Death in the Family

SCENARIO:

Professor Famous teaches a course on the Theory and Practice of Problem-Solving. On the first day of class, an announcement is always made as to the "No-extension" policy. The Professor explains that the policy is intended to help students avoid the unpleasant consequences of procrastination that he suffered as a young lawyer. This year, when a student did not hand in an optional rough draft, due three weeks before the final, Famous attempted to reach the student by telephone to no avail. The student finally handed in the paper two weeks late, explaining plans to write the paper in the last week before the deadline went awry when the student's father died suddenly and unexpectedly.

 

MECHANICS:

This one-on-one negotiation takes 10-20 minutes. Either party can be given additional psychological role instructions. The negotiation can be repeated with the roles reversed. Videotaping is helpful for review.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise pits Carol Gilligan's two "voices" in direct conflict. This situation is exactly the kind contemplated by the professor's policy, yet we have immense sympathy as well for the student's position, both substantively and emotionally. Is it possible to "separate the people from the problem" here, and if so how?
  • The professor must also be concerned about whether the intended lesson will be understood by the student, or whether the experience will merely be souring. In the latter case, the professor may want to consider possible impacts on the professor's reputation, either as a person or as a teacher. What weight should that be given?
  • What are the student's interests? Getting an extension? Learning the professor's lesson? Doing the "right" thing? What, in fact, is perceived as the "right" thing? Like many of these exercises, this is based on a real case, and there seem to be no easy answers.
  • The case is a good vehicle for revealing various psychological assumptions and nonverbal behaviors, thereby generally increasing psychological awareness.

 

TEACHER'S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Professor
  • Student

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Interpersonal skills; Issue control; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Power imbalance; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Psychological games; Separating the people from the problem

Dirty Laundry

SCENARIO:

Marty Kasenberg, a regular customer of Yee Chin Cleaners brought several customized shirts to Yee to be laundered. Upon return to pick up the laundry, it was found the shirts had been destroyed. Marty is now seeking repayment of all the shirts that was left. Yee has apologized, and intends to make reimbursement. However, the two parties maintain differing views on the value of the shirts and reasonable compensation.

 

MECHANICS:

The arrangement of the mediation is left up to the mediator. The mediator may caucus, hold a joint session or both. The entire exercise could run from 30-60 minutes. Observations by two or more parties can be very useful for review purposes. Videotaping participants can also enhance follow-up discussions. " A Brief Outline of the Mediation Process", is useful background reading for the mediator. "An Actual Small Claims Mediated Agreement," is useful as follow-up reading for all parties, especially if mediators have been asked to draft any agreement reached. (Hand this out after the mediators have finished their own try at drafting.)

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case is useful as a training tool for small claims mediators. It provides an opportunity for the mediator to determine what meeting design is most beneficial for gathering information and discovering bottom lines.
  • Participants should be able to recognize creative options after assessing the various interests.
  • The importance of letting parties vent their anger stimulates focus on the role of emotions in mediation. What effect might this have on attaining an agreement? What role does it play in trying to rebuild a relationship?
  • Detailed review of precise language, ordering of issues, use of caucuses, and framing of issues can be enormously rewarding. Close observation and/or videotaping is invaluable, although student-student review is useful.
  • Small claims mediation skills can be thoroughly tested when the mediator attempts to deal with the anger, the differing views in value, and legitimacy.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Marty Kasenberg
  • Lou Yee Chin
  • Mediator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the Above

 

THEMES:

BATNA; Communication; Credibility; Drafting; Emotions; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Mediation; Meeting design; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Reservation price; Separating the people from the problem
MORE PRODUCTS BY PAT AARON:

Rosenberg v. Lincoln Landscaping
Smithfield v. Rudfurd's Home Repairs

Discord at the Daily Herald

SCENARIO:

Discord at the Daily Herald is a two party, internal negotiation between co-owners of a newspaper embroiled in management conflicts. J. Blanton and K. Logan are the co-owners of the Daily Herald newspaper. J. Blanton previously worked in the freight-shipping industry, while K. Logan worked in the Logan family media business. The co-owners have become embroiled in conflict over the direction of the paper’s future. As a result of this conflict, K. Logan has terminated the paper’s long-time editor in chief without consulting J. Blanton. K. Logan is seeking an overall shift to a digital-only publishing model in order to expand readership and return to profitability. J. Blanton wants to maintain a more print-based, traditional newspaper model to serve the community. Underlying this management discord are strained relationship dynamics been the owners and plummeting morale among the staff. J. Blanton feels that K. Logan does not take others’ input seriously, and K. Logan feels that J. Blanton is resistant to change and evolution. J. Blanton and K. Logan have also just been informed of a planned staff walkout in protest of management’s erratic leadership and they must now break their previous impasse on these issues to try to avert a crisis. Major lessons of this negotiation include:

  • Importance of agenda setting in multi-issue negotiations.
  • Breaking an impasse in a negotiation.
  • Negotiating with very weak alternatives (BATNA) and under pressure of escalating consequences.
  • Having difficult conversations in relationships with low trust.

MATERIALS: 

  • Teaching Notes
  • Confidential Instructions for J. Blanton
  • Confidential Role Instructions for K. Logan
  • Outcome Form

DONS Negotiation

SCENARIO:

Set in 2021 in the fictional state of Ames, this simulation involves an attempt to negotiation a settlement between two former sexual partners, Chris Wilson and Pat Stevens. At the time of her relationship with Pat, Chris knew that she was infected with the deadly DONS virus, which can only be transmitted through sexual intercourse. Chris did not disclose her DONS-positive status to Pat and proceeded to have unprotected sexual intercourse with him. After her relationship with Pat ended, and following counseling, Chris regretted what she had done and informed Pat that she had had the DONS virus during their relationship. After testing positive for DONS in a home self-test kit, Pat informed Chris that he planned to file suit. Chris responded that this should not be necessary as their lawyers should be able to work out a settlement.

With this general background, the lawyers meet with their clients in Round One of this exercise. During these preparatory meetings, each client discloses a new fact to his/her lawyer: Chris discloses the fact that she has inherited a great deal of money, and Pat discloses the fact that he is actually DONS-negative based on more precise lab testing. Neither Chris nor Pat wants this new information to be disclosed to the other party. In Round Two, the lawyers meet to discuss settlement.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation is designed to address ethical difficulties about disclosure and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
  • This negotiation is also an excellent vehicle for discussing broader issues regarding principal/agent tensions.

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • Participant materials
  • Teaching note

Drug Testing in the Workplace

SCENARIO:

A truck driver in the highly competitive, deregulated trucking industry has tested positive for drug use in a random, workplace drug test. The driver has not actually taken any drugs, but tested positive because of passive exposure to marijuana. The personnel director, the truck driver, and a representative from the Employee Assistance Program Center are meeting to negotiate appropriate action. In the unionized version, a teamster business agent is also present.

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Substantively, this exercise simulates the complex emotions that occur when someone's job is on the line. Work can be done with the guilt and anger that results.
  • There are also many context-lessons on doing testing — especially around mutual gains alternatives such as testing for impairment (reflex tests, etc.) rather than testing for drugs. Some employers have experimented along these lines to good effect. There are related issues around the potential benefits of such tests (where they are not legally mandated) in comparison to the costs.
  • The exercise provides opportunities for individuals to reflect the way in which we become locked in to unconstructive policies or career threatening stances — as well as prompting exploration of alternatives.
  • A key process lesson concerns the capacity of the EAP person to serve as a mediator, which varies with the unionized and non-union scenarios. In the unionized version, the EAP gets group together with the employer and mediation is more difficult.

Ellis v. MacroB

OVERVIEW:

This is a five-person, non-scorable simulation focused on mediating values-based legal disputes; specifically, disputes involving potentially conflicting values and interests around issues of homosexuality and religious faith. Based on a real case, this simulation focuses on a dispute between an employee and his/her employer, a large, privately-held software company. It also explores the role of attorneys representing their clients in negotiated agreements around values-based disputes.

In this simulation, until recently Ellis was senior project manager at MacroB, a computer software company headquartered in California. The simulation begins after a dispute arose between Ellis and MacroB after the launch of a company-wide diversity campaign that featured a series of diversity posters, including one that read: “I am a gay man and I am MacroB.” The posters were placed in employee work areas, including one located on the exterior wall of Ellis’s cubicle. Ellis is devoutly religious in a faith tradition that holds that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, and Ellis was deeply disturbed by the poster.

In response, Ellis posted several Bible scripture verses on the inside wall of his/her cubicle that included quotations that condemned homosexuality and predicted dire outcomes for those who engaged in homosexual acts. When asked to remove them by management, Ellis refused. The issue was elevated to the company’s Diversity Manager, P. Geer. After several meetings with Geer, Ellis offered to remove the passages if MacroB removed its posters depicting homosexual employees. After several meetings and no agreement, Ellis was given a week off with pay to reconsider, and MacroB removed the Bible verses that Ellis posted.

Upon returning to work, Ellis reposted all of the Bible passages and refused to remove them. During multiple meetings, the conversation between Ellis and Geer deteriorated, and when it became clear that Ellis would not remove the passages, Ellis was fired for insubordination. At the urging of a mutual legal professional, Ellis and MacroB have reluctantly agreed to speak with a mediator. After hearing from both parties, the mediator, Cheney, believes that some consensual resolution might be possible. The simulation begins at the point where Ellis, Geer, and their attorneys have convened with the mediator, Cheney.

 

MATERIALS INCLUDED:

Participant materials include:

  • General Instructions for all participants

 

Confidential Instructions for:

  • V. Ellis, former MacroB Employee
  • P. Geer, MacroB Diversity Manager
  • S. Chapin, Attorney to V. Ellis
  • S. Davis, Attorney to MacroB
  • H. Cheney, Mediator, Mediation Services

 

Teacher's Package Includes:

  • All of the above
  • Jennifer Gerarda Brown, Peacemaking in the Culture War Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty, 95 Iowa Law Review 747 (2010).
  • Teaching Note

 

TEACHING POINTS:

The key teaching objective is to demonstrate that assisted negotiation (i.e., mediation) can be used to resolve values-based disputes, not just interest-based disputes. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties and their attorneys can craft a settlement that does not require them to compromise their fundamental values. Key teaching points include the importance in values-based disputes of avoiding threats to individual identity, stressing the human element, focusing on ongoing relationships, focusing on overarching values, and focusing on individual interests as well as values.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Ellis v. MacroB is one of a 3-part series of simulations focused on the mediation of values-based disputes. The other two simulations in the series are Williams v. Northville and Springfield OutFest.

If you wish to purchase all three simulations at a discount we have a bundle option available click here. You can also download a PDF version of "Teaching about the Mediation of Values-Based and Identity-Based Disputes".

Ellsworth v. Ellsworth

SCENARIO:

Bill and Ellen Ellsworth are in the midst of a heated divorce. Mrs. Ellsworth instituted a divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. Her attorney will meet with Mr. Ellsworth's attorney to try to settle out-of-court. The issues with which both sides are primarily concerned are those of alimony, child support, medical insurance, ownership of family residence, custody of the children and visitation rights, division of securities and savings, and legal costs. Both parties want a divorce.

 

MECHANICS:

This case can be set up as a one-on-one or a two-on-two team negotiation. It is sufficiently complex to make teams worthwhile. Usually used toward the end of a negotiation training course, this case requires extensive preparation and involves a moderate amount of income tax law. It is recommended that at least one participant be familiar with personal income tax law. A minimum of 3 hours negotiation time is needed. Three days to run the full exercise is common. Any or all issues can be set for drafting. Agreements on other issues can be outlined.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The complexities of this simulation provide a good testing ground for the overall negotiating sophistication of participants.
  • Good preparation for the case requires extensive analysis when calculating BATNA's, deciding what client information must be kept confidential, and anticipating the other party's demands.
  • There is considerable opportunity to exploit joint gains by dovetailing compatible interests and using tax law creatively.
  • A variety of ethical issues are raised concerning the disclosure of information to the other side and the balancing of a client's long-term and short-term interests (e.g., revenge).

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Psychological Evaluation

 

Supplemental Information for Ellen Ellsworth and Bill Ellsworth:

  • Background Information Memo
  • Client Feedback Forms

 

Supplemental Information for Attorney Roles:

  • Background Information Memo
  • Tax Memo
  • Legal Memo
  • Section 208
  • Child Support Guidelines
  • Attorney Report Form

 

Role Specific:

  • Ellen Ellsworth
  • Bill Ellsworth
  • Wifes' Counsel (Ellen Forthcoming Negotiation Memo)
  • Husband's Counsel (Bill Forthcoming Negotiation Memo)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the Above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Attorney/Client relations; BATNA; Commitments; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Confidentiality; Decision analysis; Drafting; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Litigation analysis; Meaning of "success"; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Systems of negotiation

Escalation of a Conflict

This video lecture features former PON Executive Director Jeffrey Z. Rubin discussing the elements involved in the development of a conflict, including theories on interdependence and escalation.

Production Quality: Utility

Farrakhan Negotiation, The

SCENARIO:

The case is loosely based on a series of events which occurred at Princeton University in January and February, 1989, but reflects a number of similar situations that have taken place on various college campuses. In this exercise, the Black Students Union (BSU)–one component of the parent Minority Peoples' Center (MPC) at fictional Garden University–has invited the well-known Minister Louis Farrakhan, an outspoken and controversial African-American speaker, to give a speech at the University. When the student organizers learn that the costs of this speech will exceed their initial estimates, they are forced to seek additional sources for funding. It would seem that without additional financial support from somewhere in the University, the BSU will not be able to afford the speech.

At the same time, the University administration finds itself in a position to rethink their decision to support Farrakhan's speech. The speaker is contentious; racial tensions at the University are already high; the money needed to make up the BSU's shortfall seems to be in short supply. In addition, there is dissent both inside and outside the administration as to the true benefit of having someone as controversial as Farrakhan give a speech. This case centers around an upcoming meeting between three students and two administrators where these and additional matters will be discussed.

 

MECHANICS:

The case is designed for five negotiators: Two representing the University administration and three representing various students. The participants should spend approximately 45-60 minutes negotiating. A review and discussion period requires 60-90 minutes.

 

MAJORS LESSONS:

  • The knowledge that one's BATNA is weak often leads people to negotiate much less vigorously than they otherwise would. Is this ever justified? If so, under what conditions? This exercise affords a good opportunity to point out that any such analyses should be based on a consideration of the parties' relative BATNA's.
  • The substantive issues in the case seem easily understood on both sides, and provide the opportunity for tough bu creative negotiation. Too adversarial an approach can easily lead to serious, escalating conflict. Skillful discussion of interests and options can lead to significant gains and a mutually satisfactory and effective outcome.
  • Focusing on issues that are value differently will allow students to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach an agreement.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

Confidential instructions for the:

  • Special Assistant to the President
  • Assistant to the Dean of Students
  • Chair of the Minority People's Center
  • Co-Chair of the BSU
  • Second Student Organizer

 

Teacher's Package

  • All of the above instructions
  • Teaching Notes
  • Excerpts from a speech given by Louis Farrakhan

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Alternatives; Authority; BATNA; Communication; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Group process; Interests, dovetailing; Legitimacy; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Power imbalance

Franklin Family Foundation and Westbrook Regional School District

SCENARIO:

A recent report has stated that minority groups in the Westbrook Regional School District show a significant disparity in academic performance with regards to their white peers. In response, the Executive Director of the Franklin Family Foundation (a local charitable foundation) and the Superintendent of the District have developed a tutorial program for high school minorities, to be funded be the Foundation. Reaction from the community and the School Board has been mixed. The Foundation Board of Directors and members of the community, headed by members of the school board, are meeting to discuss what should be done to proceed in improving the program. The two groups will first meet separately to determine their collective goals and objectives, and then will meet together to negotiate on the program.

 

MECHANICS:

Ideally, all parties should be given their roles at least a day in advance to prepare.

The simulation takes place in 2 parts. The first part involves the community group and the board members meeting separately for 45 minutes. The second part involves the two groups having a joint meeting for 90 minutes.

There should be 3 rooms available. 2 rooms should be set-up for a 6-person meeting and a one room should be set-up for a 12 person meeting.

 

Time Requirements:

  • At least 30 minutes and preferably 1 day: preparation
  • 45 minutes: separate meetings of the two groups
  • 90 minutes: joint meeting of the two groups
  • At least 45 minutes: debrief
  • Total of at least 210 minutes

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation presents the opportunity to discuss creatively and to address a realistic problem facing many public education systems today.
  • The issues, and the participant's stances on those issues, do not divide neatly. Part of the challenge of this negotiation is figuring out what is important to the individual players. Only once that is clear, can the participants begin to craft a creative solution to which the parties can agree.
  • The internal negotiations within each side can quickly dissolve into interpersonal bickering and posturing.
  • Learning how to work together in the face of past disagreements is key to this negotiation. Separating internal or external negotiations properly is the key to consensus building in multi-party negotiations.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is part of a series in the Council on Foundations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General instructions
  • Profile of Westbrook Regional School District
  • Study titled “bridging the gap” on academic performances of ethnic groups
  • Notes on logistics and objectives
  • Worksheet for preparing for negotiations

 

Role Specific:

Foundation Board Members –

  • Ellen Rigby Franklin, Chairman of the Board
  • Thomas F. Leighton, Executive Director
  • Stephen J. Franklin, III, Board Member
  • Nancy Franklin Michaels, Ph.D., Board Member
  • Kevin Macloud, Board Member
  • Dr. Suzanne Lowe, Board Member

 

Community Members –

  • Martin O'Leary, Board President
  • Ruth Simone, Board Member
  • Julia Statner, Superintendent of Schools
  • Kyle Whitberg, President of PTA
  • Lynda Johnson, President of African-American Leaders
  • John Rayburn, President of Westbrook NEA

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes on logistics and major lessons

 

KEYWORDS:

Foundations; education reform; community consultation, multi-party negotiation; collaborative problem-solving

Future of Hebron, The

The Future of Hebron is a role simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Managing Conflict in the Middle East.

This simulation is set in the West Bank city of Hebron. Although Israeli troops have withdrawn from other Palestinian cities on the West Bank, they continue to control about one-fifth of the city of Hebron on order to protect a Jewish community centered around the Tomb of the Patriarchy and the Il Ibrahami Mosque.

During the last two years, Palestinians living in Hebron have protested continued Israeli occupation, and have sometimes attacked Israelis in the hope of forcing an Israeli withdrawal from the city. At the same time, Israeli settlers and soldiers have arrested and attacked Palestinians whom they see as threats to their security.

Both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have decided that the continuing violence in Hebron will jeopardize the possibility of lasting peace between the two groups. Both leaders fear that extremists groups will use violence to stop the peace process. The leaders are not sure that they can trust each other, let alone representatives of the extremist groups. Nevertheless, the have agreed to hold a meeting in Hebron to discuss land claims, security, and border control.

 

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

  • Importance of clarifying interests
  • Importance of rebuilding lost trust
  • Usefulness of objective criteria
  • Usefulness of neutral facilitators
  • Importance of agenda-setting
  • Importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflict
  • Difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationship
  • Challenges in dealing with intra-group dynamics; and causes of inter-group conflict escalation

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • History and General Instructions
  • Confidential Instructions for Israeli Government Official, Israeli Military Officer, Israeli Settlers Representative, PLO Official, Chief of Palestinian Police for Hebron, and Hamas Supporter
  • Framework for a Workable Peace
  • Master List of Player Goals
  • Teaching Note

 

If you would like additional information about the Workable Peace framework and teaching materials, including information about teacher training and support, please contact Workable Peace Co-Directors David Fairman or Stacie Smith at:

The Consensus Building Institute, Inc.
238 Main Street, Suite 400
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel: 617-492-1414
Fax: 617-492-1919
web: www.cbuilding.org
Email: stacie@cbuilding.org

George and Martha

SCENARIO:

George and Martha are about to be divorced, and have reached agreement on all issues but one–child support. They are in different tax brackets, and value child support and alimony differently. Both sides have chosen a representative to negotiate a decision.

 

MECHANICS:

Divide the class into teams of two, distribute the instructions, and allow approximately 10 minutes for participants to read and prepare a strategy. Following this preparation period, allow participants approximately 20 minutes to negotiate the case. Debrief the negotiation for about 45 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should the participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, George and Martha will be locked in a contest of wills. Hard bargaining may well emerge, resulting in a situation in which one party's gain means a corresponding loss to the other party.
  • Despite George and Martha's diverging preferences in characterizing payments, it is possible to obtain mutual gain by trading on the two parties' attachments to their relative interests.
  • This exercise demonstrates the feasibility of Howard Raiffa's notion of post-settlement settlement. As it is designed, the lesson points out that a "win-win" solution is possible when the parties closely analyze their interests and their potential for mutual gains. The failure to identify interests and invent options in a negotiation may lead to failure to reach any agreement, let alone an optimal one.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

  • George
  • Martha

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Competition v. Cooperation; Creating and Claiming value; Financial analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains

George Mitchell in Northern Ireland – “To Hell with the Future, Let’s Get On With the Past”

Part of the PON Great Negotiator Case Study Series, this 46-age factual case study examines the strategies and tactics used by U.S. negotiator George Mitchell during his two-year tenure as chairman of the all-party talks in Northern Ireland between 1996 and 1998. His efforts culminated in the signing of the historic Good Friday Accords. In 2000, Mitchell received the Program on Negotiation "Great Negotiator" award.

This case study was prepared as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.

Good Offices in a War-Weary World

Since the end of the Cold War, ethnic animosity, unresolved sovereignty claims, and persistent poverty have unleashed renewed violence in dozens of simmering conflicts — creating more pressure than ever to find improved conflict resolution methods. The Consensus Building Institute and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School have identified "good offices" as a particular type of third-party engagement in hot disputes that deserves closer study because it stands out as one of the most viable and least controversial methods of intervention.

A "good offices" provider is a person or organization of some standing that provides a physically and psychologically safe setting for the facilitation of negotiation. The provider's role is to try to help the parties "get to readiness" to negotiate by correcting misperceptions, clarifying issues, and facilitating communication. The good offices provider might be an outside neutral or a group of stakeholders; in either case, an effective good offices provider represents a strong principle or process.

Rich with examples and commentary from experts in the field of public dispute resolution, this video explores the nature, functions, benefits, and potential of the "good offices" role. Speakers include Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Roger Fisher, MIT Professor Lawrence Susskind, and Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Professor Eileen Babbit, as well as distinguished representatives from international conflict management, peacemaking, and aid organizations.

Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres

The Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School periodically presents the Great Negotiator Award to an individual whose lifetime achievements in the field of negotiation and dispute resolution have had a significant and lasting impact. In 2022, PON selected Christiana Figueres as the recipient of its Great Negotiator Award.

As UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres was tasked with a seemingly insurmountable challenge of putting together an impactful, global climate agreement to save the planet. Coming out the dramatic failure of the Copenhagen summit, many believed that such an agreement was not possible. However, with persistent optimism and careful, targeted interventions aimed at building momentum, in 2015 the Paris Agreement was unanimously adopted by the 196 participating nations and set forth a new framework for international climate agreements.

PON honored Christiana Figueres as its Great Negotiator in April 2022. This included a public session interview attended by students, faculty, and guests at Harvard Law School, as well as an in-depth private session interview, where Figueres answered questions and offered insights on the negotiation process. Both the public and private video interviews are included in the Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres video package. Below, check out a preview of the private session interview with Figueres and Professors James Sebenius and Hannah Riley Bowles:

These videos can be paired with the Christiana Figueres and the Collective Approach to Negotiating Climate Action case study, available for purchase separately from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC).

Great Negotiator Case Study Package

Since 2001, the Program on Negotiation has bestowed the Great Negotiator Award upon distinguished leaders whose lifelong accomplishments in the fields of negotiation and dispute resolution have had compelling and lasting results.

  • 2000 PON Great Negotiator: George Mitchell."To Hell with the Future, Let's Get on with the Past" features former U.S. Senator George Mitchell's work on the all-party talks in Northern Ireland between 1996 and 1998 that culminated in the signing of the historic Good Friday Accords.
  • 2002 PON Great Negotiator: Lakhdar Brahimi. Negotiating a new government for Afghanistan, featuring former United Nations Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi's involvement in negotiating an interim government for Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001
  • 2003 PON Great Negotiator: Stuart Eizenstat. Negotiating the Final Accounts of World War II, featuring former  EU Ambassador and Special Representative to the President, Stuart Eizenstat's work facilitating the award of $8 billion in reparations from multiple European governments, banks, and companies to victims of World War II
  • 2010 PON Great Negotiator: Martti Ahtisaari. Featuring former Finnish President and longtime diplomat's 2005 negotiation between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government. The resolution ended 30 years of violence and became known as "The Helsinki Accords". Includes both A Case and B Case.
  • 2014 PON Great Negotiator: Tommy Koh. Details the efforts of Singapore Ambassador-At-Large Tommy Koh to negotiate the United States-Singapore Free Trade agreement. Highlights Koh's successful actions to overcome the significant challenges presented by trade negotiations with the United States. Includes both A Case and B Case.

 

Each case study describes the featured negotiator's background and examines the context, strategies, tactics, and outcome of a particularly difficult international negotiation in which the negotiator was involved. Used together, the case studies offer a unique opportunity to learn from recent history and to compare and contrast the approaches of four renowned professional negotiators.

Each case study is also sold separately.