Negotiation is often characterized as a physiologically arousing event marked by pounding hearts, queasy stomachs, and flushed faces. We might assume that heightened physiological arousal would mar our negotiation performance, but this is only true for some, researchers Ashley D. Brown and Jared R. Curhan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found in a new study soon to be published in the journal Psychological Science.
The following items are tagged negotiation simulation.
Participants will learn from a simulation only if they buy into the premise of the game. The following are the most common obstacles to a successful interactive negotiation training.
Simmons College believes that it is important for people in a leadership position, in almost any profession, to have a basic understanding of, and competency in, the negotiation process. Therefore, negotiation is a required course for the Simmons School of Management Master in Business Administration (MBA) and Master in Health Administration (MHA) degrees. The author designed and teaches the negotiation course for the Simmons online MHA program. In this program, the negotiation course is the lead course in the curriculum, and serves as a foundation course. The students are mid-career, health-systems professionals, many of whom have terminal degrees in their clinical areas of expertise. The author also teaches negotiation in the MBA program, where she designed the course as a “blended” experience, with some lessons taught online between face-to-face class sessions.
In negotiation, different types of reputations serve different purposes. When you’re haggling over just one issue, such as the price of a used car or a computer installation, one party’s win is typically the other’s party’s loss. In such distributive negotiations, where each party is trying to claim the biggest piece of a fixed pie, having a reputation as a tough bargainer can be an effective means of undermining a competitor’s confidence and power.
Tucked away in an idyllic corner of Maine is a summer camp that features many traditional American activities: singing around bonfires, flag raising ceremonies, Color Wars, and chilly dips in the lake. Less ordinary, however, are the daily dialogue sessions, where Israeli and Palestinian campers heatedly discuss their identities, homelands, politics, and pain.
Meet Seeds of Peace, the organization that runs this one-of-a-kind camp – and our client organization for a very unique clinical project. We – Krystyna Wamboldt (JD ’12), Rachel Krol (JD ’12), and Professor Robert Bordone (JD ’97) – partnered with Seeds of Peace to lead a skills-building workshop for the organization’s older youth, focused on interests-based, problem-solving negotiation.
As part of the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP), our three person team traveled to Jerusalem in January 2012 to teach negotiation and mediation skills to a group of Israeli and Palestinian teenagers, all former campers at Seeds of Peace. For three days, the “Seeds” did a range of activities, including several role-plays and active listening exercises. On the final day of the program, the students put their new skills to use in a group negotiation simulation about the conflict in Northern Ireland.
“It was incredible to look around the room and see both Palestinian and Israelis working together during the Ireland simulation,” said Rachel. “It was a challenging negotiation, yet they were communicating effectively, asking questions, listening to each other, and asserting their own interests while working towards a common goal. It was a wonderful sight!”
Adapted from “What Divides You May Unite You,” by James K. Sebenius (professor, Harvard Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, July 2005.
Some years ago, an English property development firm had assembled most of the land outside London that it needed to build a large regional hospital. Yet a key parcel remained, and its
Adapted from “Want the Best Deal Possible? Cultivate a Cooperative Relationship,” by Catherine H. Tinsley (professor, Georgetown University) and Kathleen O’Connor (professor, Cornell University), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, December 2006.
In multi-issue negotiations, research suggests that the advantage goes to negotiators with a reputation for collaboration rather than competition. In a series of studies
What do people value when they negotiate? Research by professors Jared R. Curhan and Heng Xu of MIT’s Sloan School of Management and Hillary Anger Elfenbein of Berkeley’s Haas School of Business provides useful insights concerning this basic question.
Using survey data collected from everyday negotiators and filtering it through a sorting procedure conducted by negotiation professionals, the researchers developed a “Subjective Value Inventory” (SVI) which includes four factors: 1) “Feelings about Instrumental Outcomes” represents elements such as “winning” the negotiation, or more generally, gaining a large share of the pie; 2) “Feelings About the Self” includes elements such as saving face and “doing the right thing”; 3) “Feelings About the Negotiation Process” includes elements such as being listened to by the other party; and 4) “Feelings About the Relationship” includes elements such as establishing trust and building a strong relationship.
Adapted from “Is Time on Your Side?” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, May 2007.
A difficult negotiation looms on the horizon—say, next year’s allocation of resources across divisions or your family’s summer vacation destination. Should you negotiate now or wait? Professors Marlone Henderson, Yaacov Trope and Peter Carnevale of New York University provide experimental
Who achieves the best negotiated outcomes: strangers, friends, or romantic partners? In a 1993 negotiation simulation, Margaret Neale of Stanford University and Kathleen McGinn found that pairs of friends achieved higher joint gains than married couples and pairs of strangers.
Along with their colleague Elizabeth Mannix of Cornell University, the researchers suggest that a “curvilinear relationship” exists between the strength of the tie between negotiating partners and the gains they achieve. Specifically, negotiating friends and couples have an edge over strangers by virtue of their knowledge of the other side’s preferences. Yet couples may be so averse to conflict that they are less successful than friends at capitalizing on differences.