The “Negotiation in the News” Assignment: Building Negotiation Competencies Using Real-World Analysis

As any experienced negotiator (and negotiation teacher) knows, negotiation involves a complex array of skills, including strategic planning, tactical behaviors, quantitative analysis, communication, self-awareness, empathy, observation, and metacognition. Over the course of just a few minutes, a negotiator might need to actively listen to her counterpart, monitor her own body language, mentally update an assumption she had made during preparation, recognize her counterpart’s attempt to anchor, draw upon her prior research to evaluate the anchor, consider how her various response options might affect both the process and the relationship, assess potential ethical considerations, identify opportunities to create or claim value, decide whether and how to reframe the issue, and communicate her response. Still other skills may be needed apart from the direct counterpart interaction, such as recognizing a negotiation opportunity in the first place (Kugler et al. 2018), gathering appropriate information to prepare a strategy (Malhotra and Bazerman 2007a), identifying and improving a BATNA (Fisher and Ury 1981; Malhotra and Bazerman 2007b), aligning appropriate stakeholders, and monitoring the implementation of any agreement (see, e.g., Lax and Sebenius 2006). The diversity and breadth of these skills make it impossible for anyone to master them all simultaneously.

For pedagogical and logistical reasons, negotiation teachers inevitably select or design learning experiences that focus on specific negotiation skills (see, e.g., Williams et al. 2008 and Patton 2009). This focus often means that other skills are not directly addressed. For example, discussing a factual case study might help students develop analytical skills like stakeholder mapping or BATNA assessment, but not behavioral skills such as active listening or handling unexpected tactics. Watching video clips or live demonstrations can help students recognize and replicate specific tactics (Nadler et al. 2003) while doing little to help them develop strategic planning, self-awareness, or self-management skills. Therefore, negotiation courses with broad learning goals need thoughtful combinations of different learning experiences.

Role plays¹ have been a staple in negotiation teaching for decades (see, e.g., Fortgang 2000; Susskind and Corburn 2000; Ebner and Efron 2005; Movius 2008; Druckman and Ebner 2013; Kesting and Smolinski 2023). Their engaging and versatile format allows for a wide range of scenarios, from simple two-party, single-issue transactions to complex multiparty, multi-issue disputes. Role plays can be adapted to various contexts with any amount of (or no) contextual details and can be designed to permit any number of creative agreements or no agreement at all. They can be structured to present specific contextual opportunities, challenges, or dynamics, such as the apparent or actual absence of a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), power imbalances, asymmetrical information, hidden value-creation opportunities, partisan perceptions, and shifting coalitions.

With such versatility, different role plays and associated activities like debriefs and reflections can support a wide range of negotiation skill development. For instance, negotiating and debriefing a simple distributive role play can help students understand how to assess the ZOPA and determine whether and when to anchor. A role play involving an interpersonal conflict might promote skills to navigate difficult conversations such as active listening or making “I-statements.” More complex multiparty negotiations can enhance skills in coalition building and process management.

At the same time, the design features that make role plays so useful for certain learning goals also limit their effectiveness in supporting others. By their nature, role plays require students to “pretend” by adopting externally imposed motivations or negotiating over imaginary resources. While these exercises can elicit real negotiation dynamics, they cannot fully replicate an authentic real-world negotiation experience (Ebner and Efron 2005; Alexander and LeBaron 2009; Manwaring et al. 2010).

For instance, with few exceptions, most negotiation role instructions tell students that a negotiation opportunity exists and identify their counterpart(s) so that students don’t need to recognize opportunities themselves or choose which stakeholders to engage. Role plays often explicitly state key negotiation elements such as interests and BATNAs or at least provide sufficient (and neatly packaged) information to deduce them. Students therefore need not conduct research to handle the ambiguity caused by a lack of readily available information. Additionally, role plays are typically static, with a stable context throughout the exercise, so students need not update their assumptions or revise their strategies based on changing external circumstances. Moreover, role plays are intentionally limited in scope to fit time constraints or generate specific dynamics, lacking the contextual complexity of real-world negotiations.

While role plays are justifiably popular for the experiential learning they offer, this experience has its limits. Educational psychologist Marcy Driscoll identifies multiple factors that support effective experiential learning, including “complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity” (Driscoll 1994: 365). In addition to the limitations of prepackaged and circumscribed data, role plays are often designed with time constraints that conceal the longitudinal realities of complex negotiations. Moreover, they cannot fully replicate critical factors such as pre-existing relationships, cultural norms, or long-term implications for resources and reputations. Students recognize that typical role plays lack the full complexity and authenticity of real-world negotiations. Even if they enjoy and see value in role plays, the lack of realism is a common complaint (see, e.g., Ebner and Efron 2005; Crampton and Manwaring 2008; Alexander and LeBaron 2009).

The trajectory of negotiation research and theory over the past several decades increasingly acknowledges the complexities, ambiguities, and dynamism of authentic negotiation (see, e.g., Coleman 2006; Wheeler 2013). To keep pace and to help students develop a fuller range of negotiation skills, negotiation educators should go beyond the role play (Movius 2008; Alexander and LeBaron 2009; Susskind 2015). Factual case studies of real-world negotiations can address some of these pedagogical gaps. Indeed, well-researched case studies portray the complexities of real-world negotiation contexts and longitudinal dynamics. However, the prepackaged case study format is less useful in helping students learn to notice negotiation dynamics in real-world events or to gather relevant data about a negotiation. While students might bring in real-world knowledge to analyze a case study, knowledge of the eventual result introduces outcome bias into their interpretation, and it can be challenging to apply contextual knowledge to disguised or fictionalized case studies.

Our assignment, Negotiation in the News (“NITN”), is designed to supplement student learning from role plays and case studies by addressing specific pedagogical gaps. The NITN assignment requires student groups to identify, select, and follow a current unresolved negotiation over the course of several weeks as it unfolds.² The negotiation can be from any context—business, legal, political, etc.—as long as it involves identifiable negotiating parties and is being actively reported in the media. The assignment culminates in group presentations to the rest of the class, in which groups apply course concepts to analyze their chosen negotiation and suggest strategies for a successful resolution or present reasons for the likelihood of a suboptimal agreement or complete breakdown. It may include a supplemental written submission as well. Detailed sample assignment instructions from each co-author are provided at Appendix A and Appendix B.

Learning objectives of the NITN assignment that are less readily supported through role plays and traditional case studies include:

• recognizing negotiations that organically occur in the real world, whether or not they are labeled as such;

• proactively gathering relevant information to analyze a negotiation, including determining where and how to obtain relevant information as well as how to interpret it;

• analyzing negotiation dynamics, such as interpersonal tactics, coalition building, or BATNA development as they unfold in an authentic time frame—often over days, weeks, or months—and with real motivations, resources, and implications at stake; and

• assessing the impact of complex contextual factors in real time, such as economic trends, technological developments, cultural influences, or geopolitical shifts.

Collectively, we have used the Negotiation in the News assignment consistently for the past four years (although Weirup has experience with it prior to the pandemic), with both undergraduate and MBA students in semester-long negotiation electives at Babson College. Below, we discuss in more detail how the assignment is designed to support the above learning goals, with examples from our experience.

Recognizing negotiation opportunities is a critical prerequisite for effective negotiation. As their first task, groups must select a topic: any current, unresolved negotiation that is being reported through publicly available media (see Appendix C for examples). While we share examples of prior student-selected topics with our classes, we do not offer specific topic choices or recommendations. Giving students the autonomy to select their own topics generates intrinsic motivation and prevents anchoring on topics familiar to the instructor. More importantly, we want to encourage students to notice negotiations in the world around them, whether or not they are explicitly framed as such.

Sometimes, students select local, national, or international negotiations they already have heard about and that have caught their interest. These have included municipal negotiations about whether to fund lights on the local high school football field; contract or sponsorship negotiations involving celebrity athletes such as Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton or soccer star Leo Messi; highly publicized labor disputes such as those in the auto manufacturing and airline industries; mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures involving well-known corporations such as Amazon or Microsoft; and headline political negotiations such as U.S. Congressional negotiations over funding for Ukraine.

Often, though, students choose not to select a negotiation that they already know about. Instead, they spend several days reading, watching, or listening to the news with an eye (or ear) toward noticing current events involving negotiation. This sometimes leads to recognizing negotiations not explicitly framed as “negotiations” by the media. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, interest groups such as police, firefighting, and trucking unions protested local masking and vaccination mandates. Several fall 2020 groups recognized and analyzed these protests and the corresponding government responses as forms of negotiation, even though they were rarely described as “negotiations” in the media. In 2022, one student group knew of Microsoft’s announced intent to acquire the gaming company Activision, subject to approval by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While the FTC had unilateral decision-making power, the group recognized Microsoft’s and Activision’s joint efforts to influence the FTC’s decision as a negotiation. Rather than analyzing the obvious acquisition negotiations, the group chose to focus on Microsoft’s and Activision’s joint “negotiation” with the FTC to secure regulatory approval, acknowledging how it paralleled and differed from typical transactional negotiations.

Why do we include “recognizing negotiations” as a learning goal? First, because recognizing negotiation opportunities is a prerequisite for effective negotiation (e.g., Babcock and Laschever 2003; Kugler et al. 2018). Through this assignment, students learn to identify the variety of contexts in which real-world negotiations occur, which enhances their ability to recognize and leverage negotiation opportunities in their own lives. Second, by training students to notice real-world negotiations, we aim to help them connect theory to practice in concrete, relevant, memorable ways.

Another learning goal for the NITN assignment is to practice identifying and gathering information relevant to understanding negotiations, while managing the challenges of incomplete or inaccessible information. Unlike with typical role plays, students working on a NITN assignment are not spoon-fed the negotiation parameters, such as “here are this party’s main interests, reservation value, and BATNA.” In fact, that information may not be publicly available. To conduct their NITN analyses, students must determine what kind of data they need and then may need to infer such parameters based on real-world data, just as they frequently must do in real negotiations. Students are encouraged to avoid relying solely on media coverage and to seek out a range of public data sources to support their analyses. These might include press releases, interviews, social media statements, organizational charts, financial statements, prior agreements, legal filings, meeting transcripts, or video recordings, among other sources. For example, a group might analyze a company’s press release to understand its public stance, review financial statements to gauge economic pressures, or examine social media statements for public sentiment and informal updates on negotiation progress. In a sports contract negotiation involving a high-profile athlete, students might analyze press releases from the team and the athlete’s agent to understand their public positions. They could review the team’s financial statements to assess its budget constraints and spending patterns. Social media statements from the athlete might provide insights into their personal priorities and informal updates on negotiation progress. Additionally, examining prior contracts and legal filings could reveal standard terms and precedents that might influence the current negotiation.

Furthermore, because publicly available information about actual negotiation tactics is often limited, students must make educated guesses about what might be happening “behind the curtain.” For instance, while students were not privy to the specific communications involved in Amazon’s 2021 acquisition of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), they assessed the parties’ shared goals and complementary capabilities to infer a primarily integrative approach that both leveraged shared interests (leveraging MGM’s reputation in the film industry and securing regulatory approval) and logrolled differing interests (Amazon’s interest in strengthening its content offerings and MGM’s interest in expanding its distribution channels). Similarly, students analyzing the 2022–2024 contract discussions between the Newton (Massachusetts) Teachers’ Association and the Newton School Committee used the extensive media coverage, polarizing public statements, and two-week teachers’ strike to infer that the process involved power-based tactics. Even in the rare situation when formal negotiations are public, such as municipal negotiations broadcast through local access channels, students must still consider back-channel or informal negotiations likely occurring outside the public eye.

In real-world negotiations, we do not receive “confidential instructions” or “general instructions”; instead, we must conduct our own research and analysis to develop a strategy. We also need to manage incomplete information, as we are unlikely to be invited to the strategy and decision-making meetings of our counterpart(s). With well-researched case studies or prepackaged role play instructions, students avoid the research stage and the challenge of grappling with ambiguous and incomplete information. Students working on the NITN project face these challenges head-on: they must determine what information they need to analyze the negotiation context and dynamics, where to find it, what they might reasonably infer from it, and how to handle the inevitable gaps and ambiguities in the information they find.

A third learning goal of the NITN assignment is to help students appreciate the dynamic nature of negotiations as they unfold in real time (see, e.g., Lax and Sebenius 2006; Wheeler 2013) and the need to continuously re-assess and update their initial analyses. Newsworthy negotiations take place over days, weeks, months, or years, rather than the hour or two typically allocated to in-class role plays or case discussion.³ During this time, the parties’ BATNAs may strengthen or weaken; their goals and interests might shift; their resources might increase or dwindle; and they may build, change, or lose strategic coalitions. Sometimes parties deliberately influence these changes; sometimes they are due to factors outside anyone’s control.

For example, one group focused on a high-profile soccer contract negotiation. The player, Erling Haaland, had engaged Mino Raiola—then considered one of the most successful and influential agents in the world—to negotiate on his behalf. The students initially focused on Raiola’s track record and reputation to predict a favorable contract for the player. In the midst of the contract negotiations, Raiola unexpectedly died (CNN 2022). This development initially left the students bewildered. However, by applying the course frameworks, they were able to articulate the potential effect this event had upon the negotiation dynamics. Raiola’s death introduced uncertainty and shifted the balance of power, requiring the player to find a new agent and renegotiate terms from a less advantageous position. An associate of Raiola took over as negotiating agent, although the outcome was not as favorable to Haaland as initially predicted.

As another example, in the fall of 2023, a student group focused on the labor dispute between the United Auto Workers union and the “Big Three” U.S.-based automobile manufacturers, with a specific focus on Ford. They selected their topic in September 2023, just after the first coordinated strike among Big Three union workers. Over the next several weeks, high-level developments included a September 24 agreement between Ford and the Canadian auto workers’ union for historic wage increases; additional walkouts at U.S. Ford factories on September 29; layoffs of 500 U.S.-based Ford and General Motors workers on October 2; a new counterproposal by Ford on October 3; another union walkout on October 11 in Kentucky that shut down Ford’s largest plant; and a tentative agreement later that same day to higher wages and a cost of living increase. The students highlighted the Canadian precedent as well as the escalating work stoppages in correctly predicting the eventual ratification of the October 11 agreement.

A different fall 2023 group focused on the preliminary talks between Tesla and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about the possible development of an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing facility in Saudi Arabia. When they began following these talks in September, the group felt a deal was likely: Saudi Arabia was interested in diversifying its economy away from oil and into growing industries, while Tesla was interested in the Saudis’ access to materials (such as cobalt) required for EV manufacturing. However, on October 7, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel, triggering an Israeli counter-offensive in Gaza. At the time of the group’s final presentation in late October, the Tesla–Saudi talks had stalled. The group noted that Saudi Arabia’s fraught relationship with Israel, a United States ally, and the risk of a broader conflict in the Middle East may have diminished both parties’ interests in the deal.

Some negotiations span multiple semesters, reflecting the complex, ongoing nature of many high-stakes discussions. These negotiations pause and resume, adapting to changing circumstances and adding or subtracting parties over time. For example, the United States’ negotiations with nuclear countries are a recurring topic, frequently appearing in multiple semesters as they evolve with geopolitical shifts and policy changes. Similarly, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), ratified in March 2022, will likely return as a NITN topic when it expires in 2026. Negotiations may be temporarily resolved but often see issues re-emerge, leading to new rounds of discussion. By following these long-term negotiations, students gain insights into the strategies and adjustments required to navigate complex, multiparty, and multiphase negotiations effectively. As we will discuss further below, for this project, we direct students to choose one specific element or phase of such complex negotiations to focus on, ensuring they can delve deeply into a manageable aspect while still gaining insight into the broader, evolving context.

Prepackaged teaching tools tend to simplify, summarize, and condense these real-world negotiation dynamics. Some role plays include stages, changing instructions, or “news updates” that attempt to replicate the dynamic contexts of authentic negotiations (see, e.g., Drooks and Gordon 1985; Giannone and SanPietro 2021), but these updates are usually predetermined and limited, rarely involving a realistic time frame. Similarly, historical case studies often consist of multiple parts, describing how a long-term negotiation evolved over weeks, months, or years. In our view, following a current negotiation in real time gives students a more authentic appreciation of the timelines and uncertainties involved.

The NITN project also prompts students to consider how a complex array of real-world contextual factors might affect (or be affected by) the chosen negotiation, including economic trends, social movements, or geopolitical developments. For instance, during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns, a group analyzed the talks between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and Disney about the use of the Disney-owned ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex as a virus-free “bubble” for the playoffs. As both parties faced substantial revenue losses, and the lockdowns extended longer than anticipated, the alternative of not agreeing worsened. Simultaneously, public demonstrations against racial injustice led to negotiations within the NBA Players’ Association about using the playoffs as a form of protest or to raise awareness of these issues. The students successfully linked the parties’ interests, options, BATNAs, and other factors to the broader economic, public health, and social context.

Contextual factors can also include the social and ethical implications, such as the exploitation of vulnerable populations, the ethical use of technology, or the social responsibility of governments. For instance, negotiations over labor rights in developing countries often highlight the exploitation of workers, where multinational corporations may be accused of underpaying and overworking laborers in unsafe conditions. Talks about technology use in education can raise ethical concerns about data privacy. Other topics might require students to consider important third-party stakeholders without a seat at the table, such as the impact of a nurses’ strike on patient care or a teachers’ strike on students and parents. Negotiations involving environmental regulations often exclude local communities directly affected by pollution or land use changes. Traditional role plays rarely offer an opportunity or incentive to consider how a negotiated outcome might affect stakeholders without assigned “roles.”

The NITN project is essentially a current and unresolved case study. With limited exceptions, role plays elicit specific dynamics within a fictional context, ignoring real-world factors (see, e.g., Crampton and Manwaring 2008).⁴ Case study analyses, on the other hand, are generally enhanced by, and sometimes dependent on, acknowledging these contextual factors. When contextual factors shift—whether through the increasing economic toll of an unprecedented pandemic or the geopolitical shock of a terrorist attack—students learn to reassess and update their assumptions, gaining a visceral understanding of how context influences a negotiation.

While we have experimented with different deliverable formats over time (more on this below), we have always required NITN groups to present their observations to the entire class. Our instructions differ slightly from each other (see Appendix A and Appendix B for our most recent instructions), but we both ask students to include the following:

• summary of the contextual background;

• identification of the key stakeholders and issues;

• analysis of key parameters such as the parties’ interests, BATNAs, and possibilities for agreement (if applicable);

• analysis of the parties’ actual and predicted strategies and tactics; and

• evaluation of the parties’ strategies and tactics (and of the outcome, if applicable at the time of presentation).

We offer considerable flexibility in format; presentations have included narrated slideshows (both virtual and in person), skits, and pre-recorded “news programs.” Typically, presentations are limited to 10–12 minutes with several minutes of Q&A after each presentation. After all presentations are complete, we engage in a broader discussion where students reflect on themes, patterns, and distinctions among the different negotiations.

For most learning objectives—including identifying and analyzing relevant data, assessing the negotiation dynamics over time, and considering contextual factors—we use standard grading rubrics. Over the past four years, approximately 80% of groups earned an A- or better, indicating that they generally met the learning goals.

We have also indirectly assessed student learning through surveys. In fall 2023 and spring 2024, we emailed surveys to former graduate and undergraduate students from classes spanning four academic years (fall 2020 through spring 2024) and received thirty-one responses with participants representing all semesters (see Appendix D for complete survey results). In these survey responses, the most commonly cited benefits from completing the NITN project were:

• recognizing how negotiation concepts and theories apply to real life;

• recognizing and appreciating the frequency of negotiations in current events;

• recognizing negotiations as dynamic versus static, highlighting the fluid and evolving nature of negotiation processes;

• understanding how negotiation dynamics and parameters can change over time; and

• considering the relevance of situational context for a negotiation, highlighting its importance in students’ learning experiences.

• Students identified similar benefits from listening to and reflecting on their classmates’ presentations, along with the following additional benefits:

• recognizing similarities and/or differences among negotiation dynamics in different contexts; and

• appreciating different perspectives on and interpretations of real-world negotiations.

Students also rated various deliverables on their contribution to learning. Researching the topic was highly valued for deepening understanding and application of negotiation theories. The oral presentation, both delivering their own as well as listening to others’, contributed significantly to learning, with many students noting its impact on their ability to articulate and present negotiation concepts. While many students found writing a paper useful, most preferred oral presentations for their impact on articulating and presenting concepts.

Given the opportunity to offer qualitative comments on the project, many students expressed overall satisfaction with the opportunity to integrate theory and practice. One student stated: “Overall, it was an insightful and fun project that really connected the concepts we learned about to the real world.” Another commented: “It’s a good project to show/summarize everything learned in the course.” One student highlighted a challenge with the assignment (and perhaps a consideration in topic selection): “I believe that it is hard to understand the dynamics of a negotiation without insider knowledge of the situation. Choosing more publicly covered topics could [have helped our team].”

Overall, the Negotiation in the News project has demonstrated substantial efficacy in meeting its learning objectives. Both direct and indirect assessments show that students significantly benefit from this project, particularly in applying negotiation theories to real-world situations and understanding negotiation dynamics. While there were some mixed responses in terms of timing and deliverables, the overall feedback from students underscores the project’s value in enhancing their learning experience.

Beyond the core principle of having students select, follow, and analyze a real-world negotiation, the NITN assignment offers a fair amount of design flexibility. Indeed, the co-authors each craft their instructions a bit differently and place the assignment at different points in their courses. Through experience, however, we’ve found that certain design principles work particularly well.

The assignment is complex and time-consuming and potentially overwhelming to some individual students. From a pedagogical standpoint, group assignments distribute the workload and allow students to benefit from diverse perspectives as they “make meaning together” (see Nelken 2009). Moreover, groups often engage in their own emergent, authentic negotiations about topic selection, meeting times, and work distribution, which can provide additional opportunities for reflection. Practically, assigning the project to groups results in fewer presentations, making it more feasible for students to hear and discuss all classmates’ presentations in addition to their own. While groups can be either self-selected or assigned, we generally have opted to assign (and intentionally diversify) the groups. We also include an individual contribution component to the group grade (assessed primarily via a self- and peer survey, and worth up to 25% of the overall grade) to hold individual students accountable and to deter “freeloading.” ⁵

Allow student groups to select their own negotiation topic for analysis. As discussed above, this encourages students to notice negotiations in the world around them and likely increases intrinsic motivation. It also avoids anchoring the topic choices based on faculty knowledge and preference. In many instances, our students have selected negotiation topics of which we were previously unaware.

We discuss topic selection with student teams, helping them consider factors such as the availability of relevant media coverage, the negotiation stage, its complexity, and their intrinsic interest in the topic. These conversations often guide students to analyze their options more critically.

Ensure that each group’s analysis is shared with the entire class, and offer opportunities for students to reflect on themes, patterns, and distinctions among the presentations. We do this by dedicating one or more class sessions to NITN presentations and discussion, though another option would be to share written analyses and/or videorecorded presentations on an online discussion board, with an opportunity for asynchronous discussion. We’ve found that comparing and contrasting presentations often sparks highly engaged discussion, particularly when presentations are grouped by theme, e.g., community negotiations, labor-management disputes, business transactions, legal disputes, and political negotiations.

For instance, in fall 2023, three groups in one author’s class selected labor-management contract disputes. One dispute involved Big Three auto workers, one involved Hollywood scriptwriters, and one involved a nurses’ association in Oregon. The auto workers and writers settled their disputes only after protracted strikes, while the nurses settled without striking. This contrast in outcomes provided a rich basis for discussion. Whenever the class seems particularly biased toward strikes, one of us often cannot resist asking, “If strikes are so useful for employees, do you suggest that our faculty strike, or why don’t our faculty strike?” Following the presentations, the class engages in a lively discussion on the strategic and contextual factors that may have influenced these differing outcomes.

The authors have experimented with different deliverable requirements, course placements, and modalities (in-person or virtual), any of which we believe are reasonable design choices. As the research of Druckman and Ebner (2010) suggests, varying these options can enhance student engagement and ensure that the exercise aligns with the specific objectives of the course.

While we recommend requiring a presentation for the reasons discussed above, the assignment works with or without a supplemental written submission. Given the necessary time limits of in-class presentations, written submissions allow students to include additional detail and can serve as a useful reference for assessment purposes. They also provide another way for group members to contribute to the project. The written submission could range from an outline to a full-fledged essay. An annotated bibliography can be an effective alternative to a paper, offering a structured way for students to engage deeply with their research topics while developing critical evaluation skills and ensuring students are thoroughly prepared for discussions and presentations. Downsides of a written paper include the potential for redundancy and the additional work required for both students and instructors.

We have different views on the ideal timing of the assignment within a semester-length course. While we both typically allot five to six weeks from assignment to delivery, Manwaring assigns the project toward the beginning of a semester-length course, and Weirup assigns it toward the end as a final capstone project. Assigning the project early helps students build classmate relationships and connect classroom theories to the “real world” (and vice versa) from the start. It also avoids imposing group coordination logistics on students during what is typically the busiest and most stressful part of their semester. On the other hand, assigning NITN as a final project allows students to draw on a broader and more advanced set of concepts, resulting in a more sophisticated work product. For well-functioning student groups, it can feel more manageable than an individual final assessment.

Student feedback on timing was mixed, though each student had only experienced the project at the beginning or at the end of their course, with no basis for comparison. One student who favored an early assignment said, “The project timing [in the first part of the semester] was perfect. It allows for ample time for video self-analysis and other projects thereafter.” Conversely, a student who preferred a later assignment noted, “I believe that by the end of the course the students are equipped with the most amount of negotiation knowledge, which helps in both selecting and interpreting the topic with accuracy and depth.”

We have found that this assignment works equally well in person or online. Weirup had experience using the assignment in person, but when the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a shift to fully online coursework, she assigned it for a virtual submission. Manwaring adopted the assignment for the first time in fall 2020 as a replacement for a multi-week bartering exercise that could only be done in person. Student groups worked together virtually over several weeks, communicating outside of class via videoconference and group texting apps. They presented their analyses during a synchronous Webex (videoconferencing) session, with some groups live-narrating slideshows and others streaming prerecorded presentations. The exercise was so successful—both in terms of assessed learning goals and student response—that the second author retained it even after in-person classes resumed. We both continue to use the assignment in face-to-face, online, and hybrid semester-length courses.

The NITN assignment presents some challenges beyond those inherent in group projects. Selecting an appropriate topic can be tricky, and students may require some coaching regarding the scope and focus of their topic.

One common challenge is selecting a negotiation with sufficient publicly available information for analysis. Direct interpersonal communications in newsworthy negotiations generally happen behind closed doors, so students need to make educated assumptions about what is happening through media coverage, press releases, legal or regulatory filings, social media statements, and other data. A negotiation with little publicly available information beyond reports that it may be happening is unsuitable for this project.

Another common challenge is ensuring the negotiation is ongoing, at least at the start of the assignment. Students may be tempted to select a recently concluded negotiation (“concluded” in the sense that the parties either reached an agreement or stopped negotiating with each other) on the grounds that the topic is still relatively current and/or newsworthy. The viability of such topics depends on the potential to follow continued negotiation dynamics over the course of the assignment. For example, parties who have recently negotiated a business deal or a dispute settlement may continue to negotiate implementation issues, or those who have suspended talks may try to strengthen their respective BATNAs in an effort to gain leverage in future talks. In such instances, the post-agreement or post-walkaway dynamics might provide sufficient grist for analysis. In other cases, however, a negotiation concluded shortly before NITN topic selection represents the effective “end of the story” with little chance of further developments, making it an unfruitful topic.

It is important to distinguish between a negotiation that has concluded before topic selection and one that concludes between topic selection and presentation. The latter is often impossible to predict and does not preclude an effective analysis, as long as students had at least some opportunity to follow the negotiation’s real-time progress. We encourage students whose negotiations conclude between selection and presentation to evaluate the resolution as part of their analysis, emphasizing that failing to accurately predict the outcome does not diminish the quality of their own analysis.

Negotiation topics should be sufficiently complex to provide material for analysis but not so complex that a meaningful analysis would be infeasible within the presentation time frame. However, with appropriate focus, students can effectively analyze even highly complex negotiations. One group, for instance, wanted to analyze the entire COP26 climate change negotiations in Glasgow, which included nearly 40,000 registered participants from over 100 countries. If the students had learned about coalitional dynamics by the time the project was assigned, they could have focused their analysis on broad international coalitions, such as the G77 group of developing countries, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (IALAC). With other highly complex negotiations, we might encourage students to focus on a specific aspect of the negotiation, such as the interactions among a specific subset of parties (e.g., concentrating on the role of corporations without delving into government involvement in a merger), the negotiations around a discrete set of issues (e.g., focusing on the most important or controversial items in a contract), or the dynamics during a particular stage of the process (e.g., emphasizing developments from the past year rather than historical contexts dating back a century). Students should still address the broader contextual factors, of course, but their deeper analysis can be more targeted.

Traditional teaching tools like role plays and case studies can facilitate the development of a broad range of negotiation skills. At the same time, their prepackaged and limited nature cannot fully replicate “complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity” (Driscoll 1994). By immersing students in current, complex, authentic negotiations, the Negotiation in the News project inspires students to recognize negotiations in real-world contexts, identify and gather data for analysis, address longitudinal dynamics, and account for contextual factors such as economic, political, and social trends.

Your group will analyze a negotiation currently taking place and being reported in the news with clearly identifiable parties and issues. If the negotiation is complete or expected to be complete before the submission deadline, you cannot choose it.

The negotiation can be from any context: business, law, politics, community, sports, entertainment, education, international relations, etc. The topic need not be “headline” or national/international news; local or specialized news outlets are acceptable.

This project serves as a capstone where you can apply the knowledge and skills you’ve developed throughout the course. In addition to showcasing your abilities, this assignment helps you achieve these unique learning objectives that are less easily supported by role plays or traditional case studies:

• Recognizing negotiations that organically occur in the real world, whether or not they are labeled as such.

• Proactively gathering relevant information to analyze a negotiation, including determining where and how to obtain information and how to interpret it.

• Analyzing negotiation dynamics, such as interpersonal tactics, coalition building, or BATNA development, as they unfold in real time over days, weeks, or months with real stakes and motivations.

• Assessing the impact of complex contextual factors, including economic trends, technological developments, cultural influences, or geopolitical shifts, as they affect negotiations in real time.

The project has four parts:

• Topic Submission - Summarize your topic choice in one to two sentences and provide at least one sample reference— due [three to four weeks prior to submission date].

• In-Class Presentation (65%) - Give a short presentation, no longer than 10 minutes, on your analysis.

• Annotated Bibliography (10%) - List citations to your sources with a brief description and evaluation.

• Peer Evaluation (20%) - See rubric below.

The negotiation should not be resolved or expected to be resolved before the submission deadline. If it is unexpectedly resolved, analyze it as if it has not yet been resolved.

Select a negotiation that has enough public information for a thorough analysis. Relevant facts should come from public sources such as newspapers, magazines, trade journals, television or radio broadcasts, websites, podcasts, blogs, etc. The availability of multiple publicly available sources typically indicates a suitable topic. While there is no specific requirement for the number of sources, strong projects often identify more than five unique sources. Foundational sources must be dated after [four to six weeks before topic selection]. Be cautious of how you incorporate sources that include analysis or opinions from others, as your project will be evaluated based on your own analysis, not the source’s author.

Select a negotiation or aspect of a negotiation that is manageable to analyze for this assignment. You can focus on a specific aspect of a complex negotiation (e.g., a certain stage, time frame, issue, or interaction between a subset of parties) or choose a more straightforward two-party negotiation. For repeating negotiations (e.g., collective bargaining agreements), focus on the history since the last agreement or relevant historical context for this re-negotiation.

Only one group will be allowed to do a specific topic, which will be approved on a first come, first served system.

Your Negotiation in the News presentation should include the following:

1. Brief Background - Provide a concise description of the negotiation, key events, and process details. Limit this to 1–2 minutes of the presentation.

2. Issues - List all the issues and explain the options available for each issue.

3. Parties and Interests - Describe all negotiating parties, including third parties that might influence the process or outcome. For each party, state their interests, positions, and priorities on each issue.

4. Negotiation Parameters - For each party, state their BATNA, RP, AV; calculate the ZOPA.

5. Analysis of Tactics and Strategies - Analyze the tactics and strategies that each side is using and how they are attempting to accomplish their goals, citing specific course concepts to support your analysis.

6. Evaluation of Tactics and Strategies - Evaluate the effectiveness of the parties’ tactics and strategies and discuss how the parties might negotiate more effectively, citing specific course concepts to support your analysis.

7. Recommended Resolution - Offer your recommended resolution for the negotiation.

Although some items may not have exact public data available, you are still expected to apply your analysis and reasoning skills to make logical inferences where necessary.

There are no restrictions on who or how many people speak during the presentation, but I reserve the right to ask any student any question during the Q&A as all of you should understand the entire project.

Your presentation will be rated by your peers and the instructor on:

• Quality of ideas and analysis

• Application of course concepts

• Oral presentation and delivery

• Originality and creativity

• Expertise and answers to questions

An annotated bibliography is a list of the sources you’ve researched. The purpose is to demonstrate your ability to locate, evaluate, and synthesize relevant sources. After each source, you’ll write a 2–3 sentence description (called an annotation) that:

• Summarizes the source’s main content.

• Explains why it’s relevant, accurate, and useful for your project.

• Connects your slides to the sources, e.g., “Reference for Slide 7.”

You don’t need to cite required readings or lecture slides, but using optional readings from Canvas (“Dig Deeper” articles) can show extra effort.

Your grade for this project will include both a group grade and an individual grade. All group members will receive the same group grade, but the individual grade will be based on confidential self- and peer evaluations regarding each member’s contributions. Peer evaluations will remain confidential, though some information might need to be shared if there is significant disagreement among raters. If peer feedback indicates equal contribution, the individual grade will match the group grade. If contributions are uneven, individual grades will be adjusted accordingly.

You will rate yourself and your teammates on the following criteria:

• Quality of Work – Demonstrates knowledge of course material and produces high-quality work.

• Teamwork – Is receptive to input, works well with others, and is cooperative.

• Motivation – Actively participates and contributes sufficient effort.

• Reliability – Meets deadlines, is prompt, and attends meetings.

Overview

With your assigned group, you will apply concepts, theories, and frameworks from our course to analyze a negotiation currently taking place and being reported in the news. This project has two components: (1) a written 7 Elements analysis due __________; and (2) an in-class presentation on __________.

Selecting a Negotiation

The negotiation you choose to analyze can be from any context: business, law, politics, community, sports, entertainment, education, international relations, etc. All relevant facts should come from public sources such as newspapers, trade journals, television or radio broadcasts, podcasts, blogs, etc. Your topic need not be “headline” news or news on a national or international scale (though it can be if you wish). It’s perfectly fine to select a negotiation that is being reported through local or specialized news outlets, as long as the information is publicly available. Do not select a private negotiation that you have personal knowledge of but that has not been reported in the news.

In selecting a negotiation, be sure that:

• ➔

  You choose an actual negotiation situation, in which two or more identifiable parties are trying to influence each other and to get a desired outcome.

• ➔

  You choose a negotiation that is current and ongoing (i.e., not fully concluded) at the time you select it. If the negotiation concludes before your project is due, that’s perfectly fine (and it’s also fine if it doesn’t conclude before your project is due).

• ➔

  You choose a situation with clearly identifiable parties. Do not choose a general issue (such as “what to do about climate change” or “whether and how to regulate artificial intelligence”) unless you can identify a specific ongoing negotiation between specific parties (individuals or organizations). If you select a complex negotiation with multiple parties, it’s fine to simply focus on two of them.

• ➔

  You choose a negotiation (or aspect of a negotiation) that is manageable to analyze for purposes of this assignment. It’s fine to select a complex and/or lengthy negotiation and then focus on a specific aspect of that negotiation (e.g., a certain stage or time frame, a certain issue, or the interaction between a subset of the parties). It’s also fine to select a relatively simple, straightforward two-party negotiation.

• ➔

  Enough information is publicly available to support a thorough analysis.

By ___________, please either post your chosen topic to the Sharepoint document (including the parties you’ll focus on) or meet with me if you are undecided or unable to choose a topic.

Written submission: 7 Elements Analysis and presentation materials

By _________, please upload to Canvas: (1) a 7 Elements Analysis of your selected negotiation parties; (2) a bibliography of all news sources, course readings, and other references used to prepare your analysis and/or presentation; and (3) any A/V materials for your in-class presentation, such as slides or video recordings.

In your 7 Elements Analysis, please select 2 parties involved in the negotiation, and in any order that you wish:

• Identify the relationship considerations between the 2 parties as well as with any other relevant stakeholders. This can include any prior history between the parties, if applicable; the current relationships; and the likely and/or desired future relationships, if any. Focus on relationship considerations that are likely to affect or be affected by the negotiation.

• Identify each party’s stated positions (if any) as well as their likely interests in the negotiation. You need not limit yourself to stated interests; you are welcome to infer likely interests based on the context and your knowledge about the parties. Consider a broad range of interests, including their interests in substantive issues (e.g., the negotiation issues/outcome), in process and/or relationship issues, and in future implications of the negotiation.

• Identify possible options for the parties to consider as part of a negotiated agreement. These could include options already proposed or agreed to as well as options your group develops that the parties could or should consider (whether or not they seem to have done).

• Identify objective standards of legitimacy (e.g., market data, precedent, criteria, norms, comparables, laws, contractual agreements, etc.) that might help determine/justify a fair outcome on any of the issues under negotiation. Has either party used or proposed these standards? If multiple standards are available, which seem to be most persuasive or relevant?

• Identify communication issues that are likely to influence the negotiation process and/or outcome. For instance, how are the parties communicating with each other? Are they communicating directly, or using agents, spokespeople, a mediator, etc.? What medium(s) are they using to communicate— face-to-face meetings, videoconferencing, email, etc.? Are they communicating indirectly at all, such as through social media or press releases? Are there any communication barriers that might affect the negotiation?

• Identify the likely alternatives to a negotiated agreement for each party, including what you perceive as each party’s BATNA (best alternative), and if you wish, the MLATNA (most likely alternative) and/or WATNA (worst alternative). To what extent, if at all, might one party’s pursuit of their alternatives affect the other party’s alternatives?

• Identify issues related to the parties’ ability and willingness to commit to and execute a negotiated agreement. For instance, who has the authority to commit, and whose approval (such as a client, constituency, board, etc.) will they need or want before committing? What terms might the parties want to include in any deal (such as milestones, penalties, incentives, dispute resolution clauses, etc.) to help monitor and ensure compliance?

Oral Presentation (In class on ___________)

Your in-class presentation should be a maximum of 10 minutes long, may be either live or prerecorded, and should include the following components (in any order):

• 35% (3 - 4 minutes recommended): An overview of the negotiation that identifies the parties, the context, and the key issue(s) being negotiated. Which of the 7 Elements (e.g., interests, alternatives, relationships, etc.) are particularly relevant to understanding the context? You will not have time to conduct a full 7 Elements Analysis in the presentation, so don’t worry about addressing all 7 Elements— just focus on those that seem particularly relevant.

• 45% (4 - 5 minutes recommended): A summary of the parties’ strategies and tactics so far, with reference to relevant course concepts. For example, are they using a primarily distributive (value-claiming) strategy, a primarily integrative (value-creating) strategy, or a mix of both? What specific tactics are they using to claim or create value? Has any party used a rights-based or power-based approach, and if so how? Has any party leveraged particular elements from the 7 Elements framework (such as key relationships or a strong BATNA)? Does any party appear to be leveraging or influenced by psychological “biases of the mind” or “biases of the heart,” such as vividness, loss aversion, nonrational escalation of commitment, egocentrism, etc.? Absolutely no need to address all of these questions— these are just examples of factors to consider in summarizing the strategies and tactics.

  Note: Many negotiations are conducted behind closed doors, and it may be difficult to find details about the specific strategies and tactics being used, even if the fact of the negotiation is being reported. In such cases, you are welcome to develop hypotheses about the strategies and tactics likely being used, so long as you specify what information and/or assumptions are the basis for these hypotheses. For instance, you might look at press releases, social media postings, patterns of past behavior, contextual factors, etc. to infer what approach a particular party is likely using.

• 20% (2 minutes recommended): An assessment, using course concepts, of the likely outcome (or actual outcome, if the negotiation concluded during the course of your project). If the negotiation is ongoing, what do you see as the most likely possible outcome(s)? What would be the best possible (realistic) outcome for each party under the circumstances, and why? If the negotiation has concluded, was it a good outcome under the circumstances, and why/why not? If it’s not a good outcome, how could it be (or how could it have been) improved? What criteria are you using to base your assessment on?

You are free to use any format you like for the presentation. Possibilities include (but are not limited to) a prerecorded skit with live commentary, a mock news report, a Prezi or PPT presentation, an animated “documentary,” etc. Feel free to be creative! Regardless of format, be sure you address all the points above and answer live questions. You are welcome to include the entire group in the oral presentation, but you don’t have to; it’s fine to allocate group roles and responsibilities however you wish.

Grading

Your grade for this project will include both a group grade component and an individual grade component. The group grade will be based on the bullet points above, and will comprise 75% of your project grade. All group members will receive the same group grade.

The individual grade will be based on confidential self- and peer evaluations about respective contributions and will comprise 25% of your project grade.

• Apple (technology) joint venture negotiations with Hyundai-Kia (automotive) to develop electric vehicles

• Air India (airline) joint venture negotiations with Boeing and Airbus (aerospace) for aircraft procurement

• ESPN (owned by Disney, entertainment) negotiations with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA; sports) over broadcast rights for the College Football Playoffs

• Copyright dispute between TikTok (social media) and United Music Group (music)

• WeWork (real estate) and commercial landlords regarding lease renegotiation and potential bankruptcy options

• Coverage and reimbursement dispute between United Healthcare (insurance) and Prisma Health (healthcare provider) over payment rates for medical services

• Longshore workers’ union (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) and West Coast port owners (Pacific Maritime Association) over wages, benefits, and working conditions at major ports

• Boston Museum of Fine Arts (non-profit) vs. Museum of Fine Arts Union over employment conditions, including wages and job security

• Southern California grocery workers with Kroger and Albertsons (grocery stores) over labor agreements, focusing on wages, healthcare benefits, and job security

• Amazon (ecommerce) acquisition of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios (entertainment)

• Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (social media)

• Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH; luxury goods) acquisition of Tiffany & Co. (jewelry)

• South Korean government negotiations with its domestic doctors over healthcare policies and working conditions

• United States Democratic Party intra-party negotiations to pass the Build Back Better Bill, focusing on social programs, climate change, healthcare, and education

• Florida State Government negotiations with local school districts over implementing mask mandates in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Israel and Qatar negotiations related to 2022 World Cup hosting issues, including security and logistics

• China and India territorial disputes over areas such as the Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh regions

• Iran and United States negotiations regarding nuclear nonproliferation, international sanctions, and regional security

• Carlos Correa (baseball player) contract negotiations with Major League Baseball (MLB) over salary and terms

• Lewis Hamilton (Formula 1 driver) contract negotiations with Ferrari (automotive), involving salary, team support, and sponsorship arrangements

• Stephen Curry (basketball player) sponsorship deal with Under Armour (sportswear), including endorsement terms, financial compensation, and branding rights