10 Notable Negotiations of 2021

As seen in our 10 Notable Negotiations of 2021, individuals, organizations, and governments struggled in 2021 to cope with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic using negotiation and conflict-resolution techniques.

Katie Shonk • June 18, 2024

Challenged by pandemic-era uncertainty, mounting political divides, and other obstacles, negotiators had difficulty coming together in 2021. But our list of 10 Notable Negotiations of 2021 includes a few bargaining highs amid the many lows.

10. That’s entertainment? Movie and TV crews have long faced hazardous working conditions, grueling schedules, and tight budgets—challenges exacerbated by the pandemic. These and other issues were at the center of labor negotiations between Hollywood film studios and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the union for film crew members in the United States and Canada. In October, after months of hard bargaining and impasse, the two sides hurriedly cobbled together a deal to avoid a strike.

9. Workers demand more. Labor shortages in many parts of the globe had workers expecting and asking for more in 2021. To attract new workers, many employers are offering them salaries and benefits comparable to those of tenured employees—which has led these more established employees to ask for more in return. Employees of some large organizations are using the power they’ve gained during the labor shortage to try to unionize. Although the majority of workers at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama voted against unionizing in April, a Buffalo, N.Y.–area Starbucks became the only U.S. store in the coffee chain to form a union in December.

8. Rivals team up for vaccine production. After pharmaceutical company Merck failed to develop an effective Covid-19 vaccine in early 2021, U.S. officials asked the company to help competitor Johnson & Johnson (J&J) bring its vaccine to the public. Merck initially balked but agreed to take the plunge after the government offered more than $250 million toward the effort. Having transformed its facilities at lightning speed, Merck is now contributing 500,000 J&J doses daily to the global fight against Covid. Also in 2021, Swiss pharmaceutical firm Novartis and French drugmaker Sanofi jumped in to help Pfizer and BioNTech produce their highly effective Covid-19 vaccine. As these stories show, crisis negotiations can harness rivals’ complementary capabilities.

7. The Biden administration puts the brakes on mergers and acquisitions. In the realm of M&A negotiation, the Biden administration undertook sweeping efforts to curb corporate consolidations and promote competition this year. In March 2020, during the Trump administration, insurance giants AON and Willis Towers Watson announced a $30 billion merger. In June 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the deal, arguing that the combined companies would create an anticompetitive “behemoth” that would disadvantage customers. As the case dragged on, the insurers opted to call off the deal. In November, the Justice Department sued to block publisher Penguin Random House’s planned $2.18 billion acquisition of Simon & Schuster, arguing that fewer publishers would lower advances for authors—a charge the companies refuted.

6. Juries weigh in on race-related shootings. Recent shootings of unarmed Black citizens in the United States and subsequent calls for justice played out in several high-profile jury trials in 2021. In April, a Minneapolis jury voted to convict former police officer Derek Chauvin of murdering George Floyd. In November, a jury in Kenosha, Wisc., acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges related to his shooting of three people, two fatally, during unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Also in November, a jury found three Georgia men guilty of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Although the deliberations and outcomes varied, the trials highlighted the heavy responsibility juries face in having to negotiate and decide the fate of their peers.

5. New fractures form in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005, John Roberts has sought to negotiate consensus agreements, aiming to keep the court from appearing partisan on contentious issues such as abortion and gun control. That goal appears more difficult as the court shifted conservative with the recent appointments of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. At December oral arguments regarding a Mississippi abortion law, Roberts floated a compromise position but appeared to have no takers. The Court’s behind-the-scenes negotiations are sure to culminate in memorable decisions in 2022.

4. In U.S. Congress, roadblocks ahead. With the U.S. Congress at least as divided and rancorous as much of the country, its efforts to pass legislation were painstaking and often unsuccessful. Lacking Republican support, Senate Democrats were repeatedly stymied by two of their members, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. Still, the bodies negotiated enough votes for passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March and a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill in November. And in December, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell surprised Democrats by agreeing in negotiations with majority leader Chuck Schumer to remove Republican opposition to raise the debt ceiling.

3. As migration accelerates, negotiations fail. Migration swelled worldwide in 2021, exacerbated by the pandemic and climate change, but government negotiations to address the challenge have been half-hearted. In December, after the tragic deaths of at least 27 migrants in the English Channel, British prime minister Boris Johnson and French president Emmanuel Macron blamed each other rather than committing to jointly working together on the issue. The same month, the Biden administration pulled out of negotiations to make financial restitution to about 5,500 migrant families harmed by a Trump-era policy that separated parents and children at the U.S. border with Mexico.

2. The United States reengages globally. Upon being sworn in on January 20, U.S. president Joe Biden brought the United States back into the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, and renewed the New START nuclear nonproliferation treaty with Russia. Though these steps marked a reengagement with the world after former president Donald Trump’s retreat, longtime global negotiating partners at times felt shut out of the White House’s decision making. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August alarmed NATO allies, a security agreement with Australia and the United Kingdom ruffled feathers with France, and renewed nuclear negotiations with Iran quickly stalled.

1. Vaccine distribution failures continue. Negotiating Covid-19 vaccine purchases on behalf of the European Union, the European Commission spent precious time haggling with vaccine manufacturers for a good deal on price and other issues. The result was a relatively slow vaccine rollout relative to that of the United States, Great Britain, and Israel. More broadly, the failure of wealthy nations to jointly negotiate an orderly and comprehensive rollout of Covid-19 vaccines worldwide continued to resonate in 2021. A nationalist approach to vaccine dealmaking and distribution likely contributed to new Covid-19 variants springing up in places where vaccines have been in short supply.

What other notable negotiations of 2021 would you add to our list?

Business Negotiations

How to Respond to Questions in Negotiation

In negotiation, answering certain questions directly can put us at a disadvantage. Discover how to respond to questions by deflecting with a question of your own, as an effective alternative.

Lindsay Sullivan • June 18, 2024

What’s the toughest question you’ve ever been asked during a negotiation? Do you know how to respond to questions when they’re out of your comfort zone? If you negotiate frequently, it might be hard to narrow it down to just one. Focusing on job interviews, here are a few negotiation questions that candidates often dread:

“How much do you earn at your current position?”
“We’re looking for a long-term commitment. Can you see yourself working here in five years?”
“Do you have any other offers?”
“What are your minimum salary requirements?”

Such questions are intimidating not because we don’t know the answers, but because we don’t want to share the information that’s being requested. Most of us feel compelled to respond honestly and completely to direct questions, even when doing so could hurt us. If you are currently underpaid, for example, answering the first question truthfully is liable to keep you that way. (In fact, a number of U.S. states and cities have made it illegal for employers to ask job interviewers what they currently earn because the question puts women and minorities, who earn less than white men overall, at a disadvantage.)

Other common strategies for how to answer a question that is tough don’t seem much better. Declining to answer a tough question— “I’d rather not answer that” or “I’ll have to get back to you”—can seem evasive. So can dodging—that is, answering a different question than asked, such as saying “I was very happy at my last company” when asked how much you earned there. What about providing truthful statements with the intention to deceive—for instance, saying “My company is generous to its employees” when you personally are underpaid? Negotiators generally perceive such so-called paltering as dishonest, and it increases the odds of impasse, Harvard Kennedy School professor Todd Rogers and his colleagues have found—not to mention that lying outright (such as saying “I’m considering several great offers” when you have none) is never a good choice. So is there a better way to know how to respond to questions in negotiation?

Fortunately, there appears to be a better strategy for responding to difficult questions in job negotiations and beyond. In a new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers T. Bradford Bitterly of the University of Michigan and Maurice E. Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania find that deflecting a tough question with a question of your own can help you avoid sharing sensitive information without being deceptive or irritating your counterpart.

How to Respond to Questions with An Artful Response

Across several experiments, Bitterly and Schweitzer looked at how participants responded to deflection as compared to other types of responses to difficult direct questions, including answering truthfully, declining to answer, lying outright, paltering, and dodging. They found that deflecting a tough question with another question conveys curiosity rather than caginess—and is often an effective means of redirecting the conversation away from information you’d rather not share.

In one online experiment, for example, participants were asked to read a transcript of a fictitious negotiation between an art dealer who was trying to sell a painting to a prospective buyer. The painting was said to be one in a series by a recently deceased artist, Jim Brine, and would be much more valuable to the buyer if he or she owned other paintings in the series.

All participants read that the seller asked the buyer, “Are you familiar with Jim Brine, the artist?” Participants then read one of the following buyer responses:

Honest disclosure: “I actually bought [another painting in the series] a couple years ago at an auction.”
Decline to respond:“I’m not prepared to discuss my collection right now.”
Lie of commission:“I’ve never heard of Brine, I just think this piece could look great next to the fireplace.”
Palter: “I’m not a professional collector or anything like that.”
Dodge: “I’m in town for a couple of days, and I noticed some other paintings at other galleries that I also liked.”
Deflection condition: “Didn’t he pass away recently?”

Deflection yielded better economic outcomes for the buyer than honest disclosure. Participants also said they trusted, liked, and would be more interested in negotiating again with a seller who deflected than with one who declined to respond. And while lying, paltering, and dodging at first generated better results than deflection, when participants were told that the buyer had hidden information, deflection proved to be a more effective strategy.

How to Respond to Questions in a Well-Balanced Way

Overall, among the techniques that Bitterly and Schweitzer tested, responding to a question with a deflecting question was the best way to improve one’s economic and relational outcomes. Participants tended to respond positively to deflection because they viewed the other party’s question as an attempt to seek additional information rather than as an attempt to obfuscate, another experiment showed. Not surprisingly, participants liked those who responded to a question with a follow-up question better than those who responded with an unrelated question.

In sum, “By responding to a question with a question, individuals can maintain favorable interpersonal impressions, capture economic surplus by avoiding revealing potentially costly economic information, and avoid the risks inherent in using deception,” write Bitterly and Schweitzer.

In the past we’ve discussed a useful strategy for resolving the “negotiator’s dilemma”—the inherent tension in negotiation between cooperating and competing: making multiple, equivalent simultaneous offers. Deflection appears to offer another way to help resolve the negotiator’s dilemma, as it allows us to avoid sharing information that could harm us financially while still appearing cooperative.

Preparing to make questions less difficult

Bitterly and Schweitzer caution that negotiators would be wise to practice their use of deflection, as responding to a question with another question may feel awkward and unnatural. Whether you intend to try deflection or not, it’s always a good idea to prepare for difficult questions, writes Harvard Business School professor James K. Sebenius in a November 2012 Negotiation Briefings article titled “Are You Ready for the ‘Hardest Questions?’”

Sebenius recommends taking time before negotiating to identify difficult questions the other party might ask. Then brainstorm possible responses and choose the one that seems like it would maximize your outcomes while preserving your relationship with the other party. Practice your answers, perhaps by role-playing the negotiation with a trusted colleague.

Once you get to the bargaining table, if your counterpart asks a difficult question that you were expecting, don’t assume he or she is trying to exploit you. “Listen carefully to the other party’s words and for the intent behind them,” writes Sebenius. “Don’t blurt out a prepared response unless it fits the situation.”

Preparing to face difficult questions can help us identify additional data we need to gather, other steps we should take, and various strategies we might try to “steer the negotiation away from the hardest question in the first place,” writes Sebenius. Doing so will put you in a stronger bargaining position and make you feel more comfortable walking away from a subpar agreement.

Are your questions good enough?

Improving your ability to answer tough questions is just one communication challenge in negotiation. Another is ensuring that you ask good questions yourself—ones that move the negotiation forward rather than leaving your counterpart feeling defensive and guarded.

Here are a few types of questions that are generally unproductive, according to University of California at Santa Barbara professor emerita Linda Putnam:

Closed questions that can be answered with a yes or no, such as, “Are you satisfied with this offer?”
Leading questions that state your position rather than gather information— for instance, “Wouldn’t you agree that we’ve made great progress so far?”
Loaded questions that, by conveying judgment, are likely to anger or offend your counterpart, such as, “What offer can you make other than this unfair one?”

The following guidelines will help you ask questions that generate useful information and help build a trusting relationship with your counterpart:

Ask neutral, open-ended questions that encourage elaboration: “How can we deepen your satisfaction with this offer?”
Ask circular questions—a series of questions that explore the interests underlying the other party’s positions: “What do you think is missing from our agreement so far?” “Do you think there are other people who should be involved in the discussion?” “Can you tell me more about the work they do and how they might contribute to our proposed partnership?”
Ask for their advice—for example, “I’ve never worked with a PR firm before. Based on your experience, what do I need to know to better understand your company?” Because most people like giving advice, questions that ask for their expertise can engage them in finding a solution that works for all parties involved, according to Tufts University professor Jeswald Salacuse.
Ask “Why?” Negotiators often become so fixated on determining what the other party wants that they forget to ask why they want it. Asking “Why?” encourages negotiators to reveal the purpose behind their intentions—and could lead to the discovery of valuable tradeoffs.
Ask closed questions to detect deception. While open-ended questions are best at stimulating productive dialogue, closed questions do have a time and place: Specifically, they’re better at sniffing out deception, research by Maurice Schweitzer of the Wharton School and Julia Minson of the Harvard Kennedy School finds. For example, the question “Has this car ever been in an accident?” will generally inspire a more honest answer than “Can you tell me more about this car’s history?”

Do you know how to respond to questions in negotiation? What else would you like to know?

BATNA

Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?

Taylor Swift and her family were unhappy with the deals that film studios were offering to mount her Eras Tour film in theaters--so she exercised her BATNA, skipped the middlemen, and got out of the woods.

Katie Shonk • June 18, 2024

What should you do when a negotiation is crumbling? Some people redouble their efforts—conducting more research, holding longer meetings, and scraping together more financing. Others look around for a better deal away from that particular negotiating table—that is, they explore their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA. As Matthew Belloni reports for Puck, Taylor Swift and her family are those types of visionary negotiators—ones whose real-world negotiation examples we can all learn from.

If This Was a Movie

In the spring of 2023, AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron got a call from a friend who was acquainted with Scott Swift, Taylor Swift’s father. The friend reportedly told Aron that Scott had had an epiphany about a “crazy idea” and wanted to chat, reports Belloni.

As it turned out, the Swifts had been negotiating with Hollywood film studios to distribute a concert film of Taylor’s blockbuster touring show, The Eras Tour, but were displeased with the terms they’d been offered. They wondered if they could bypass the studios and put the film, which they were producing themselves, directly into theaters.

For Aron, negotiating with the Swifts was a no-brainer. Yes, he risked ticking off the studios he negotiates with regularly by cutting them out of a deal to bring the film to market. But AMC and other theater chains had been burned by the studios many times in recent years, as when they sent their films direct to streaming services during the Covid-19 pandemic and limited the time films spent in theaters even as the pandemic waned. For struggling AMC, it had been near-death by a thousand cuts.

Plus, the film was as close as they come to a guaranteed hit. As the North American leg of the red-hot Eras Tour wrapped up in August, it had racked up an estimated $2.2 billion in ticket sales, making it the highest-grossing tour of all time. Millions of “Swifties” were sure to clamor to see it on the big screen. And the film would offer a much-needed injection of star power amid the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) writers and actors strike. The release dates of many films have been pushed back, as actors are prohibited from promoting them during the strike.

Swift and her team saw that they didn’t need the studios anyway—a smart BATNA analysis. She and her family had hired director Sam Wrench and paid for the movie themselves, and she could market it directly to her 365 million social media followers. Nor was there a concern about releasing the film before the international leg of the Eras Tour kicks off in November, notes Belloni: Those shows are already sold out.

Look What You Made Me Do

Given the many upsides, AMC’s Aron leapt at the chance to personally negotiate a term sheet directly with Scott and Andrea Swift, Taylor’s mom. No agents or lawyers were involved until the deal needed to be written up, according to Belloni.

Over the course of several weeks, the two sides worked out a negotiated agreement in which 43% of gross ticket sales will stay with the theaters, and 57% will be shared between the Swifts and AMC, with AMC serving as distributor. Theaters needed to commit to screen the movie for at least four weeks—a relatively long “theatrical window”—and for up to 26 weeks before terms might change. The Swifts also secured the ability to put the film on streaming services after 13 weeks in theaters. AMC, meanwhile, negotiated to distribute the film to other theater chains, such as Regal and Cinemark, and to retain all revenue from concessions.

“The Swifts will make a fortune, of course, but they’re actually leaving money on the table, and that’s on purpose,” writes Belloni. That’s because the family’s primary goal was to make the Eras Tour “accessible to as many fans as possible,” especially those who couldn’t afford tickets to the tour. Ticket prices for the film—$19.89 for adults, $13.13 for kids—were set “artificially low,” according to Belloni.

Ready for It?

Predictably, Swift’s August 31 surprise announcement of the film’s October 13 release thrilled Swifties and generated brisk box-office sales. Some insiders think Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour could open to a record $100 million in sales, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The Hollywood studios shut out of the deal also were taken by surprise. Some felt compelled to rearrange release dates for highly anticipated films, such as The Exorcist: Believer and What Happens Later, Meg Ryan’s return to romantic comedy, to avoid competing with Swift. For AMC and other theater chains looking forward to October 13, it was sheer karma.

Better Than Revenge

Swift and her family are known for being savvy negotiators. Their negotiations with AMC to bring their film to a theater near you underscore that reputation and offer compelling lessons to business negotiators seeking closure:

Shake it off and look around. We can become so engrossed in trying to make a negotiation work that we don’t explore our BATNA and even forget that other partners exist. The Swifts avoided this trap by recognizing they didn’t actually need the movie studios—and could negotiate with a theater chain instead.

Try to avoid bad blood. Before cutting a party out of a deal they value, as AMC did, you’ll want to consider potential long-term repercussions, such as losing the relationship or triggering vengeful behavior. You may be able to help the other side calm down with conciliatory behavior, such as offering to discuss other potential partnerships.

Keep your end game in sight. Negotiators often put so much stock in getting a great deal financially that they lose sight of other priorities. Swift stayed true to her goal of making her film available to fans who couldn’t get tickets to her live show, even if it meant sacrificing a bit of profit.

What advice do you have for managing difficult or delicate negotiations?

Negotiation Essentials Online

Negotiation Essentials Online – December 17 – 18, 2024

PON Staff • June 17, 2024

NEGOTIATION ESSENTIALS ONLINE
DECEMBER 17 – 18, 2024

Program Agenda

DAY 1: Tuesday, December 17, 2024
GETTING STARTED

MORNING:

Module 1: Preparing to Negotiate
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. ET

Examine core frameworks of negotiation, including the importance of principled bargaining and shared problem-solving.

Alongside your fellow participants, you will:

Learn the elements of negotiation
Receive useful advice on preparing for negotiations
Start to shift to thinking systematically about the negotiation process
Discover how to manage the negotiation process
Find your own voice in leading negotiations

Through negotiation exercises and interactive discussions, you will examine ways to structure the bargaining process to allow for joint problem-solving, brainstorming, and collaborative fact-finding. These frameworks will help you think more clearly and set the stage for productive negotiations.

AFTERNOON:

Module 2: Creating and Claiming Value
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ET

In this module you will explore the “Negotiator’s Dilemma” and strategies for creating value while ensuring your fair share of distributed value.

Alongside other professionals, you will:

Acquire strategies for creating value
Discover how to create trust by sharing information
Strategize on how to claim value and use tension to your advantage
Learn how to make multiple offers simultaneously
Work to craft a post-settlement settlement
Apply knowledge to a commercial situation

Day 1 will conclude with a brief summary of modules 1 and 2.

DAY 2: Wednesday, December 18, 2024
PSYCHOLOGY OF NEGOTIATION

MORNING:

Module 3: Managing Emotions in Negotiation
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. ET

In conflicts and negotiations, emotions are inevitable. To be effective, negotiators must learn to navigate personality differences, differing agendas, and other emotional challenges. This module focuses on understanding and addressing emotional dynamics that arise in everyday negotiations.

During this module, you will:

Gain expert tips for dealing with the emotional components of negotiations
Examine the five core concerns that motivate people and learn how to use them
Explore the roles of autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, status, and positions in negotiations
Learn to apply techniques in a family business scenario where tensions are high
Take part in a case study that features an emotionally charged negotiation scenario
Collaborate with your fellow participants to develop approaches for effectively diffusing and addressing the situation

AFTERNOON:

Module 4: Dealing with Difficult Conversations
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ET

Discover breakthrough strategies for dealing with difficult conversations that often arise in negotiations. This module focuses on understanding the interpersonal dynamics at play in tough conversations, with a goal of taking negotiations from difficult to collaborative.

Alongside your fellow participants, you will:

Acquire tools for dealing with difficult conversations
Start to shift your mindset to reach agreements
Watch a video of a faculty expert coaching a negotiation participant in a nonprofit setting
Work to balance strong feelings and the desire to be right with the desire to strike a deal
Acquire proven negotiation tips, such as the importance of consulting before deciding

After learning about difficult conversations, you will complete the course’s most intensive simulation yet, using your newly acquired skills.

Day 2 will conclude with a wrap-up and summary of all modules.

Designed for maximum impact, this program will feature:

Interactive Zoom sessions led by a PON instructor
Engaging and educational prerecorded videos, featuring seven world-class PON faculty members from across Harvard, MIT, and Tufts
Case studies based on real-world experience
Opportunities to negotiate and engage in discussion with your fellow participants from all over the world, both over Zoom and email

Our Faculty

Our team is comprised of world-renowned faculty from across Harvard, MIT, and Tufts.

Your Negotiation Essentials Online Instructor:

Brian Mandell

Mohammad Kamal Senior Lecturer in Negotiation and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Director, Harvard Kennedy School Negotiation Project
Faculty Associate, Center for Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School
Vice Chair for Executive Education for the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School
Senior Research Associate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project, Harvard Kennedy School
Faculty Co-Chair, Mastering Negotiation: Building Sustainable Agreements, Harvard Kennedy School
Chair, Wexner Senior Leaders Program, Harvard Kennedy School

Brian Mandell is a preeminent teacher and curriculum designer at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he leads an innovative, intensive annual workshop course on advanced multiparty negotiation and conflict resolution.

Professor Mandell refined his case teaching methods in international affairs as a Pew Faculty Fellow and subsequently trained faculty from across the United States in case method pedagogy with a special emphasis on teaching and writing cases for international security studies.

He is a multiple recipient of the school’s Most Influential Course Award, the Manuel C. Carballo Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the Dean’s Award for Teaching Excellence. Through the Negotiation Project, Professor Mandell designs and produces multiparty negotiation exercises that focus on the challenges of cross-boundary collaboration.

Additionally, he is designing and developing curriculum material for graduate students and congressional staffers in the Hewlett Foundation’s Madison Initiative on strengthening bipartisan legislative negotiation in Congress.

Educational Videos Feature Expert Faculty:

Guhan Subramanian

Faculty Chair, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School; Joseph H. Flom Professor of Law and Business, Harvard Law School; H. Douglas Weaver Professor of Business Law, Harvard Business School; Faculty Chair, JD/MBA Program, Harvard University

The first person at Harvard University to hold tenured appointments at Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, Guhan Subramanian is an educator, dealmaker, and leader. As the Chair of the Program on Negotiation, he spearheads negotiation and mediation training programs for more than 3,000 professionals each year. Subramanian’s research focuses on corporate governance and law, and negotiation. He has authored several world-renowned books including, Dealmaking: The New Strategy of Negotiations.

Gabriella Blum

Rita E. Hauser Professor of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Harvard Law School; Vice-Dean for the Graduate Program and International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School

Faculty Director of the Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, Gabriella Blum is widely published in public international law and the law and morality of war. Blum studied law and economics at Tel Aviv University, and joined the Israel Defense Forces, becoming a senior legal advisor. During her service, she worked on the Israeli–Arab peace negotiations, cooperation with foreign forces, and administering to the occupied Palestinian territories. She joined the Israeli National Security Council as a strategy advisor before joining Harvard Law School in 2005.

William L. Ury

Senior Fellow, Harvard Negotiation Project; Co-founder, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

William Ury has served as a negotiation adviser and mediator in conflicts ranging from corporate mergers to ethnic wars in the Middle East and is one of the world’s leading experts on negotiation. He is also the author of The Power of a Positive No: Save the Deal, Save the Relationship—and Still Say No and co-author (with Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton) of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, an eight-million-copy bestseller translated into more than 30 languages.

James Sebenius

Gordon Donaldson Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School; Director, Harvard Negotiation Project

James K. Sebenius specializes in analyzing and advising on complex negotiations. At the Program on Negotiation, he is director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, Co-chair of the Great Negotiator Award Committee, and Co-founder/Director of the Negotiation Roundtable. He also holds the Gordon Donaldson Professorship of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

Max Bazerman

Executive Committee Member, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School; Jesse Isidor Strauss Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School; Co-director, Center for Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School

Max Bazerman is a leader in decision-making, negotiation, and behavioral ethics. He has consulted and lectured in 30 countries, and wrote or collaborated on 20 books, including Negotiation Genius. He has an honorary doctorate from the University of London and an Aspen Lifetime Achievement Award, and is one of Ethisphere’s 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics. Bazerman was named a Daily Kos Hero for revealing how the Bush administration corrupted the RICO tobacco trial.

Daniel L. Shapiro

Associate Professor of Psychology, Harvard Medical School / McLean Hospital; Director, Harvard International Negotiation Program; Associate Director, Harvard Negotiation Project

Professor Shapiro’s research focuses on the emotion and identity in negotiation and conflict resolution. He is author of Negotiating the Nonnegotiable and co-author with Roger Fisher of Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. He has published extensively and developed innovative psychological models on relational factors driving conflict and its resolution. Professor Shapiro specializes in building theory and testing it in real-world contexts. He launched successful conflict resolution initiatives in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia and chaired the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Conflict Resolution Administration at Harvard Business School.

Sheila Heen

Thaddeus R. Beal Professor of Practice, Harvard Law School; Deputy Director, Harvard Negotiation Project; Founder, Triad Consulting

Sheila Heen has developed negotiation theory and practice at the Harvard Negotiation Project since 1995. She specializes in difficult negotiations – where emotions run high and relationships are strained. Heen is the co-author of two New York Times bestsellers. She has written for the Harvard Business Review, and for the New York Times as a guest expert and Modern Love columnist. Heen is also a Founder of Triad Consulting Group, a corporate education and consulting firm that serves clients on six continents. Her clients have included Pixar, Hugo Boss, the NBA, and the Federal Reserve Bank.

Negotiation Essentials Online

Negotiation Essentials Online – June 3 – 5, 2025

PON Staff • June 17, 2024