More from the Author

• Article | Negotiation Journal | January 2013

  The Fog of Negotiation: What Negotiators Can Learn from Military Doctrine

  Michael A. Wheeler

  On the surface, warfare and negotiation may seem to be polar opposites. The objective in war is to defeat the enemy. In negotiation, the goal is to find a solution that satisfies all the parties. Not surprisingly, little cross-learning and exchange has occurred across the two domains. In spite of important differences, however, the dynamics of war and negotiation have much in common. Specifically, both involve the interaction of motivated agents with distinct interests, perceptions, and values (especially in high-stakes contexts). As a result, robust strategy, creativity, and nimble tactics are essential both on the battlefield and at the bargaining table. Just as negotiation theory could be enriched by principles of maneuver warfare, military doctrine offers officers and soldiers a potentially useful foundation to better understand and manage the negotiation process, especially in complex, cross-cultural contexts.

  Keywords: negotiation; Negotiation;

  Citation:

  Wheeler, Michael A. "The Fog of Negotiation: What Negotiators Can Learn from Military Doctrine." Negotiation Journal 29, no. 1 (January 2013): 23–38.

  CiteView DetailsRead Now

  Related

• Background Note | HBS Case Collection | 2012 (Revised from original 2008 version)

  ADR Choices

  Michael Wheeler, James Sebenius and Marjorie Aaron

  Six different business disputes, all in the shadow of pending litigation, are described. Students are asked to recommend the appropriate method of dispute resolution (mediation, arbitration, mini-trial, etc.) for each one, depending on the circumstances, especially to assess likely barriers to unassisted negotiation.

  Keywords: Lawsuits and Litigation; Managerial Roles; Negotiation; Agreements and Arrangements; Conflict Management;

  Citation:

  Wheeler, Michael, James Sebenius, and Marjorie Aaron. "ADR Choices." Harvard Business School Background Note 908-040, June 2012. (Revised from original March 2008 version.)

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Article | Psychological Science | May 2012

  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth-telling

  Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec

  Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrant transgressions of research norms may be more prevalent and in the long run more damaging to the academic enterprise. We surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices, using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting. The impact of incentives on admission rates was positive and greater for practices that respondents judge to be less defensible. Using three different estimation methods, we find that the proportion of respondents that have engaged in these practices is surprisingly high relative to respondents' own estimates of these proportions. Some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.

  Keywords: Research; Practice; Motivation and Incentives; Surveys; Values and Beliefs; Measurement and Metrics;

  Citation:

  John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. "Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth-telling." Psychological Science 23, no. 5 (May 2012).

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related