t really care if we work this out,” or “I don’t think there’s any problem. I feel fine about how things are.” Conflict avoidance may be habitual to some people because of personality traits such as the need for affiliation. While conflict avoidance may not be a significant problem if the issue at hand is trivial, it becomes a problem when individuals avoid confronting important issues because of a dislike for conflict or a perceived inability to handle the other party’s reactions.

Accommodation

The accommodating style is cooperative and unassertive. In this style, the person gives in to what the other side wants, even if it means giving up one’s personal goals. People who use this style may fear speaking up for themselves or they may place a higher value on the relationship, believing that disagreeing with an idea might be hurtful to the other person. They will say things such as, “Let’s do it your way” or “If it’s important to you, I can go along with it.” Accommodation may be an effective strategy if the issue at hand is more important to others compared to oneself. However, if a person perpetually uses this style, that individual may start to see that personal interests and well-being are neglected.

The compromising style is a middle-ground style, in which individuals have some desire to express their own concerns and get their way but still respect the other person’s goals. The compromiser may say things such as, “Perhaps I ought to reconsider my initial position” or “Maybe we can both agree to give in a little.” In a compromise, each person sacrifices something valuable to them. For example, in 2005 the luxurious Lanesborough Hotel in London advertised incorrect nightly rates for £35, as opposed to £350. When the hotel received a large number of online bookings at this rate, the initial reaction was to insist that customers cancel their reservations and book at the correct rate. The situation was about to lead to a public relations crisis. As a result, they agreed to book the rooms at the advertised price for a maximum of three nights, thereby limiting the damage to the hotel’s bottom line as well as its reputation (Horowitz et al., 2006).

Competition

Figure 10.6 Body language can fuel a conflict. Gideon – Oh That Body Language! – CC BY 2.0.

People exhibiting a competing style want to reach their goal or get their solution adopted regardless of what others say or how they feel. They are more interested in getting the outcome they want as opposed to keeping the other party happy, and they push for the deal they are interested in making. Competition may lead to poor relationships with others if one is always seeking to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of others’ well-being. This approach may be effective if one has strong moral objections to the alternatives or if the alternatives one is opposing are unethical or harmful.

Collaboration

The collaborating style is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. This is a strategy to use for achieving the best outcome from conflict—both sides argue for their position, supporting it with facts and rationale while listening attentively to the other side. The objective is to find a win–win solution to the problem in which both parties get what they want. They’ll challenge points but not each other. They’ll emphasize problem solving and integration of each other’s goals. For example, an employee who wants to complete an MBA program may have a conflict with management when he wants to reduce his work hours. Instead of taking opposing positions in which the employee defends his need to pursue his career goals while the manager emphasizes the company’s need for the employee, both parties may review alternatives to find an integrated solution. In the end, the employee may decide to pursue the degree while taking online classes, and the company may realize that paying for the employee’s tuition is a worthwhile investment. This may be a win–win solution to the problem in which no one gives up what is personally important, and every party gains something from the exchange.

Which Style Is Best?

Like much of organizational behaviour, there is no one “right way” to deal with conflict. Much of the time it will depend on the situation. However, the collaborative style has the potential to be highly effective in many different situations. Liane Davey is a prolific research in the area of conflict in organizations, and demonstrates a key way to manage conflict in virtual teams here:

In her video, she suggests the following steps to being effective at conflict management:

Prepare . The first thing you need to do is prepare what you are going to say. Without being prepared, emotions can take over, and you can lose sight of your goal or explain things in a way that will create defensiveness within the other person. A clear plan of what you will say will help you stay on track and not get hijacked by your emotions.
A Heads Up . It is important that people don’t feel blindsided or unprepared for a difficult conversation. Although it may seem unintuitive, providing a heads up in advance can lessen the defensiveness of an individual and give them time to think in advance. This is especially important for introverts. Even something as simple as an email that says I’m worried about how our meetings have been going, I’d like to set up some time to discuss, can go a long way to helping the other person prepare for the discussion and not feel put on the spot.
Communication Technology . It’s important to choose the right technology for the discussion. If you have a large boardroom with a fancy holographic presence capability, use it so you can see body language. If your organization does not yet have that, be sure to use a visual software like skype, zoom, or MS Teams Meeting.
Cheat Sheet . This is an advantage of having a difficult conversation over the computer versus in person. You can have your script or notes that you prepared handy to refer to.

10.5 Negotiations

A common way that parties deal with conflict is via negotiation. Negotiation is a process whereby two or more parties work toward an agreement. There are five phases of negotiation, which are described below.

The Five Phases of Negotiation

Phase 1: Investigation

The first step in negotiation is the investigation , or information gathering stage. This is a key stage that is often ignored. Surprisingly, the first place to begin is with yourself: What are your goals for the negotiation? What do you want to achieve? What would you concede? What would you absolutely not concede? Leigh Steinberg, the most powerful agent in sports (he was the role model for Tom Cruise’s character in Jerry Maguire ), puts it this way: “You need the clearest possible view of your goals. And you need to be brutally honest with yourself about your priorities” (Webber, 1998).

During the negotiation, you’ll inevitably be faced with making choices. It’s best to know what you want, so that in the heat of the moment you’re able to make the best decision. For example, if you’ll be negotiating for a new job, ask yourself, “What do I value most? Is it the salary level? Working with coworkers whom I like? Working at a prestigious company? Working in a certain geographic area? Do I want a company that will groom me for future positions or do I want to change jobs often in pursuit of new challenges?”

Phase 2: Determine Your BATNA

“If you don’t know where you’re going, you will probably end up somewhere else.”

– Lawrence J. Peter

One important part of the investigation and planning phase is to determine your BATNA , which is an acronym that stands for the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” Roger Fisher and William Ury coined this phrase in their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating without Giving In .

Thinking through your BATNA is important to helping you decide whether to accept an offer you receive during the negotiation. You need to know what your alternatives are. If you have various alternatives, you can look at the proposed deal more critically. Could you get a better outcome than the proposed deal? Your BATNA will help you reject an unfavorable deal. On the other hand, if the deal is better than another outcome you could get (that is, better than your BATNA), then you should accept it.

Think about it in common sense terms: When you know your opponent is desperate for a deal, you can demand much more. If it looks like they have a lot of other options outside the negotiation, you’ll be more likely to make concessions.

As Fisher and Ury said, “The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is that alternative? What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured” (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

The party with the best BATNA has the best negotiating position, so try to improve your BATNA whenever possible by exploring possible alternatives (Pinkley, 1995).

Going back to the example of your new job negotiation, consider your options to the offer you receive. If your pay is lower than what you want, what alternatives do you have? A job with another company? Looking for another job? Going back to school? While you’re thinking about your BATNA, take some time to think about the other party’s BATNA. Do they have an employee who could readily replace you?

Once you’ve gotten a clear understanding of your own goals, investigate the person you’ll be negotiating with. What does that person (or company) want? Put yourself in the other party’s shoes. What alternatives could they have? For example, in the job negotiations, the other side wants a good employee at a fair price. That may lead you to do research on salary levels: What is the pay rate for the position you’re seeking? What is the culture of the company?

Greenpeace’s goals are to safeguard the environment by getting large companies and organizations to adopt more environmentally friendly practices such as using fewer plastic components. Part of the background research Greenpeace engages in involves uncovering facts. For instance, medical device makers are using harmful PVCs as a tubing material because PVCs are inexpensive. But are there alternatives to PVCs that are also cost-effective? Greenpeace’s research found that yes, there are (Layne, 1999). Knowing this lets Greenpeace counter those arguments and puts Greenpeace in a stronger position to achieve its goals.

Phase 3: Presentation

Figure 10.8 All phases of the negotiation process are important. The presentation is the one that normally receives the most attention, but the work done before that point is equally important. The Bush Center – Negotiations – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

The third phase of negotiation is presentation . In this phase, you assemble the information you’ve gathered in a way that supports your position. In a job hiring or salary negotiation situation, for instance, you can present facts that show what you’ve contributed to the organization in the past (or in a previous position), which in turn demonstrates your value. Perhaps you created a blog that brought attention to your company or got donations or funding for a charity. Perhaps you’re a team player who brings out the best in a group.

Phase 4: Bargaining

During the bargaining phase, each party discusses their goals and seeks to get an agreement. A natural part of this process is making concessions , namely, giving up one thing to get something else in return. Making a concession is not a sign of weakness—parties expect to give up some of their goals. Rather, concessions demonstrate cooperativeness and help move the negotiation toward its conclusion. Making concessions is particularly important in tense union-management disputes, which can get bogged down by old issues. Making a concession shows forward movement and process, and it allays concerns about rigidity or closed-mindedness. What would a typical concession be? Concessions are often in the areas of money, time, resources, responsibilities, or autonomy. When negotiating for the purchase of products, for example, you might agree to pay a higher price in exchange for getting the products sooner. Alternatively, you could ask to pay a lower price in exchange for giving the manufacturer more time or flexibility in when they deliver the product.

One key to the bargaining phase is to ask questions. Don’t simply take a statement such as “we can’t do that” at face value. Rather, try to find out why the party has that constraint. Let’s take a look at an example. Say that you’re a retailer and you want to buy patio furniture from a manufacturer. You want to have the sets in time for spring sales. During the negotiations, your goal is to get the lowest price with the earliest delivery date. The manufacturer, of course, wants to get the highest price with the longest lead time before delivery. As negotiations stall, you evaluate your options to decide what’s more important: a slightly lower price or a slightly longer delivery date? You do a quick calculation. The manufacturer has offered to deliver the products by April 30, but you know that some of your customers make their patio furniture selection early in the spring, and missing those early sales could cost you $1 million. So, you suggest that you can accept the April 30 delivery date if the manufacturer will agree to drop the price by $1 million.

“I appreciate the offer,” the manufacturer replies, “but I can’t accommodate such a large price cut.” Instead of leaving it at that, you ask, “I’m surprised that a 2-month delivery would be so costly to you. Tell me more about your manufacturing process so that I can understand why you can’t manufacture the products in that time frame.”

“ Manufacturing the products in that time frame is not the problem,” the manufacturer replies, “but getting them shipped from Asia is what’s expensive for us.”

When you hear that, a light bulb goes off. You know that your firm has favorable contracts with shipping companies because of the high volume of business the firm gives them. You make the following counteroffer: “Why don’t we agree that my company will arrange and pay for the shipper, and you agree to have the products ready to ship on March 30 for $10.5 million instead of $11 million?” The manufacturer accepts the offer—the biggest expense and constraint (the shipping) has been lifted. You, in turn, have saved money as well (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

Phase 5: Closure

Closure is an important part of negotiations. At the close of a negotiation, you and the other party have either come to an agreement on the terms, or one party has decided that the final offer is unacceptable and therefore must walked away. Most negotiators assume that if their best offer has been rejected, there’s nothing left to do. You made your best offer and that’s the best you can do. The savviest of negotiators, however, see the rejection as an opportunity to learn. “What would it have taken for us to reach an agreement?”

Recently, a CEO had been in negotiations with a customer. After learning the customer decided to go with the competition, the CEO decided to inquire as to why negotiations had fallen through. With nothing left to lose, the CEO placed a call to the prospect’s vice president and asked why the offer had been rejected, explaining that the answer would help improve future offerings. Surprisingly, the VP explained the deal was given to the competitor because, despite charging more, the competitor offered after-sales service on the product. The CEO was taken by surprise, originally assuming that the VP was most interested in obtaining the lowest price possible. In order to accommodate a very low price, various extras such as after-sales service had been cut from the offer. Having learned that the VP was seeking service, not the lowest cost, the CEO said, “Knowing what I know now, I’m confident that I could have beaten the competitor’s bid. Would you accept a revised offer?” The VP agreed, and a week later the CEO had a signed contract (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007).

Sometimes at the end of negotiations, it’s clear why a deal was not reached. But if you’re confused about why a deal did not happen, consider making a follow-up call. Even though you may not win the deal back in the end, you might learn something that’s useful for future negotiations. What’s more, the other party may be more willing to disclose the information if they don’t think you’re in a “selling” mode.

When All Else Fails: Third-Party Negotiations

Alternative dispute resolution.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) includes mediation, arbitration, and other ways of resolving conflicts with the help of a specially trained, neutral third party without the need for a formal trial or hearing (New York State Unified Court System, 2008). Many companies find this effective in dealing with challenging problems. For example, Eastman Kodak Company added an alternative dispute resolution panel of internal employees to help them handle cases of perceived discrimination and hopefully stop a conflict from escalating (Deutsch, 2004).

In mediation , an outside third party (the mediator) enters the situation with the goal of assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. The mediator can facilitate, suggest, and recommend. The mediator works with both parties to reach a solution but does not represent either side. Rather, the mediator’s role is to help the parties share feelings, air and verify facts, exchange perceptions, and work toward agreements. Susan Podziba, a mediation expert, has helped get groups that sometimes have a hard time seeing the other side’s point of view to open up and talk to one another. Her work includes such groups as pro-choice and pro-life advocates, individuals from Israel and Palestine, as well as fishermen and environmentalists.

Arbitration

In contrast to mediation, in which parties work with the mediator to arrive at a solution, in arbitration the parties submit the dispute to the third-party arbitrator. It is the arbitrator who makes the final decision. The arbitrator is a neutral third party, but the decision made by the arbitrator is final (the decision is called the “award”). Awards are made in writing and are binding to the parties involved in the case (American Arbitration Association, 2007). Arbitration is often used in union-management grievance conflicts.

10.6 Conclusion

Conflict can run the gamut from minor annoyances to physically violent situations. At the same time, conflict can increase creativity and innovation, or it can bring organizations to a grinding halt. There are many different types of conflict, including interpersonal, intrapersonal, and intergroup. Within organizations, there are many common situations that can spur conflict. Certain organizational structures, such as a matrix structure, can cause any given employee to have multiple bosses and conflicting or overwhelming demands. A scarcity of resources for employees to complete tasks is another common cause of organizational conflict, particularly if groups within the organization compete over those resources. Of course, simple personality clashes can create interpersonal conflict in any situation. Communication problems are also a very common source of conflict even when no actual problem would exist otherwise. When conflict arises, it can be handled by any number of methods, each with varying degrees of cooperation and competitiveness. Different situations require different conflict handling methods, and no one method is best.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

LISTEN & FOLLOW
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Business negotiation tactics to use in everyday life

Marielle Segarra

Illustration of a teal and magenta hand giving a high five, symbolizing a successful negotiation in everyday life.

Negotiation skills aren't just for high-stakes situations like job offers and pay raises. They can be used in daily life, like figuring out where you and your friends should go on vacation or what you and your partner should cook for dinner tonight.

They can also help you get what you want and make decisions with more confidence, says Joan Moon , a career coach and the head of negotiation coaching at the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Collaboratory at the Harvard Kennedy School. "They can improve your satisfaction with your situation and give you a sense that you are making intentional choices."

Moon explains four classic negotiation tactics often used in business environments — and how they can be applied in everyday circumstances.

Oops, I messed up! 7 common public speaking issues — and how to fix them

The tactic: benchmarking.

Illustration of a teal hand holding a magnifying glass.

This strategy allows you to gather the information you need to make a fair decision. It's when you compare an offer to market standards and best practices, "then figure out where you lie within that range" to get an optimal deal. People often use benchmarking in salary negotiations to ensure they're being paid equitably, says Moon.

How to use it in everyday life: Use this tactic when making big consumer choices, says Moon — like hiring a contractor to renovate your kitchen or buying a car. "What you're doing is researching good information and an appropriate price point for this purchase" to align your budget and the industry standards.

The tactic: Win-win strategy

Illustration of a light pink hand and a magenta hand shaking in an agreement, indicating a win-win situation.

This helps different parties find one solution that's in everyone's interest. You might see this in business contracts or labor agreements, for example. Parties won't sign until the terms are mutually beneficial.

How to use it in everyday life: Try this when you want the other party to not just agree with your decision, but feel good about it. Moon shares a recent personal experience. Her phone line was down so she called her phone company to get reconnected — but the customer service agents were unhelpful. She could feel herself getting upset, so she decided to reframe her request using a win-win strategy. She said: "Listen, I've been with this company for ten years and I would like to keep doing so for another ten years. Can we focus on a solution?"

3 common thinking traps and how to avoid them, according to a Yale psychologist

The approach worked, she says. The company didn't want to lose a loyal customer — and Moon wanted her phone fixed.

The tactic: A menu of options

An illustration of an orange hand holding a yellow checklist of potential options.

This approach avoids requests that result in a simple yes or no answer. People often use this tactic when negotiating the benefits of a job offer, says Moon. For example, instead of asking for more flexibility at a new job and getting a flat-out no, you might propose a couple of options: working three days remote or a four-day workweek, expanding the possibility of a favorable outcome.

How to use it in everyday life: Offer "a menu of options" to someone if they think only one solution is possible. Let's say you're upset with your roommate for being messy, says Moon. Instead of asking them to clean up (which they haven't been doing), give them choices: hire a housekeeper, change the breakdown of responsibilities at home or adjust the cleaning schedule. "When you present options, it signals to the other person: let's solve this problem together," says Moon.

The rules of improv can make you funnier. They can also make you more confident.

The tactic: best alternative to negotiated agreement.

Illustration of a yellow hand holding up two fingers, symbolizing the Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement, or your back-up plan.

Negotiators use BATNA to come up with a backup plan when their desired outcome isn't possible. It helps avoid a total win-lose situation and shows the person you're negotiating with that you have a strong alternative, which can increase your leverage in a situation. You might use BATNA when comparing job offers with unfavorable conditions. For example, one job requires you to relocate your family to another state, while the other job pays less but is local. Your BATNA might be to tell both jobs that you will stay at your current gig and unless they can offer something better.

How to use it in everyday life: You can use BATNA for the smallest decisions, like figuring out what to eat for dinner. Let's say your partner wants to stay in and cook tacos but you're not craving it. But never fear, you tell them: you have a backup idea, your BATNA — you'll go out for a burger instead. Yes, you'll have to leave the house, but you won't need to cook or clean up the kitchen.

The digital story was written by Malaka Gharib and edited by Margaret Cirino and Meghan Keane. The visual editor is Beck Harlan. We'd love to hear from you. Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at [email protected].

Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify , and sign up for our newsletter .

negotiators
Life Kit: Life Skills
everyday life

Study Guides
Homework Questions

In Class AssignmentMd Yasir Arafat0805334

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

J.D. Vance: The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up

A photograph of a large stack of tube-shaped artillery shells, stretching out of the frame in every direction.

By J. D. Vance

Mr. Vance, a Republican, is the junior senator from Ohio.

President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is Republicans and our lack of commitment to the global community. This is wrong.

Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.

The Biden administration has applied increasing pressure on Republicans to pass a supplemental aid package of more than $60 billion to Ukraine. I voted against this package in the Senate and remain opposed to virtually any proposal for the United States to continue funding this war. Mr. Biden has failed to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.

The most fundamental question: How much does Ukraine need and how much can we actually provide? Mr. Biden suggests that a $60 billion supplemental means the difference between victory and defeat in a major war between Russia and Ukraine. That is also wrong. This $60 billion is a fraction of what it would take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. But this is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.

Consider our ability to produce 155-millimeter artillery shells. Last year, Ukraine’s defense minister estimated that the country’s base-line requirement for these shells was over four million per year but that it could fire up to seven million if that many were available. Since the start of the conflict, the United States has gone to great lengths to ramp up production of 155-millimeter shells. We’ve roughly doubled our capacity and can now produce 360,000 per year — less than a tenth of what Ukraine says it needs. The administration’s goal is to get this to 1.2 million — 30 percent of what’s needed — by the end of 2025. This would cost the American taxpayers dearly while yielding an unpleasantly familiar result: failure abroad.

Just this week, the top American military commander in Europe argued that absent further security assistance, Russia could soon have a 10-to-1 artillery advantage over Ukraine. What didn’t gather as many headlines is that Russia’s current advantage is at least 5 to 1, even after all the money we have poured into the conflict. Neither of these ratios plausibly leads to Ukrainian victory.

Proponents of American aid to Ukraine have argued that our approach has been a boon to our own economy, creating jobs here in the factories that manufacture weapons. But our national security interests can be — and often are — separate from our economic interests. The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. We can and should rebuild our industrial base without shipping its products to a foreign conflict.

The story is the same when we look at other munitions. Take the Patriot missile system — our premier air defense weapon. It’s of such importance in this war that Ukraine’s foreign minister has specifically demanded them. That’s because in March alone, Russia reportedly launched over 3,000 guided aerial bombs, 600 drones and 400 missiles at Ukraine. To fend off these attacks, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and others have indicated they need thousands of Patriot interceptors per year. The problem is this: The United States only manufactures 550 per year. If we pass the supplemental aid package currently being considered in Congress, we could potentially increase annual production to 650, but that’s still less than a third of what Ukraine requires.

These weapons are not only needed by Ukraine. If China were to set its sights on Taiwan, the Patriot missile system would be critical to its defense. In fact, the United States has promised to send Taiwan nearly $900 million worth of Patriot missiles, but delivery of those weapons and other essential resources has been severely delayed, partly because of shortages caused by the war in Ukraine.

If that sounds bad, Ukraine’s manpower situation is even worse. Here are the basics: Russia has nearly four times the population of Ukraine. Ukraine needs upward of half a million new recruits, but hundreds of thousands of fighting-age men have already fled the country. The average Ukrainian soldier is roughly 43 years old , and many soldiers have already served two years at the front with few, if any, opportunities to stop fighting. After two years of conflict, there are some villages with almost no men left. The Ukrainian military has resorted to coercing men into service, and women have staged protests to demand the return of their husbands and fathers after long years of service at the front. This newspaper reported one instance in which the Ukrainian military attempted to conscript a man with a diagnosed mental disability.

Many in Washington seem to think that hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have gone to war with a song in their heart and are happy to label any thought to the contrary Russian propaganda. But major newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic are reporting that the situation on the ground in Ukraine is grim.

These basic mathematical realities were true, but contestable, at the outset of the war. They were obvious and incontestable a year ago, when American leadership worked closely with Mr. Zelensky to undertake a disastrous counteroffensive. The bad news is that accepting brute reality would have been most useful last spring, before the Ukrainians launched that extremely costly and unsuccessful military campaign. The good news is that even now, a defensive strategy can work. Digging in with old-fashioned ditches, cement and land mines are what enabled Russia to weather Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. Our allies in Europe could better support such a strategy, as well. While some European countries have provided considerable resources, the burden of military support has thus far fallen heaviest on the United States.

By committing to a defensive strategy, Ukraine can preserve its precious military manpower, stop the bleeding and provide time for negotiations to commence. But this would require both the American and Ukrainian leadership to accept that Mr. Zelensky’s stated goal for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — is fantastical.

The White House has said time and again that it can’t negotiate with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace.

J.D. Vance ( @JDVance1 ), a Republican, is the junior senator from Ohio.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Browse Topics
Executive Committee
Affiliated Faculty
Harvard Negotiation Project
Great Negotiator
American Secretaries of State Project
Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
Negotiation Programs
Mediation Programs
One-Day Programs
In-House Training and Custom Programs
In-Person Programs
Online Programs
Advanced Materials Search
Contact Information
The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
Frequently Asked Questions
Negotiation Journal
Harvard Negotiation Law Review
Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
40th Anniversary Symposium
Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

Upcoming Events
Past Events
Event Series
Our Mission
Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

case study of conflict management and negotiation

The following items are tagged case study of conflict management and negotiation:

A Case Study of Conflict Management and Negotiation

Posted January 22nd, 2024 by PON Staff & filed under Conflict Resolution .

Case Study of Conflict Management: To Resolve Disputes and Manage Conflicts, Assume a Neutral 3rd Party Role

Posted January 11th, 2024 by PON Staff & filed under Conflict Resolution .

Conflict Management Skills When Dealing with an Angry Public

Posted February 21st, 2023 by PON Staff & filed under Conflict Resolution .

Integrative Negotiations: Dispute Resolution Through Joint Fact-Finding

Posted November 17th, 2020 by PON Staff & filed under Conflict Resolution .

Conflict Management: A Creative Approach to Breaking Impasse

Posted July 31st, 2018 by PON Staff & filed under Conflict Resolution .

Negotiation and Leadership

Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide

Select Your Free Special Report

Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
Make the Most of Online Negotiations
Managing Multiparty Negotiations
Getting the Deal Done
Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
The Process of Business Negotiation
Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
Sales Negotiation Techniques
M&A Negotiation Strategy: Missed Opportunities in Musk’s Twitter Deal
How to Negotiate in Good Faith
What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
Conflict Styles and Bargaining Styles
Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It
Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts: Hostage Negotiation Tips for Business Negotiators
Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement
Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
AI Negotiation in the News
Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
How to Deal with Difficult Customers
Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
Consensus-Building Techniques
Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
Writing the Negotiated Agreement
The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
Three Questions to Ask About the Dispute Resolution Process
Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?
Alternative Dispute Resolution Examples: Restorative Justice
Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Process
International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
The Pros and Cons of Back-Channel Negotiations
Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
What Makes a Good Mediator?
Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
Negotiations and Logrolling: Discover Opportunities to Generate Mutual Gains
Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
Influence Tactics in Negotiation
What Is Distributive Negotiation?
Negotiation Team Strategy
Negotiation Techniques To Get New Business Partnerships Off on the Right Foot
Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
New Simulation: International Business Acquisition Negotiated Online
Teach Your Students to Take Their Mediation Skills to the Next Level
Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation
Labor Negotiation Strategies

PON Publications

Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

IMAGES

Chapter 10: Conflict and Negotiations
27 Conflict Resolution Skills to Use with Your Team and Your Customers
Conflict and negotiation presentation
27 Conflict Resolution Skills to Use with Your Team and Your Customers
Conflict and Negotiation Analysis of Nick Cunningham Case Study
Conflict and Negotiation ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Chapter 14

VIDEO

Mastering Conflict & Negotiation: A Guide to Workplace Harmony
Study Conflict Resolution & Reconciliation (M.Phil.) at Trinity College Dublin
Study conflict management in Europe
Conflict Scenario 2
What is Conflict in a Negotiation?
Dark Humor in the Face of TRAGEDY: Bassem Youssef vs. Pierce Morgan

COMMENTS

A Case Study of Conflict Management and Negotiation
A Case Study of Conflict Management - Divisions in Group Negotiation. Recently Katerina Bezrukova of Rutgers University and her colleagues compared the effects of fault lines based on social categories (e.g., age, race, or gender) with those based on information (e.g., education or work experience).
Top 10 International Business Negotiation Case Studies
International business negotiation case studies offer insights to business negotiators who face challenges in cross-cultural business negotiation. ... How to Maintain Your Power While Engaging in Conflict Resolution; Crisis Negotiations. Famous Negotiations Cases - NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table;
Case Studies: Examples of Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution is the process of resolving a dispute or a conflict by meeting at least some of each side's needs and addressing their interests. Conflict resolution sometimes requires both a power-based and an interest-based approach, such as the simultaneous pursuit of litigation (the use of legal power) and negotiation (attempts to ...
Negotiation Articles, Research, & Case Studies
by Benjamin Enke, Uri Gneezy, Brian Hall, David Martin, Vadim Nelidov, Theo Offerman, and Jeroen van de Ven. This study of field and lab data strongly suggests that people do not necessarily make better decisions when the stakes are very high. Results highlight the potential economic consequences of cognitive biases. 02 Apr 2021.
Managing conflict effectively in negotiations
In most cases, we observe that it is to avoid conflict or to stay out of "the soft stuff.". By contrast, great negotiators confront and control these factors throughout a negotiation. Here are five core techniques that practitioners can use to get started. Improve communication. Increasing the volume and quality of communication with your ...
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
Turning Points and Negotiation: The Case of the 2007-2008 Writers' Strike. ... How US and Chinese Media Cover the US-China Trade Conflict: A Case Study of War and Peace Journalism Practice and the Foreign Policy Equilibrium Hypothesis. Deborah A Cai. From Theory to Practice and Back Again: Lessons from Hostage Negotiation for Conflict Management.
Conflict & Resolution: Articles, Research, & Case Studies on Conflict
Using data collected in a 2016 survey of 1,120 Syrian refugees in Turkey, this study finds that 1) framing civilians' wartime ordeal as suffering or sacrifice influences their attitudes about ending the conflict, and 2) the identity of who advocates for peace affects civilians' attitude about supporting it.
Case Study: When Two Leaders on the Senior Team Hate Each Other
Summary. In this fictional case, the CEO of a sports apparel manufacturer is faced with an ongoing conflict between two of his top executives. Specifically, the head of sales and the CFO are at ...
PDF Developing Negotiation Case Studies
This article offers three types of tailored advice for producing cases on negotiation and related topics (such as mediation and diplomacy) that are primarily intended for classroom discussion: 1) how to decide whether a negotiation related case lead is worth developing; 2) how to choose the perspective and case type most suited to one's ...
International Negotiation: Cases and Lessons
First, we will focus on the theory and principles of effective international negotiation, using a number of case studies 9including the Arab-Israeli conflict, UN-Iraq negotiations over inspections and the Kyoto conference on climate change) in which negotiation has been used in recent years. The course will examine the role that different ...
Negotiating Deals and Settling Conflict Can Create Value for Both Sides
Negotiation is the communication among two or more parties aimed at settling their perceived conflicts of interests and divergent perspectives (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992).Other forms of dispute settlement include avoiding and moving away from the other side, subordinating and giving in to an opponent, and forcefully dominating the other side (Deutsch, 1973).
Walmart Negotiation Case Study with Solution
Negotiating with WalMart Buyers. Summary. Walmart buyers are trained to treat their vendors in a variety of ways, depending on where you fit into their plan. This case shares a story of a vendor called Sarah who negotiated a win-win outcome with Walmart. WalMart, the world's largest retailer, sold $514.4 billion worth of goods in 2019.
Best-In-Class Negotiation Case Studies You Can Use to Train
Negotiation case studies introduce participants to new negotiation and dispute resolution tools, techniques and strategies. Videos are also a helpful way of introducing viewers to key concepts, and TNRC books , role-play simulations , and periodicals address the theory and practice of negotiation and conflict management.
Negotiation case studies
Negotiation case studies. Follow our real-life negotiation case studies and learn how to prepare a humanitarian negotiation step by step. Understand how to apply the Naivasha Grid, a conceptual framework that supports humanitarian workers to prepare for and manage field negotiations more systematically. For a more detailed explanation of our ...
Negotiating Conflict: A Case Study Utilizing Face ...
The purpose of this case study is to unpack and evaluate a specific conflict negotiation situation between a cross-cultural worker and several Senegalese men, while utilizing Face-Negotiation Theory to explain why this specific intercultural interaction may have occurred and what might have contributed to its conflict.
Rethinking Negotiation
This is true regardless of what they can accomplish on their own, because both are equally needed to create the gains. This principle can be applied in a variety of increasingly complicated real ...
Appendix A: Case Studies
List of Case Studies. Case Study 1: Handling Roommate Conflicts. Case Study 2: Salary Negotiation at College Corp. Case Study 3: OECollaboration. Case Study 4: The Ohio Connection. Case Study 5: Uber Pays the Price. Case Study 6: Diverse Teams Hold Court.
PDF The Art of Negotiation: A Hospitality Industry Case Study
Industry Case Study Introduction Negotiation in the Hospitality Industry Few personal and professional skills are as important as negotia-tions, and yet fewer still are as seemingly challenging. ... customer relationships (decrease in workplace conflict). Good negotia-tors are promoted faster (Fiona, 2008) and have stronger workplace
Win-Win Negotiation Case Study
Win-Win Negotiation Case Study. This case study discusses some of the critical errors that can be made in a Management and Union Labour negotiation, where Management were trying to achieve a win-win negotiation. In trying to create win-win negotiation agreements, one of the biggest mistakes made by negotiators who haven't taken negotiation ...
Case Study of Conflict Management: To Resolve Disputes and Manage
Here is a case study of conflict management emphasizing the importance of hearing all sides in a dispute. Keep reading to learn more. ... Conflict Management Skills When Dealing with an Angry Public - Here is some negotiation advice drawn from a case study of conflict management dealing with an angry public. Claim your FREE copy: ...
Chapter 10: Conflict and Negotiations
In this case, stalled negotiations cost the firm a steep price of $443 million. Referring to the missed opportunity, an industry expert said, "It may go down as one of the biggest mistakes in Internet history." ... It is important to keep in mind that many cultures have preferential methods for handling conflict and negotiation. Individuals ...
Negotiations and Conflict Resolution
This course offers an experiential examination of conflict resolution theory and practice including negotiation, mediation, and restorative justice. It will focus on an analysis of the impact of emotion, power, culture and other factors on conflict escalation, de-escalation and resolution. Students will learn skills through interactive exercises...
How to use classic negotiation tactics in everyday life
Yes, you'll have to leave the house, but you won't need to cook or clean up the kitchen. The digital story was written by Malaka Gharib and edited by Margaret Cirino and Meghan Keane. The visual ...
Research paper reviewing organizational conflict and negotiation. (2
This research paper is developed as a literature review focused on one of the aspects of organizational conflict and/or negotiation discussed in the course. Please review your research paper idea with the Professor. Some of the themes you might choose from are: 1. A comparison of Distributive vs. Integrative negotiation and the benefits and ...
Conflict and Negotiation Case Study: Long-Term Business Partnerships
To protect the future interests of their organization, negotiators sometimes must accept fewer benefits or absorb greater burdens in the short run to maximize the value to all relevant parties during negotiation - including future employees and shareholders - over time. Suppose that the operations VPs of two subsidiaries of an energy company are preparing to negotiate the location of a new ...
In Class AssignmentMd Yasir Arafat0805334 (pdf)
MSMG-5940H-A-W01 Negotiation & Conflict Resolution In Class Assignment Submitted to: Rob Elkington, Ph.D Assistant Professor: Trent University Faculty of Business and Master of Management Program Submitted by: Md Yasir Arafat Student ID# 0805334 Master of Management Program Trent University Date of Submission: 4 March 2024.
Opinion
1948. By J. D. Vance. Mr. Vance, a Republican, is the junior senator from Ohio. President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is Republicans and our lack of ...
case study of conflict management and negotiation
In this case study of conflict management, the Program on Negotiation offers advice drawn from negotiation research about forming negotiating teams and avoiding conflicts within teams and working groups. …