In a series of posts, I described significant problems with the traditional negotiation paradigm of two coherent models, positional and interest-based negotiation (or other labels for essentially the same models). This paradigm has been helpful in moving us forward in recent decades. But simply saying that something was a interest-based or positional negotiation not only … Continue reading How Can You Get a Piece of the Action?
As Art reported, William Mitchell and Hamline Law Schools plan to merge. Best wishes to all our friends at both schools. Both have wonderful DR colleagues and have been great innovators in legal education. Hopefully, people there will like the new arrangements. Of course, even positive change can be stressful and some people may not … Continue reading Was the Mitchell-Hamline Negotiation a “Win-Win”?
In previous posts, I argued that there are serious problems with the general consensus on negotiation theory reflected most clearly in Getting to Yes. I described problems with the system of negotiation models, which assumes that most or all negotiations can fit into two models of highly-correlated variables (or a few variations of these models). … Continue reading We Need a Better Consensus about Negotiation Theory
In Part 1, I argued that there are fundamental problems with the system of negotiation models. In this part, I describe actual negotiation cases from my study to illustrate the problems. As you read about them, consider that I am now focusing primarily on problems with descriptive theory – basically a kind of language enabling … Continue reading Problems with the System of Negotiation Models, Part 2
SSRN subscribers will soon see a passel of my old articles scrolling across their screens and may wonder, “What the heck?” The heck is that, thanks to a new scanner, I was able to make nice pdf files of some articles I wrote before I started posting pieces on SSRN. With the benefit of hindsight, … Continue reading Oldies But Goodies
Does ADR include trials? I know, I know. This sounds like another one of my dumb questions. Although I have a pretty broad conception of DR, my initial reaction was that trial is one of the few procedures I would exclude from DR. As described below, on reflection, I probably would include trials. More importantly, … Continue reading What is (A)DR About?
“Oh Boy! A fight.” That’s often what I say in class when students vigorously disagree. I like these “fights” because they usually lead to helpful discussions that clarify differing views. So when Andrea wrote her post, Puffing Sucks, I thought, “Oh Boy! A fight.” She argues that puffing is “[l]ying, through and through,” and that … Continue reading Some Puffing Sucks . . . But Developing Good Relationships Is More Likely to be Effective than a New Rule
We often think of negotiation as a distinct and climactic phase of a dispute. Interactions leading up to the final settlement event are often considered merely as preparation, if that. In litigated cases, we often ignore the litigation as if it was largely irrelevant to the information available and the dynamics in negotiation. I base … Continue reading What is Negotiation?, Part 2
So said the illustrious founder of our blog – at least until good taste or something else induced her to change the title of an article to the more borrrrrring, “Teaching a New Negotiation Skills Paradigm.” (On the other hand, it you really want to rack up the ssrn downloads, use a sexy title like … Continue reading “Labels Suck”
I love teaching law students about misrepresentation in negotiation. I call this class, “lying like a lawyer.” Of course, civilians (i.e., non-lawyers) regularly fudge the facts, let’s call it. While it might be nice if there were bright-line norms of scrupulous honesty that were universally followed, that’s never gonna happen. I’m no expert … Continue reading To Puff or Not to Puff . . . (or When and How to Puff)
