MANAGING NEGOTIATIONS

OBHR E-215, Section 1 (12952)
Fall 2007
Melissa Manwaring

Times and Location:

Wednesdays, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Sept. 19, 2007 – Jan. 16, 2008 (except Nov. 21 and Dec. 26))
William James Hall, Classroom 105
Optional weekly section meeting 7:30 – 8:30 in William James 4 (downstairs)

Contact Information:

Instructor: Melissa Manwaring
Phone: 617-495-9696
Email: mmanwar@law.harvard.edu
Office hours by appointment

Teaching Assistant: Sarah Woodside
Phone: 617-495-7710
Email: swoodside@law.harvard.edu

Course Description:

It is my great pleasure to welcome you to our fall course on Managing Negotiations. I look forward to an interesting learning experience with all of you, and hope that you will come away from the course with answers to at least some of your questions about negotiation. I can assure you that you also will leave the course with a whole new set of questions and issues to ponder for the future.

That having been said, you already know how to negotiate. Believe it or not, you do it every day. You might negotiate with your colleagues about workflow issues, with your clients or customers about the scope of your services, with a vendor about a contractual dispute, with an elderly parent about their long-term care arrangements, with a professor about a course assignment, with a friend about where to have lunch, or a significant other about a joint purchase, or your children about their bedtime. Any time you communicate with someone to solve a problem or make a decision or influence them in some way, you are negotiating. So, you already do much of what we will discuss. In fact, you may be a very experienced and effective negotiator.

At the same time, you probably don’t think about negotiation in an organized way. If you’re like most people, you simply negotiate intuitively -- in a sort of “autopilot” mindset. This is fine, but you’re likely to become even more effective with intellectual tools: tools for preparing, analyzing, and evaluating your negotiations, as well as tools for becoming more self-aware and reflective as a negotiator. So, you will need to bring to this course the skills you already possess, as well as a willingness to challenge yourself, to open yourself up to new ways of thinking, and to make mistakes. You can expect to take away a number of new ideas, models, and skills that will aid you in future negotiations.

The purpose of this course is to help you understand the theory and processes of negotiation so that you can negotiate successfully in a variety of settings. While the course is focused on business negotiations, it is designed to be relevant to the broad spectrum of negotiation problems we face as professionals and as human beings.

Because negotiation is a subject of increasing theoretical study, we will explore concepts developed in a number of academic fields, including business, law, and psychology, including tools for negotiation preparation and analysis. And, since negotiation involves individual abilities and not just intellectual understanding, we also will look closely at personal skills and experiences. You will have a chance to learn more about your own negotiating preferences and the consequences of the choices you make. In addition, you will be asked to accept and offer feedback on the negotiation behavior that you demonstrate and observe. Equally important will be practice in formulating your own theories about negotiation and extracting insights from your experiences to guide you in future negotiations. You will be asked to read and prepare carefully, participate fully, critique yourself and others, and spend significant reflection time in order to learn as much as possible from the course. This is not an easy course – it requires a great deal of commitment and effort, but my hope and expectation is that you will find those efforts well worth while.

Course Materials:

Required:

• Course Reader
  (Please note that the cost of the course reader covers not only the articles in the reader, but also the instruction for the 10+ role simulations that you will receive in class. Because the simulations are designed so that different participants receive different instructions, the role simulation instructions will not appear in the reader, but will be handed out in class instead.)
• Fisher, Ury & Patton, Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd Ed.), Penguin 1991
• Stone, Patton & Heen, Difficult Conversations : How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin 2000

Overview of Course Requirements:

Because of the highly experiential nature of this course, attendance and class participation are required. (The attendance policy is discussed in further detail below). You will be expected to attend all classes well-prepared and to demonstrate your full engagement. Skilled application of readings, useful questions and insights about in-class negotiation experiences, openness about self-learning, and constructive observations regarding classmates’ negotiating behavior are also expected from all participants, regardless of the level of outside experience and sophistication you bring to this work.

In addition to these forms of participation, there are three written assignments: Assignment #1 (a short-answer exercise); Assignment #2 (a 3 – 5 page paper analyzing a negotiation in which you personally participated); and Assignment #3 (a 10-15 page paper commenting on portions of your weekly journal and developing a set of negotiation propositions and guidelines). I will provide more information about these assignments later in the course.

Grades will be compiled as follows
Class participation ……………………………………………………………..40%
Assignment #1 (Short Answer Exercise).………………………………………...5%
Assignment #2 (Personal Negotiation Analysis; 5-7 pp.)..…………………….....20%
Assignment #3 (Annotated Journal/Guidelines; 10-15 pp.)…………………........35%

The 40% participation grade is based on class attendance (including timeliness), the quality (more so than the quantity) of your in-class comments and questions, your observed engagement in role simulations and other classroom exercises, and your thorough and timely completion of non-graded exercises (such as preparation notes, a weekly journal, and the Reputation Index) that I will collect on occasion. If you attend class regularly and demonstrate that you are well-prepared, engaged, and thinking hard about the material, you will do well on the participation component. By weighting participation so heavily, I am trying to encourage (and reward) your efforts to contribute to your own and your classmates’ learning. Please remember that listening to your classmates also contributes to learning; your participation grade will not improve if you speak just to be heard or try to dominate the discussion (and it may suffer if your comments are irrelevant or inappropriate).

You will receive letter grades on the three written assignments as well as on the quality of your class participation.

A rough grading rubric for the letter-graded requirements is as follows (please note that “minuses” and “pluses”, such as A- or B+, will be given as appropriate):

Please note that you will not be graded on the substantive outcome of any negotiation exercise, included the outcome of scorable exercises. This policy reflects the fact that, while you do have significant influence over your substantive outcome, part of your outcome will be a function of your assigned role and your negotiating partner(s). It also reflects a philosophy that there are many different criteria with which to evaluate negotiation outcomes, and that whether one particular outcome is “better” than another is to a large extent a matter of perspective and priorities. Most importantly, this policy is designed to encourage experimentation with different negotiation styles and tactics. In my experience, students who are graded on their substantive outcomes will be reluctant to try unfamiliar negotiation approaches – thus protecting their grades but inhibiting their learning. In this course, your participation in the negotiation simulations will be evaluated on the thoroughness of your preparation, the degree of your effort and engagement during the exercise, and the quality of your post-simulation reflection and analysis, regardless of your outcome.

Important Note on Attendance
Active participation is critical to learning all there is to learn from this course. Moreover, most classroom exercises depend on every class member being well-prepared to carry out a certain role as well as being prepared to share insights from the experience with the rest of the class. Absence is likely to cause significant inconvenience and loss of opportunity to both the absent student and to his/her classmates. If you know that you will be unavoidably absent for any portion of a given class, please let me know (preferably by e-mail) as soon as possible so that I can reconfigure the exercises for that class. If you must miss class unexpectedly, please leave me a voice mail message to that effect prior to the class session. In order for an absence to be fully excused, you will be asked to complete a written makeup assignment. Makeup assignments and due dates normally will be posted on the course website the day after each class (they’re not posted before class because sometimes the nature of the makeup assignment reveals information about the in-class exercise).

Assignments should be submitted on time whether or not you attend the class session in which they are due, and may be submitted via e-mail if you are unable to bring a hard copy to class. In fairness to the competing obligations of each member of the class, grades for all late assignments will reflect at least a third of a grade deduction (e.g., B+ to B, or B- to C+). Further deductions may be made based on the length of the delay.

Any unexcused absence will automatically result in a one-third letter grade deduction (e.g., A- to B+, or B to B-). An absence will be considered unexcused if you do not notify me of your absence and the reason before the start of class, or if you do not provide documentation of the reason for your absence (for example, a doctor’s note) within one week after missing the class. Three or more unexcused absences will cause you to fail the course. If you know that you will be unable to attend three or more class sessions due to work or other obligations, then you may wish to reconsider taking this course even if such absences would be excused. Because of the highly participatory nature of the course, multiple absences inevitably will have a detrimental effect on your learning and on your overall experience. There is simply no good way to make up for the experiential learning that will happen in the classroom.

Important Note on Academic Honesty

Due in part to the ease with which students may download material from the Internet, in recent years a disheartening number of plagiarism cases have been referred to the Extension School's Administrative Board for review.  Despite written warnings from the Dean of Students each year, students may not be fully aware of the consequences of presenting someone else's work as their own, whether they download material from the Internet, copy passages from a book, or collaborate on writing the solution to a problem set - each without proper acknowledgement of the source(s).

The responsibility for learning the rules governing the proper use of sources lies with the individual student. By registering for a course, students agree to abide by the policies listed on the Extension School website, which contains brief descriptions of plagiarism, cheating, and computer network and library abuse.  For a detailed discussion of these policies, please see Writing with Sources and Writing with Internet Sources, prepared by Harvard's Expository Writing Program (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~expos/sources).  

Students found guilty of academic dishonesty by the Administrative Board face a range of sanctions, including probation, required withdrawal from a course, suspension from the Extension School for one or more terms, and required withdrawal from an Extension School degree or certificate program. In any event, academically honest work is likely to lead to far more robust and meaningful learning, which presumably is a primary motivation for taking this course.

Welcome!
Now that all of the requirements and dire warnings are out of the way – again, welcome! I look forward to working with you, and hope that you will find the course both enjoyable and useful. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at any time with questions or suggestions.

OBHR E-215: WORKING SYLLABUS

A few notes on this syllabus:

1. It may well change over the course of the semester, depending on how our class sessions play out. I’ll let you know in class of any changes, and the most current version will always be the version on the course website.
2. Generally, “before-class readings” should be read during the week before the designated class, but not earlier. In a few cases, doing the readings too far in advance of the designated class might reveal information about an exercise or simulation, and possibly take away from your or your counterparts’ experiential learning. If you’re interested in reading ahead, please check with me first to make sure that doing so won’t interfere with our in-class activities. Note, though, that it’s perfectly fine to read any or all of the two assigned books (Getting to YES and Difficult Conversations) ahead of time – indeed, if you can read both before the course even starts, that’s great, and you can simply review the assigned pages as needed.
3. All of the listed readings are required, and you will be asked to thoughtfully incorporate them into your written assignments. Having said that, I have marked the especially important readings with asterisks (***). This does not mean that the non-asterisked readings are optional; it’s simply designed to help you focus if you have limited time. If you’re not able to read all of the readings before a given class, at least read the asterisked reading(s), and then go back to complete the others later.

Class 1 (Wed., Sept. 19): Dynamics of Distributive Bargaining

• Before-class Reading:
• Bazerman, Max, “Putting Negotiation Training to Work,” Negotiation, September 2005, pp. 9-11
• Introduction/Course Overview
• Exercise: “Parker-Gibson” (distributed in class)
• Presentation: “Distributive Bargaining”

Class 2 (Wed., Sept. 26): Introduction to Integrative Bargaining

• Before-class Readings:
• ***Lax, David A. and James K. Sebenius, “Anchoring Expectations,” Negotiation, September 2004, pp. 9-11
• Malhotra, Deepak, “The Fine Art of Making Concessions,” Negotiation, January 2006, pp. 9-11
• Raiffa, Howard, “Elmtree House,” Negotiation Analysis 99-108 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002)
• ***Fisher, et al. Getting to YES (2nd ed.), 3 – 106 and 168-177.
• Exercise: “Bakra Beverage” (prepare before class)
• Assignment #1 (“Skylar and the Z”) handed out in class

Class 3 (Wed., Oct. 3): A Framework for Preparation

• Before-class readings:

• ***Patton, Bruce, “Negotiation,” in M.L. Moffitt and R.C. Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005)
• Bazerman and Gillespie, “Betting on the Future: The Virtues of Contingent Contracts,” Harvard Business Review, Sept. – Oct. 1999
• Subramanian, Guhan, “A Contingent Contract? Weigh the Costs and Benefits of Making a ‘Bet’”, Negotiation, August 2006, pp. 9-11
• Wheeler, Michael, “Overcoming Stage Fright: How to Prepare for a Negotiation,” Negotiation, August 2004, pp. 7-9

• Video: “The Fight”
• Presentation: “Seven Elements of Negotiation”
• Exercise: “The PowerScreen Problem” (prepare before class; breakout room TBA)
• Interim Reputation Index handed out in class

Class 4 – Wed., Oct. 10): A Framework for Preparation (cont’d)

• Before-class reading:
• ***Mnookin, Peppet and Tulumello, “The Tension Between Creating and Distributing Value,” Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, pp. 11-43 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2000)
• Video: “The HackerStar Negotiation”

Class 5 (Wed., Oct. 17): What is a Good Outcome?

• Assignment #1 (“Skylar and the Z”) Due
• Before-class reading:
• ***Bazerman, Max and Katie Shonk, “The Decision Perspective to Negotiation,” in M.L. Moffitt and R.C. Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005)
• Exercise: “Chuck’s Wagon” (prepare before class)
• Presentation: “What Is a Good Outcome?”

Class 6 (Wed., Oct. 24): Dealing with Difficult Tactics

• Before-class readings:
• Getting to YES, pp. 107-165; 177-187
• ***Ury, William, Getting Past NO: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), pp. 31-51 and pp. 76-104
• Susskind, Lawrence, “Stubborn or Irrational? How to Cope with a Difficult Negotiation Partner,” Negotiation, December 2004, pp. 9-11
• Presentation: “Dealing with Difficult Tactics”
• Difficult tactics exercises [Guest presenter TBA]
• Assignment #2 (“Personal Negotiation Analysis”) handed out in class

Class 7 (Wed., Oct. 31): Difficult Tactics (cont’d)

• Before-class reading:
• ***Adler & Silverstein, “When David Meets Goliath: Dealing with Power Differentials in Negotiations” 5 Harv. Neg. Law Rev. 16-28, 77-112 (2000)
• Difficult Tactics exercises (continued): “Jeopardy!” game (no preparation required)
• Role Reversal Exercise (prepare before class)
• After-class assignment: “Fie’s Agent” (e-mail negotiation distributed after class; to be completed by 12:00 noon on Friday, Nov. 16; instructions TBA)

Class 8 (Wed., Nov. 7): Managing Difficult Conversations: Interpersonal Aspects of Negotiation

• Interim Reputation Index Due
• Before-class Readings:
• ***Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, whole book (it’s a quick read), with particular focus on pp. 3-20 & 131-234
• Mnookin, R., S. Peppet, and D. Tulumello. "The Tension Between Empathy and Assertiveness," in Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, pp. 44-68 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2000)
• Presentation: “Managing Difficult Conversations”
• Exercise: “Casino” (prepare before class; breakout room TBA)

Class 9 (Wed., Nov. 14): Interpersonal and Cultural Dimensions of Negotiation

• Assignment #2 (Personal Negotiation Analysis) Due
• Before-class readings:
• Getting to YES, pp. 166-168
• ***Susskind, Lawrence, “What Gets Lost in Translation,” Negotiation, September 2004, pp. 4 – 6
• ***St. John, Anthony Wanis, “Cultural Pathways in Negotiation and Conflict Management,” in M.L. Moffitt and R.C. Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005)
• Avruch, Kevin, “Culture and Negotiation Pedagogy,” in Negotiation Journal, vol. 16, no. 4 (Oct. 2000), pp. 339-346
• Listening exercises (no preparation required)
• Exercise: “Luna Pen” (prepare before class)

***Fie’s Agent e-mail negotiation due by 12:00 noon on Fri., Nov. 16***

***No class Wed., Nov. 21 – THANKSGIVING BREAK ***

Class 10 (Wed., Nov. 28): Negotiation in New Media / Introduction to Multiparty Negotiation

• Before-class readings:
• Kathleen L. McGinn and Eric J. Wilson. “How to Negotiate Successfully Online,” Negotiation (March 2004), pp. 7-9
• *** Susskind, Lawrence, “Winning and Blocking Coalitions: Bring Both to a Crowded Table,” Negotiation, January 2004, pp. 4-6
• Review: “Fie’s Agent” (e-mail negotiation completed by Friday, Nov. 16)
• Exercise: “Three-Party Coalition” (prepare before class)

Class 11 (Wed., Dec. 5): Intra- and inter-team dynamics

• Before-class readings:
• Mannix, Elizabeth A. “Strength in Numbers: Negotiating as a Team,” Negotiation, May 2005, pp. 1-4
• Hofstadter, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma: Computer Tournaments and the Evolution of Cooperation,” in Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern 715-734 (Basic Books, 1985)
• Fisher and Brown, “A Note on Tit for Tat,” in Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate 197-202 (Penguin, 1988)
• Exercise: “Pepulator Pricing Exercise” (prepare before class; breakout room TBA)
• Optional video: “Balance”

Class 12 (Wed., Dec. 12): Managing Coalitions

• Before-class reading:
• ***Sebenius, James K., “Sequencing to Build Coalitions: With Whom Should I Talk First?,” in Zeckenhauser, Keeney and Sebenius, eds., Wise Choices: Decisions, Games and Negotiations 324-328 (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994)
• Exercise: “HarborCo” (prepare before class)

Class 13 (Wed., Dec. 19): Negotiating within Organizations

• Before-class readings:
• Bendersky, Corinne, “Organizational Influences on Disputants,” in M.L. Moffitt and R.C. Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005)
• Video: “Negotiating Corporate Change”
• Video: “Challenger”

***No class Wednesday, Dec. 26 – WINTER BREAK ***

Class 14 (Wed., Jan. 2): Strategy and Sequencing in Complex Negotiation

• Before-class reading:
• Review ***Sebenius, “Sequencing to Build Coalitions” from Class 12
• ***Sebenius, James K. and David A. Lax, “Negotiate in Three Dimensions,” in 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006), chapter 1, pp. 7-19
• Exercises: “Disney (A): From Disneyland to Disney World: Learning the Art of Land Assembly” and “Disney (B): The Third Battle of Bull Run” (prepare before class)

Class 15 (Wed., Jan. 9): Ethical Considerations

• Final Reputation Index Due
• Before-class Readings:
• ***Shell, Richard, “Bargaining with the Devil Without Losing Your Soul: Ethics in Negotiation,” in Menkel-Meadow, C. and Wheeler, M., eds., What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiators, ch. 6 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004) (originally published in Shell, Bargaining for Advantage, ch. 11, New York: Penguin Books, 2000)
• Wheeler, Michael, “Fair Enough? An Ethical Fitness Quiz for Negotiators,” Negotiation, March 2004, pp. 1-4
• Schweitzer, Maurice, “Negotiators Lie,” Negotiation, December 2005, pp. 1-4
• Exercise: “Teflex Products”

Assignment #3 (Annotated Journal/Guidelines) due by 12:00 noon Fri. Jan. 11

Class 16 (Wed., Jan. 16): Wrap-up and Going Forward

• Final guidelines exercise
• Going forward
• No advance preparation required

Please complete an online course evaluation by Saturday, January 19. Thank you!

Calendar of Assignments

(Reflects assignments to be completed prior to each class)

NOTE ON ROLE SIMULATIONS  

1. Both experience and theory are essential to improving skills. The experiential learning, which takes place in the classroom and in the exercises, is the heart of this course. A feeling of openness and trust among participants will increase our ability to learn from each other. To foster this exchange of experience, suggestions and ideas, please treat the information shared by others in the class as confidential. You can rely on me to do the same – in class and with all of your assignments.

2. At times, you will be given the opportunity to choose your negotiating partner(s). There are advantages and disadvantages to working with individuals whose style and beliefs are well known by you. Although it may be tempting to link up with someone you know well, it is my experience that most that choose this route ultimately find it limits their take-aways from the class. To the extent that your wits and emotions are engaged in exercises with a wide spectrum of people, you will become a more aware and effective negotiator.

3. Empathize with your assigned roles. Do your best to see the world as your assigned character could see it and behave accordingly. Within that general guideline, I urge you to experiment with a variety of approaches and tactics – even if they may be viewed as unconstructive by your negotiating partner(s). If the other person comes out of role, ignore that interruption. As with a sports match among friends, it does more for your game -- and is more fun -- to play vigorously and intelligently while on the “field.”

4. The facts of the role simulations are drawn from real situations, and additional information you know or discover from other sources may be relevant and helpful. You may draw on such sources and even invent additional information, if you see the need, provided:

1. that the additional information does not change the basic problem presented by the simulation or contradict facts given in the instructions; or
2. you have not been instructed to do otherwise. Of course, in negotiating you can also misrepresent "the facts" in any way you choose. For purposes of review, however, that will be viewed as a misrepresentation strategy whenever you have no factual basis for material assertions.

5. Many of the role simulations include confidential instructions. Obviously, you may choose to discuss or even reveal some of the content provided as part of your strategy, but do not show your negotiating partner(s) your actual instruction sheets (which of course you can’t do in real life). In addition, please avoid reading the confidential instructions for any roles other than your own, or discussing exercise material with past or future course participants. Exchanging this information will not assist you – or them – in improving negotiation effectiveness. It will devalue your own experience, spoil things for other students, and deaden discussion. Furthermore, getting things “right” or “wrong” in negotiating sessions does not improve or worsen your grade.

6. Unless otherwise instructed, you are not required to reach a consensus, or any other form of agreement. You are also not required to model any particular style or philosophy of negotiating effectiveness.

7. Some of the exercises will take longer than you need them to; others will end before you want them to. Please watch the time! Each session is constrained by the class schedule and taking an extra few (or more) minutes cuts into the group’s opportunity to learn from the exercise. It may also result in the class ending later than planned.

8. If you finish before time, return to class quietly so that your outcome does not influence others that are still participating in the exercise. Either make careful notes about the exercise or debrief with your partner or others from the class out of earshot of those who are not finished. You are also welcome to observe another duo's/ group/'s discussion, as long as you do so unobtrusively.

Teaching Team Biographies

Melissa Manwaring (Instructor)

A former practicing attorney, Melissa Manwaring is the Director of Curriculum Development at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, where she develops negotiation-related teaching material and consults with clients on negotiation pedagogy. In addition to teaching at Harvard Extension School, she has taught negotiation at the F.W. Olin School of Management at Babson College since 2002, and previously taught negotiation at the Graduate School of Health Studies at Simmons College and the Program on Negotiation’s Seminar on Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. She also serves on the board of Negotiation Journal as Associate Editor for Education. Recent professional activities include delivering a keynote address on negotiation and education at a faculty conference in Monterrey, Mexico, and co-chairing an international negotiation pedagogy conference at ESSEC Business School in Cergy, France.

Melissa originally studied negotiation theory at Harvard Law School with Getting to YES co-authors Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, and was trained as a mediator through the Harvard Mediation Program. She has mediated dozens of state court cases and online commercial disputes. For over six years, she practiced commercial litigation and intellectual property counseling in the San Francisco Bay Area, working with a largely high-tech client base.

As an independent negotiation trainer and consultant, Melissa has taught negotiation theory and skills to hundreds of students and clients from around the world, including executives, attorneys, public servants, educators, and students from the middle-school to the graduate level. Her clients have ranged from corporations such as Fidelity Investments, General Electric, and the Bank of Norway, to nonprofit organizations such as the Red Cross and Save the Children, to educational institutions such as Harvard University, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, and numerous public school districts.

On a personal level, Melissa and her husband Bryan live in Wellesley with their 16-year-old niece Kellie and their 4-year-old son Liam. (Needless to say, life with a teenager and a preschooler brings its own negotiation challenges!) In addition to a passion for teaching and learning about negotiation, Melissa enjoys playing and composing for the piano, singing in choruses, cooking, hiking, scuba diving, softball, yoga, learning foreign languages, and traveling off the beaten path.

Melissa received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, her M.Ed. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and her B.A. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Sarah Woodside (Teaching Assistant)

Sarah Woodside has worked at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School since 2004 and is currently its Student Interest Group Coordinator.  Sarah coordinates PON’s graduate student programming, and has also conducted negotiation trainings for undergraduates, including Princeton and Harvard College students.  Recently, she co-developed and co-taught a graduate seminar on women and conflict, co-authored two articles on conflict resolution, and conducted research on the conflict resolution skills of high school students. Currently, she is working on a manual on organizational conflict assessment.

A former high school social sciences teacher in Toronto, Sarah has taught negotiation and conflict resolution skills to inner city youth, and spent a year as a disarmament intern at several international organizations. She holds a B.A. from McGill in Middle East Studies and Political Science, a B.Ed. from the University of Toronto, and an M.A. from the University of Massachusetts Boston in Dispute Resolution.  She has also completed Harvard Law School’s negotiation workshop.  Sarah has lived and worked in Canada, Southern Africa, Switzerland and New York City.