The MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, one of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School’s many research programs, acts as a center for research committed to thinking about and resolving disputes in the public sector. Led by its Director and Program on Negotiation executive committee member Lawrence Susskind, the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program conducts research … Read More

Social comparisons – the assessments we make about how we measure up to others – are key to understanding how status operates in negotiation. These comparisons, which signal concern about relative status, have a profound impact at the bargaining table.

To make social comparisons, first we choose a reference group against which we can measure ourselves. … Read Social Comparisons in Negotiation

When two people share the same motive, they fall prey to the same flaws and reinforce each other’s failings. Consider a labor negotiation in which the chief management negotiator withholds information about revenue projections, while the labor leader holds back details about workforce sentiment. Impasse is the predictable result. When you’re negotiating with a fellow … Read More

Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School Chair and Samuel Williston Professor of Law Robert Mnookin wrote for CNN’s Opinion about the government shutdown negotiations between congressional Republicans and United States President Barack Obama. To read “How Obama and Boehner Can Get to ‘Yes’ ,” please click here. … Read More

People often wonder if they should constantly monitor their decisions to avoid bias. The answer is no. Social heuristics serve a useful function, allowing our social interactions to run more smoothly. When it comes to minor decisions, go ahead and compromise.

But when your organization is negotiating over important decisions and strategies, you must question the … Read Questioning Compromises

At last, the deal is done. After 18 months of negotiation, eight trips across the country, and countless meetings, you’ve finally signed a contract creating a joint venture with a Silicon Valley firm to manufacture imaging devices using your technology and their engineering.

The contract is clear and precise. It covers all the contingencies and has … Read The Deal is Done – Now What?

Judges don’t make decisions based on a thorough accounting of all the relevant and available information. Instead, like all of us, they rely on heuristics – simple mental shortcuts – to make decisions.

As many past articles have noted, heuristics often lead to good decisions, but they can also create cognitive blinders that produce systematic … Read How Mental Shortcuts Lead to Misjudging

The Washington Post’s “On Leadership” column by Jenna McGregor asked renowned negotiation experts on how the government shutdown in Washington, DC could be ended at the bargaining table.

Among the experts interviewed were Robert Mnookin, Chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (PON) and author of Bargaining With The Devil: When To Negotiate, … Read More

Program on Negotiation Chair Robert Mnookin sat down with National Public Radio’s Here & Now to discuss the government shutdown and the negotiating impasse between congressional Republicans and US President Barack Obama. Currently the clip is available on Here & Now’s website – click here to listen. … Read More

Program on Negotiation Chair and “Bargaining with the Devil” author Robert Mnookin was recently asked by CNN Fortune’s Claire Zillman about the strategies that Obama could employ in bringing congressional Republicans to the bargaining table in order to end the three-day old government shutdown. … Read More

Throughout the litigation process, judges gain new information at settlement conferences, motion hearings, discovery disputes, and the trial itself.

Inevitably, some of this information, though relevant to the case at hand, will be inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

Unfortunately, informational blinders can prevent judges from disregarding this information when making decisions. … Read How Inadmissible Evidence Leads to Misjudging