The following items are tagged Lawrence Susskind.
Executives are increasingly faced with the task of negotiating in a realm that many know little about: technology.
Whether you’re bargaining over the purchase of a companywide network, coping with the possible infringement of patented technology, or seeking better customer service from a software supplier, technology negotiations have become a fact of managerial life.
How do such negotiations differ from those that are less technologically complex?
Founded in 1983, the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School is a pioneer in the fields of negotiation, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution.
In commemoration of the program’s 30th anniversary this year, the Program on Negotiation is proud to present a video describing many of PON’s various educational and research activities.
According to Chair Robert Mnookin, at its core the Program on Negotiation is devoted to improving the theory and practice of negotiation and dispute resolution.
Complexity Personified: International Standards Negotiations from a Microsoft Manager’s Perspective
On April 3, 2013, the Program on Negotiation hosted Jason Matusow, General Manager of International Standards at Microsoft, for a lunch seminar. His talk, titled “Complexity Personified: International Standards Negotiations from a Microsoft Manager’s Perspective,” covered the myriad of challenges that can arise when managing both
In the early days of his tenure, a chairman spends too much time reviewing the details of his proposed policy with his staff and not enough time sounding out council members to drum up support for his reforms.
The chairman’s missteps lead us to the first rule of coalition building: think carefully about how and when to meet one-on-one with other parties.
Negotiations become especially complex when agents are involved on two or more sides.
In the course, of their research, Robert Mnookin and Lawrence Susskind discovered that many negotiators often mistakenly assume that an agent representing the other side
The Program on Negotiation has identified three basic sets of circumstances in which you’ll be better off tapping an agent to take your place at the bargaining table (at least for part of the negotiating process).
When multiple parties gather to discuss issues, someone has to oversee the group’s efforts, or the process will descend into chaos or stalemate.
A negotiation manager should prepare the group’s agenda, establish ground rules, assign research tasks, summarize conclusions, and represent the process to the outside world.
Online learning is going through a renaissance. The Khan Academy is reaching millions with its decidedly low-tech approach while MIT and Harvard announced a very ambitious platform called edX just this month.[1] Proponents think we can learn from the less successful efforts of the 1990s and get it right this time. On April 17th, a group of PON faculty and educators gathered to share their experiences and perspectives on what works well online, where we are falling short and what the future of online learning might look like when it comes to teaching negotiation. The panelists for the event were Lori Abrams, developer of an online-based Negotiation Strategies course at the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management, Peter McAteer, CEO of Corporate University Xchange (CorpU) and David Fairman, Managing Director of the Consensus Building Institute (CBI). The session was facilitated by Professor Lawrence Susskind from MIT.
The case of Jordan and Israel shows how even countries at war can negotiate a water agreement if it is framed in non-zero sum terms and trust continues to be built over time. And that is not the only case of a treaty that has succeeded against all odds to bridge conflicting water interests; the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan and the Ganges Water Treaty between Bangladesh and India are other examples.
Zero-sum thinking emerges when people conceive of water as a fixed resource – one provided by nature in a given quantity that is either static or diminishing. Based on these assumptions, diplomats often focus on what share of the existing water will be given to each entity. Negotiations of this type typically involve decision makers who are political leaders focused on preserving sovereignty and maintaining state security. They are often unprepared to think about improving the overall efficiency of water use, which, in effect, can “create” more water.
Taught by world-renowned professors, distinguished thought leaders and best-selling authors.
BATNA
Business Negotiations
Conflict Management
Conflict Resolution
Crisis Negotiations
Dealmaking
Dispute Resolution
International Negotiation
Mediation
Meeting Facilitation
Negotiation Skills
Negotiation Training
Pedagogy
Sales Negotiations
Win Win
Women and Negotiation