Harvard Negotiator
Expert in principled negotiation, guiding towards win-win outcomes.
27 👀
Views
0 🌟
Ratings
Tags:
Sign up to our newsletter
Get weekly updates on trending GPTs and new features.
Related GPTs
More about this GPT 🌟
General Info 📄
Author: aipire.com
- Profile
Privacy Policy:
N/A
Last Updated:
Feb 11, 2024
Share Recipient: link
Tools used: browser, dalle
Additional Details
ID: 114148
Slug: harvard-negotiator
Created At: Feb 20, 2024
Updated At: Sep 26, 2024
Prompt Starters 💡
- Tell me about your negotiation scenario.
- Let's brainstorm creative solutions.
- What objective criteria should we consider?
- How can we achieve a win-win outcome?
- In June 2013, there was an opportunity for North and South Korea to come together in Seoul for high-level government talks aimed at improving their strained relationship. However, before the talks even began, a dispute arose over the rank of each side’s chief delegate. South Korea had appointed its vice unification minister as its chief delegate, which offended North Korea, leading them to demand a more senior representative from the South. This escalated into a face-saving battle, with both sides refusing to back down on the delegate selection issue. Eventually, North Korea canceled the talks, accusing the South of insulting them. This situation highlights a critical aspect of negotiations which is the importance of saving face. In this case, South Korea missed an opportunity to engage with North Korea by not conceding on the relatively minor matter of delegate status, which would have allowed North Korea to save face.
- Starbucks and Kraft formed a partnership in 1998 to distribute Starbucks packaged coffee in grocery stores. However, as the coffee industry landscape evolved, particularly with the surging popularity of single-serve coffee pods, Starbucks sought greater flexibility to adapt to market trends. In 2010, Starbucks proposed buying out Kraft’s contract for $750 million to terminate the agreement Kraft objected to the deal termination, Kraft raised objections, but Starbucks proceeded with the termination nonetheless. Subsequently, Starbucks witnessed significant growth in its share of the single-serving coffee pod market and grocery-store product sales. To resolve their dispute over this contract termination, the two companies resorted to arbitration after failing to settle independently. In 2013, the three-year dispute between Kraft Foods and Starbucks regarding the distribution of the latter’s packaged coffee in grocery stores reached its conclusion. In November of 2013, an arbitrator ruled that Starbucks had breached the agreement, ordering the coffee giant to pay Kraft Foods $2.75 billion to settle the dispute.
- A critical negotiation that occurred more than three decades ago is gaining significance in today’s Hong Kong, which has been in a state of unrest since the introduction of an extradition bill in 2019. This bill could have allowed Hong Kong criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. While the bill has been withdrawn, widespread protests continue. The negotiation in question is the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Back then, China’s leader and the UK’s Prime Minister talked about what would happen to Hong Kong. The UK, which had control of Hong Kong for a long time, agreed to give it back to China on July 1, 1997. This agreement states that China’s rules for Hong Kong would stay the same for 50 years, including its legal system, until 2047. However, China now says this deal only counted until 1997, and the UK doesn’t have rights concerning Hong Kong since then. The UK disagrees and insists that it’s still a valid deal. This issue makes it more complicated because of recent elections in Hong Kong where pro-democracy people won, and because the US made a law supporting Hong Kong, which made China mad. The UK is not as strong as the US, so it’s in a tough spot. However, the UK lacks the leverage the US possesses, especially with the support of the European Union. Damaging the UK-China relationship over an issue with limited potential outcomes would be unwise, especially as the UK seeks to build alliances in a changing global landscape.
- In October 2013, Time Warner Cable faced a significant crisis when it reported an unprecedented quarterly loss of television subscribers, with 306,000 customers out of its 11.7 million-strong base choosing to cancel their subscriptions. This problem was due to its dispute with the television network CBS over programming fees. This dispute was so bad that Time Warner Cable temporarily stopped showing CBS in some big cities like New York and Los Angeles. In the end, CBS got to be victorious in this dispute. CBS secured a substantial increase in fees for its programming in the affected blackout areas, raising the fee per subscriber from about $1 to $2. Additionally, CBS gained the digital rights to distribute its content through online platforms like Netflix. Time Warner Cable conceded largely due to its fear of losing a significant portion of its subscriber base if the dispute disrupted the broadcast of Monday night football on CBS. What can I learn from it? This dispute highlights that trying to be tough in negotiations, like what Time Warner Cable did, can often make things worse. Instead of helping, it can backfire on you. It’s better to find a solution that works for both sides. Winning at the other person’s expense usually doesn’t work out well in the long run. Thus, seeking mutually beneficial solutions is usually what makes negotiation successful.