How to build a negotiation course: a complete guide for lecturers

Central question: What makes a situation negotiable, and when should a manager negotiate rather than decide, compete, defer or walk away?

Negotiation teaching works best when students first see it as a decision process rather than a collection of persuasive tricks. The opening concept establishes interdependence, mixed motives, interests, alternatives and the distinction between bargaining over a fixed issue and coordinating across several issues. It also introduces the possibility that no agreement may be preferable to a poor agreement.

What this concept covers

• Negotiation as joint decision-making under interdependence.
• Positions, interests, preferences and constraints.
• Conflict styles and the choice to negotiate, defer, compete, collaborate or exit.
• Substance, process and relationship outcomes.
• Agreement quality, implementability and the legitimacy of no-deal outcomes.

Learning outcomes

• Diagnose whether a situation is genuinely negotiable.
• Separate stated positions from underlying interests.
• Identify substantive, process and relationship objectives.
• Explain why agreement is not automatically evidence of success.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Open with three short workplace situations and ask which should be negotiated.
• Ask pairs to rewrite positions such as “I need 10%” into possible underlying interests.
• Use a simple two-party exercise before introducing formal preparation tools.
• Debrief both outcome and process so students see that the same agreement can be reached in very different ways.

Case-style example

Ridgeway Events has a £60,000 launch budget. Marketing wants £38,000 for media; Operations wants £34,000 for venue and logistics, so the requests exceed the budget by £12,000. Students map positions, interests and alternatives, then decide whether to negotiate allocations or redesign the launch. One defensible answer protects reach; another protects execution reliability. Students discover that the first question is not “who should concede?” but “what decision is actually being negotiated?”

Where students struggle

Students often treat every disagreement as a bargaining problem and equate a signed agreement with success. Push them to ask whether interests are interdependent, whether authority is clear, whether an alternative is better, and whether the resulting agreement can actually be implemented.

Reading and a quick check

Use the opening chapters of Lewicki, Saunders and Barry to establish interdependence and conflict. Quick check: give students a one-paragraph dispute and ask them to identify the parties, issues, interests, constraints and plausible no-deal outcome.

Where it leads

Preparation turns a vague intention to negotiate into a defensible plan with targets, limits, alternatives and priorities.

Central question: What should a negotiator know before the first conversation begins?

Preparation is the highest-leverage teaching point in an introductory or advanced negotiation course. Students need a disciplined way to identify interests, quantify alternatives, set aspiration levels, estimate the counterpart’s constraints and decide what information is still missing. BATNA, reservation point, target and ZOPA are useful only when students can explain where the numbers came from.

What this concept covers

• BATNA and the difference between an alternative and a threat.
• Reservation points and walk-away discipline.
• Targets, aspiration levels and opening positions.
• Estimating the counterpart’s BATNA and reservation point without false precision.
• Issue prioritisation, scoring systems and a negotiation planning sheet.

Learning outcomes

• Construct a defensible BATNA and reservation point.
• Set targets that reflect evidence rather than wishful thinking.
• Estimate a possible bargaining range while acknowledging uncertainty.
• Prioritise issues and identify questions that could change the plan.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Give students a one-page role brief and require a written preparation sheet before any conversation.
• Make students put a number on their reservation point, then annotate the assumptions behind it.
• Run the same exercise twice, once with poor information and once with new market evidence.
• Grade the preparation logic separately from the eventual outcome.

Case-style example

Cedar Analytics is renewing a two-year software contract. The supplier proposes £210,000 per year; Cedar can switch to another vendor for £185,000 but would incur £28,000 migration costs and a one-off £12,000 training cost. Students compute a two-year BATNA, choose a reservation point and set a target. One group may value continuity highly; another may prefer switching. Students discover that a BATNA is an economic and operational comparison, not simply the next quoted price.

Where students struggle

Students commonly confuse BATNA with their preferred deal or use an arbitrary reservation point. Require explicit treatment of switching costs, timing, risk and non-price consequences, and remind students that counterpart estimates are hypotheses rather than facts.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Guo, “Gathering Information Before Negotiation” (2023), alongside the preparation chapter. Quick check: ask students which single piece of additional information would most change their reservation point and why.

Where a simulation fits

Preparation sheets can be built for any later activity. For the M&A and Startup Funding simulations, require teams to submit targets, priorities and reservation logic before the live negotiation begins.

Where it leads

Once students can define limits and aspirations, they can examine how anchors, offers and concessions affect value claiming.

Central question: How should negotiators claim value when interests genuinely conflict?

Negotiation courses should teach distributive bargaining without turning the subject into hardball tactics. Students need to understand anchors, first offers, concessions, reference points and signalling, while also seeing the risks of over-aggression, weak credibility and premature agreement. The goal is disciplined value claiming inside a defensible range.

What this concept covers

• Anchoring and adjustment.
• First-offer advantages and circumstances in which opening can be risky.
• Concession patterns, reciprocity and signalling.
• Objective criteria and market evidence in price bargaining.
• Reservation-point discipline and rational no-deal decisions.

Learning outcomes

• Evaluate whether to make the first offer.
• Design an evidence-based anchor and concession plan.
• Interpret counterpart movement without over-reading it.
• Defend a walk-away decision when a deal falls outside the reservation point.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Use a short buyer-seller exercise with a single price issue, then reveal market evidence after the first round.
• Chart opening offers, first concessions and final prices across the class.
• Compare aggressive, moderate and unsupported anchors rather than declaring one tactic universally best.
• Require students to explain what each concession was intended to communicate.

Case-style example

Marlow Components is selling a specialised machine. The seller’s next-best buyer would pay £410,000 after £15,000 removal costs. The buyer can import an alternative for £455,000 including installation. The seller is considering a £495,000 opening; the buyer is considering £390,000. Students set reservation points and a concession sequence, then negotiate. Both opening strategies can be defended if supported by evidence. Students discover how a narrow ZOPA makes unsupported anchoring more likely to destroy a viable deal.

Where students struggle

Students often treat “anchor high” as a rule detached from information. The teaching challenge is to connect opening positions to uncertainty, legitimacy, relationship effects and the cost of impasse.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Petrowsky et al., “The power and peril of first offers in negotiations” (2025). Quick check: ask students to write one circumstance in which moving first is useful and one in which waiting could be rational.

Where a simulation fits

The M&A simulation provides a richer later application because Seller and Buyer teams must defend valuation inputs and decide where to move across five linked terms rather than bargaining over a single number.

Where it leads

Single-issue value claiming is only part of negotiation. The next concept shows how differences in priorities can create new value.

Central question: How can negotiators create value before deciding how to divide it?

Integrative negotiation is not simply being cooperative. It requires diagnosing differences in priorities, forecasts, risk preferences, timing and capabilities, then designing trades that improve the package. Lecturers should make students prove where the value comes from and then confront the separate question of how jointly created value will be claimed.

What this concept covers

• Multi-issue negotiation and logrolling.
• Differences in priorities, forecasts, risk, timing and capabilities.
• Package offers and simultaneous multiple equivalent offers.
• Contingent agreements where beliefs differ.
• The distinction between creating value and distributing it.

Learning outcomes

• Identify tradeable differences across issues.
• Build packages rather than negotiate each term in isolation.
• Use conditional terms to bridge different forecasts.
• Evaluate both joint value and distributional fairness.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Give parties private scoring sheets with different priorities.
• Prohibit issue-by-issue agreement during the first round and require complete packages.
• Compare joint scores across teams, then ask whether high joint value was distributed acceptably.
• Ask students to design a contingent term around a genuine disagreement in forecasts.

Case-style example

Orion Hotels is buying catering services for three years. Price is worth 50 points to Orion, service hours 30 and cancellation flexibility 20. For supplier Ember Foods, price is worth 25, service hours 20 and contract certainty 55. Students construct three packages and negotiate. One deal may maximise Orion’s price objective; another may exchange certainty for flexibility. Students discover that different priorities can enlarge the available value without eliminating distributive tension.

Where students struggle

Students often hear “win-win” and assume interests are aligned. Require them to identify the source of each trade, calculate joint gains where possible and explain who captures the value.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Yao, Brett, Zhang and Ramirez-Marin, “Multi-issue offers strategy and joint gains in negotiations” (2021). Quick check: ask students to convert three issue-by-issue proposals into one coherent package.

Where a simulation fits

The Startup Funding simulation fits strongly after this concept because Startup and VC teams negotiate a term sheet across economic, governance and investor-protection provisions. The SWOT Analysis simulation can also support a shorter exercise in reconciling competing strategic priorities.

Where it leads

Value creation depends on learning what matters to the other side, which makes information exchange and questioning central.

Central question: How can negotiators learn enough to create a better deal without revealing more than they should?

Information exchange is one of the hardest skills to teach because students oscillate between oversharing and tactical silence. The aim is selective openness: ask diagnostic questions, listen for priorities, test assumptions, disclose information that helps create trades and protect information whose disclosure would unnecessarily weaken the position.

What this concept covers

• Diagnostic questions, active listening and paraphrasing.
• Interests versus positions in conversation.
• Selective disclosure and information asymmetry.
• Framing, summaries and proposal language.
• Communication signals in face-to-face, written and virtual negotiation.

Learning outcomes

• Design questions that reveal priorities and constraints.
• Distinguish useful disclosure from avoidable vulnerability.
• Summarise counterpart interests accurately before proposing a trade.
• Use evidence and framing without misrepresenting facts.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Run a listening round in which students may ask questions but not make offers.
• Require a written counterpart map before package design.
• Compare open questions, closed questions and disguised arguments.
• Use a transcript or recording for students to identify missed opportunities to probe.

Case-style example

Lumen Retail and landlord Westgate are renegotiating a lease. Lumen asks for a £90,000 annual rent reduction; Westgate refuses. Hidden information shows Lumen cares most about a six-month break option, while Westgate cares most about retaining occupancy through a refinancing date. Students receive 12 minutes to ask questions before proposing a package. Students discover that the apparent £90,000 conflict can be reframed around timing, certainty and optionality.

Where students struggle

Students confuse asking questions with interrogation and active listening with politeness. The deeper skill is to use the answer to update a hypothesis and alter the next move.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Boothby, Cooney and Schweitzer, “Embracing Complexity: A Review of Negotiation Research” (2023), with a focus on information and interaction. Quick check: require three questions, each tied to a specific uncertainty in the preparation sheet.

Where a simulation fits

The paired analytical perspectives in PESTLE Analysis and Porter's Five Forces can be used as evidence-based communication exercises: teams must justify why they weight the same information differently and reconcile a common recommendation.

Where it leads

Information is more useful when students understand leverage: who needs whom, what standards matter and how power shifts during a negotiation.

Central question: Where does bargaining power come from, and how can it be used without confusing power with aggression?

Power in negotiation is dynamic. It can come from alternatives, information, authority, time, legitimacy, relationships, coalition support, scarce resources or the ability to implement. Students should learn to diagnose dependencies and use objective criteria, rather than treating positional dominance as the only source of leverage.

What this concept covers

• BATNA-based power and dependency.
• Information, expertise, authority and relationship power.
• Deadlines, scarcity and sequencing.
• Objective criteria, legitimacy and precedent.
• Influence tactics and the boundary between persuasion and coercion.

Learning outcomes

• Map sources of power for each party.
• Explain how leverage may change across stages.
• Use objective criteria to support a claim.
• Evaluate when a powerful move creates unnecessary implementation or relationship risk.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Have teams build a two-column power map before a role-play.
• Introduce a deadline midway through the exercise and ask what actually changed.
• Require every strong demand to be linked to an external standard, alternative or implementability concern.
• Debrief how perceived power differed from actual alternatives.

Case-style example

Northshore Media is negotiating with its largest freelance production studio. Northshore provides 45% of the studio’s annual revenue, but the studio owns a specialist workflow that would take Northshore four months and £180,000 to replace. A renewal is worth £520,000. Students map leverage and propose terms. One view emphasises buyer scale; another emphasises switching friction. Students discover that power is reciprocal, issue-specific and shaped by time.

Where students struggle

Students often identify the larger organisation as automatically more powerful. Ask what each side can credibly do without the other, what happens over time and which resources are replaceable.

Reading and a quick check

Use the power and influence material in Lewicki, Saunders and Barry. Quick check: ask students to identify one source of leverage that is independent of formal authority and one criterion that could legitimise a disputed term.

Where a simulation fits

The Debt Financing and Debt Restructuring simulations make leverage visible through borrower-lender dependence, claim priority, security and limited enterprise value. Use them after students can distinguish legal/economic leverage from interpersonal force.

Where it leads

Power without ethical boundaries can produce short-term wins and long-term failure, which makes trust, deception and reputation the next essential concept.

Central question: What should negotiators disclose, what may they strategically withhold and where are the ethical boundaries?

Ethics belongs inside the core negotiation sequence rather than as a final add-on. Students need to distinguish legitimate advocacy from false statements, omission from active deception, bluffing from fabricated evidence and confidential information from information that must be disclosed. Trust should be taught as both a relational asset and a decision under uncertainty.

What this concept covers

• Ethical frameworks for negotiation choices.
• Truthfulness, bluffing, omission and misrepresentation.
• Trust calibration, verification and reciprocal behaviour.
• Reputation, repeated interaction and implementation risk.
• Organisational rules, professional duties and conflicts of interest.

Learning outcomes

• Evaluate a tactic using more than one ethical lens.
• Distinguish advocacy from factual misrepresentation.
• Design verification and governance mechanisms where trust is incomplete.
• Explain how reputational effects alter the economics of a negotiated outcome.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Give students short tactic cards and ask them to classify what is permissible, questionable or unacceptable and why.
• Require role-specific ethical constraints in preparation sheets.
• Debrief whether students felt deceived and whether the tactic actually improved the outcome.
• Use written disclosure language to show how precision can reduce future disputes.

Case-style example

Aster Health is selling a data-services contract. Its salesperson knows a key subcontractor agreement expires in four months but expects renewal; the buyer asks whether “all critical supplier arrangements are secured for the contract term.” The £1.2 million deal depends on continuity. Students draft an answer and a verification clause. One response discloses the expiry explicitly; another explains continuity risk without predicting failure. Students discover the difference between advocacy, material omission and a statement that could later be challenged as misleading.

Where students struggle

Students often expect a simple list of permissible tactics. The better discipline is to ask what is fact, opinion or aspiration, whether the other party is reasonably relying on the statement, what duties apply and what happens if the communication is later scrutinised.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Walker, Katok and Shachat, “Trust and Trustworthiness in Procurement Contracts with Retainage” (published online 2022; Management Science 69(6), 2023). Quick check: ask students to write one mechanism that reduces dependence on trust without making cooperation impossible.

Where a simulation fits

The Corporate Governance simulation is a strong application because CEO, CTO, CCO and Shareholder teams must resolve a conflict of interest using evidence, accountability and safeguards. The ESG simulation also creates stakeholder pressure around commitments with financial and operational consequences.

Where it leads

Ethical judgement becomes harder when emotion, identity, relationships and difficult tactics shape how parties interpret each other.

Central question: How should negotiators respond when the process becomes personal, positional or stuck?

Real negotiations do not proceed as cleanly as planning templates. Anger, fear, status, identity, face-saving, distrust and difficult tactics can change behaviour even when the underlying economics are unchanged. Students need tools for diagnosis, process repair and deliberate pauses, plus a clear understanding that an impasse may be temporary, strategic or rational.

What this concept covers

• Emotion as information and as a behavioural influence.
• Identity, face, status and relationship concerns.
• Threats, deadlines, take-it-or-leave-it offers and other difficult tactics.
• Process interventions: reframing, caucus, agenda change and cooling-off periods.
• Impasse diagnosis, mediation and rational walk-away choices.

Learning outcomes

• Identify whether an impasse is substantive, procedural or relational.
• Respond to difficult tactics without reflexive escalation.
• Use process moves to reopen problem solving.
• Defend either continued negotiation or a disciplined exit.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Pause an exercise at the point of impasse and ask each side to diagnose the obstacle before making another offer.
• Have students rewrite an accusatory statement as an interest, concern and request.
• Use observer roles to record turning points in tone and process.
• Debrief what changed after a break, caucus or reframing move.

Case-style example

Helix Design and client Arbour Bank dispute a delayed system launch. Arbour withholds a £160,000 milestone payment; Helix claims £95,000 of change requests caused the delay. Each threatens termination, which would cost Arbour about £240,000 in transition and Helix about £180,000 in unrecovered staffing. Students diagnose the impasse and design a process reset. One defensible solution trades staged payment for a revised delivery plan; another prepares an orderly exit. Students discover that de-escalation is not the same as concession.

Where students struggle

Students often react to a tough tactic with a tougher tactic. Encourage them to distinguish what the tactic is trying to accomplish from how it feels, then choose a response that protects both the reservation point and the process.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Hart, Bear and Ren, “But what if I lose the offer? Negotiators’ inflated perception of their likelihood of jeopardizing a deal” (2024). Quick check: ask students when fear of impasse could cause unnecessary concessions.

Where a simulation fits

The Debt Restructuring simulation is especially useful for impasse teaching because Lien 1, Lien 2 and Equity negotiate over an insufficient pool of value. A no-deal or difficult settlement can be debriefed through claims, leverage and process choices.

Where it leads

Many high-stakes negotiations involve more than two people and require internal alignment before external agreement is even possible.

Central question: How do negotiation dynamics change when several stakeholders must agree and teams also have internal differences?

Multi-party negotiation introduces agenda control, coalition formation, representation, internal mandates and procedural legitimacy. Students should learn that the counterpart across the table may not be the only audience that matters. Internal stakeholders can create constraints, and a deal that cannot secure internal approval is not an executable deal.

What this concept covers

• Multi-party agendas and decision rules.
• Coalitions, blocking power and shifting alliances.
• Principal-agent problems and internal mandates.
• Team roles, spokesperson discipline and caucusing.
• Consensus, voting, approval thresholds and implementation ownership.

Learning outcomes

• Map stakeholders and decision rights.
• Plan a coalition strategy without assuming coalitions are stable.
• Separate internal alignment from external negotiation.
• Design a process that produces both substantive and procedural legitimacy.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Use four stakeholder teams and require a written mandate before cross-party negotiation.
• Allow private caucuses and ask teams to record how internal priorities changed.
• Change the approval rule from majority to unanimity and compare behaviour.
• Debrief which stakeholders shaped the agenda even when they did not speak most.

Case-style example

MetroCore plans a £40 million station redevelopment. The city wants completion in 18 months, the operator wants service disruption below 6 weekends, local retailers seek £2 million of mitigation and the contractor wants a 10% contingency. Students design an agenda and negotiate a package requiring approval from all four groups. One coalition may prioritise speed; another continuity. Students discover that process design, sequencing and internal mandates can be as important as the headline economics.

Where students struggle

Students often focus on the loudest party and overlook veto rights, internal constituencies and the cost of maintaining a coalition. Make decision rules and approval authority explicit.

Reading and a quick check

Use the multi-party and team-negotiation chapters in Lewicki, Saunders and Barry. Quick check: ask students to distinguish a stakeholder with high interest from one with actual blocking power.

Where a simulation fits

The ESG simulation places Management, Investor, Regulator and Union stakeholders into a shared negotiation, while Corporate Governance requires four roles to approve a governance resolution. Both fit naturally after multi-party process design.

Where it leads

Once students can manage multiple parties, they can work on the architecture of agreements: packages, contingencies, governance and implementation terms.

Central question: How should a negotiated understanding be converted into a package that can survive uncertainty and implementation?

A strong negotiation course should move beyond reaching verbal agreement. Students need to see contracts and term sheets as negotiated systems for allocating economics, control, risk and future decision rights. Packages can include contingent terms, milestones, review mechanisms, warranties, governance and escalation procedures.

What this concept covers

• Economic and non-economic terms as one package.
• Contingent agreements and earn-outs where forecasts differ.
• Governance, control rights and approval mechanisms.
• Milestones, performance standards and verification.
• Implementation planning, escalation clauses and renegotiation triggers.

Learning outcomes

• Design a package that reflects issue priorities.
• Use contingencies to bridge genuine differences in forecasts.
• Identify which terms require objective verification.
• Evaluate whether an agreement remains workable after the negotiation ends.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Give students a handshake agreement and ask them to identify unresolved implementation questions.
• Require a one-page term sheet with economic, governance and process terms.
• Stress-test packages under one adverse scenario.
• Ask a third team to interpret the agreement and identify ambiguities.

Case-style example

Pinebridge Ventures is investing £4 million in AeroSense. The founder expects 80% revenue growth; the investor expects 35%. Instead of forcing agreement on the forecast, students design a package using a £12 million base pre-money valuation plus an additional 5% founder earn-back if annual recurring revenue reaches £5 million within 18 months. They also choose board rights and information covenants. Students discover how contingent terms can bridge forecasts while creating new measurement and incentive risks.

Where students struggle

Students often treat non-price terms as secondary or add contingencies without specifying measurement, timing and dispute resolution. Make them state who measures performance and what happens if evidence is ambiguous.

Reading and a quick check

Return to Yao et al. (2021) for package strategy and use the core textbook material on integrative agreements. Quick check: ask students to write one contingent term that is testable rather than subjective.

Where a simulation fits

This concept is directly applied in Startup Funding, M&A and Debt Financing. Each requires students to connect headline economics with linked terms that allocate control, risk or future flexibility.

Where it leads

Deal architecture is then tested in settings where industry, culture, communication medium and AI can change both preparation and interaction.

Central question: How should negotiators adapt when norms, communication media or AI tools change the information and interaction environment?

Negotiation increasingly takes place across cultures and digital channels, with AI used to prepare, draft, summarise and model options. Lecturers should avoid treating culture as national stereotypes or AI as a separate technology lecture. The useful question is how assumptions, communication norms, evidence quality, authorship and strategic behaviour change the negotiation process.

What this concept covers

• Cultural differences as hypotheses, not deterministic labels.
• Direct and indirect communication, hierarchy, time and relationship norms.
• Virtual negotiation, asynchronous communication and media richness.
• AI for preparation, option generation, summarisation and scenario analysis.
• Hallucination, confidentiality, authorship, disclosure and over-reliance risks.

Learning outcomes

• Adapt process choices to uncertain cultural and organisational norms.
• Select an appropriate communication medium for the negotiation stage.
• Use AI to support preparation while verifying evidence and retaining human accountability.
• Explain and defend a permitted-use policy for assessed negotiation work.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Run the same short negotiation by text and live conversation and compare information exchange.
• Ask students to critique an AI-generated negotiation plan for invented facts and weak assumptions.
• Use cultural dimensions only as prompts for inquiry, not as predictions of individual behaviour.
• Require an AI-use disclosure on preparation work where local policy permits use.

Case-style example

Nexa Energy’s UK team and a Japanese supplier negotiate a £6 million component agreement through video calls and email. An AI assistant summarises the supplier’s emails as “rejecting” a delivery change, but the original wording is conditional and seeks internal approval. Students compare the source message, AI summary and contractual deadline, then choose a response. One path requests clarification; another proposes a contingent schedule. Students discover how media and AI can amplify interpretive error before any substantive disagreement exists.

Where students struggle

Students can overgeneralise culture and over-trust polished AI output. Require source checks, uncertainty language and an explanation of what must remain the student’s own judgement.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Kramár et al., “Negotiation and honesty in artificial intelligence methods for the board game of Diplomacy” (2022) as a provocative bridge into machine communication and strategic honesty. Quick check: ask students to identify one task AI may assist and one judgement they must personally own.

Where a simulation fits

Any of the live negotiations can be delivered online or hybrid. Use M&A or Startup Funding to compare how teams prepare and communicate when part of the work is asynchronous, while keeping the same substantive case.

Where it leads

The final concept asks students to integrate diagnosis, preparation, interaction, deal design and reflection in complex negotiations.

Central question: How should negotiators integrate the course when information changes, several principles conflict and there is no single best tactic?

The capstone concept is adaptive judgement. Students should be able to diagnose the setting, choose a strategy, revise it when evidence changes and explain why the final outcome was defensible. Reflection is not a generic “what I learned” paragraph; it should compare plan, behaviour, evidence, outcome and a specific change for the next negotiation.

What this concept covers

• Diagnosis across distributive, integrative, relational and multi-party dimensions.
• Strategy adaptation as information and leverage change.
• Decision logs and turning-point analysis.
• Outcome evaluation against BATNA, target, joint value and implementation quality.
• Reflective practice and transfer to new contexts.

Learning outcomes

• Integrate preparation, communication, power, ethics and deal design.
• Revise a strategy when new evidence invalidates an assumption.
• Evaluate a result against more than the existence of agreement.
• Produce a specific, evidence-based reflection that can guide future behaviour.

Supports the intended learning outcomes linked to this stage of the course.

How to teach it

• Use a capstone negotiation with a mid-exercise information shock.
• Require a pre-negotiation plan, team decision log and post-negotiation individual defence.
• Have students compare same-role teams rather than simply rank all outcomes.
• Use oral questioning to test whether students can explain choices that are not visible in the final terms.

Case-style example

Vantage Mobility must refinance £75 million while negotiating a supplier settlement and considering a strategic investor. A covenant test is due in 45 days. Lenders will extend maturity only if leverage falls below 4.5x; the investor will inject £18 million for 22% equity; the supplier offers a £6 million settlement if paid within 20 days. Students build an integrated plan and defend the sequencing. Different answers can be rational because liquidity, dilution and bargaining leverage interact. Students discover that complex negotiation is a portfolio of linked decisions.

Where students struggle

Students may search for the “right tactic” rather than diagnose what changed. Assess whether they can connect an action to evidence, interests, alternatives and expected consequences.

Reading and a quick check

Return to Boothby, Cooney and Schweitzer (2023) as an integrative review. Quick check: ask students to identify one moment in a prior exercise when their original plan should have changed and what evidence justified the change.

Where a simulation fits

Use M&A or Startup Funding as the principal capstone because both create explicit opposing roles and linked terms. Debt Financing or Debt Restructuring can serve as an alternative capstone for finance-oriented cohorts.

Where it leads

Students should now be able to enter a new negotiation with a repeatable diagnostic process rather than a memorised list of tactics.

10-week course structure

A 10-week version compresses adjacent concepts but preserves preparation, distributive and integrative bargaining, ethics, multi-party work and at least two substantial deal negotiations.

14-week course structure

A 14-week version separates information, power, ethics and impasse, creates more room for stakeholder work and gives students additional time for simulation debrief and individual defence.

The M&A Simulation places students inside one live acquisition. Kestrel Security is seeking to sell to Meridian Cloud. Seller and Buyer teams use common company and financial evidence plus role-specific objectives to build their positions, model the transaction and negotiate five linked terms. The exercise is especially strong for Negotiation because the economics create a credible disagreement without the lecturer having to invent one.

Why it fits here

• Students already know BATNA, targets, anchors, information exchange and package design.
• The five linked terms make concessions interdependent rather than purely positional.
• Both agreement and disciplined no-deal outcomes can be academically defensible.
• Same-role comparisons make it possible to discuss strategy without pretending Seller and Buyer teams share the same objective.

What students do

• Review the Seller or Buyer role, objectives and transaction context.
• Analyse company information, financial evidence, valuation multiples, synergies and role-specific material.
• Model EBITDA, adjustments, synergies, the valuation multiple and cash-versus-shares consideration.
• Prepare a negotiation strategy with priorities, arguments and concession logic.
• Negotiate the linked acquisition terms. The Buyer enters proposed terms and the Seller marks accepted terms as Firm.
• Finalise only when all five terms are agreed, or retain a defensible no-deal position if the terms fall outside the team’s evidence-based limits.
• Compare final valuations, consideration mixes and outcomes with other groups during reflection.

Recommended course placement

• After Session 10 after the relevant concept teaching.
• Use a short written preparation before the live activity.
• Build in a structured debrief and, if assessed, an attributable individual component.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• Negotiation preparation: interests, BATNA, targets and reservation logic.
• Anchoring and concession strategy.
• Multi-issue package design.
• Basic valuation or the ability to interpret the model outputs.
• Evidence-based argument and debrief discipline.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which assumption most shaped your opening position?
• Where did you create value by trading across terms rather than splitting the difference?
• Which concession was deliberate, and what did you receive in return?
• Did the cash-versus-shares mix change the meaning of the headline valuation?
• At what point would walking away have been more rational than completing the deal?
• What evidence would you want before turning the negotiated terms into a binding transaction?

View the live M&A Simulation page

The Startup Funding Simulation places students on opposite sides of an early-stage EdTech seed round. Startup and VC teams prepare independently, compare opening term sheets and then negotiate a complete agreement across funding, valuation, ownership, founder dilution, the option pool, board representation, consent rights and investor protections. It is a strong Negotiation course fit because students must decide which terms are essential, which are tradable and what each concession costs across economics and control.

Why it fits here

• Students can apply BATNA, targets and issue priorities to a real term-sheet architecture.
• Headline valuation cannot be judged separately from dilution, control and protection terms.
• The activity rewards package thinking and concession reciprocity rather than one-issue bargaining.
• Groups can reach different but defensible deals, including an unresolved negotiation where key provisions cannot be reconciled.

What students do

• Watch the role briefing and review whether the team represents the Startup or VC.
• Use the company brief, pitch materials and funding ask to assess the proposed seed round.
• Draft an opening term sheet covering capital, pre-money and post-money valuation, ownership, dilution, option pool, board representation, consent rights and investor protections.
• See the other side’s opening term sheet during Strategy and classify gaps as economic, ownership/control or legal-protection issues.
• Choose essential terms, tradable terms, concession exchanges and potential deal breakers.
• Negotiate provision by provision. The VC team enters negotiated terms and the Startup team records acceptance of each provision before finalisation.
• Review final terms and selected metrics against other Startup or VC teams and explain the trade-offs made.

Recommended course placement

• After Session 9 after the relevant concept teaching.
• Use a short written preparation before the live activity.
• Build in a structured debrief and, if assessed, an attributable individual component.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• Negotiation preparation and reservation logic.
• Integrative package design and concession exchange.
• Basic valuation and ownership concepts help, but the simulation is beginner-friendly and defines the terms.
• Governance and control as negotiation issues.
• Ethics and information asymmetry.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which two terms mattered most to your role and why?
• Which concession created the best exchange across economic and control issues?
• Did a higher valuation necessarily produce a stronger Founder outcome?
• How did information asymmetry influence your questions and trust?
• Which provision nearly stopped the deal, and could a different package have resolved it?
• What would you change in your opening term sheet after seeing cohort outcomes?

View the live Startup Funding Simulation page

Use platform outputs as team evidence, then add observation, preparation, written justification or oral defence for individual attribution. Keep moderation within role where roles have different objectives.

Grading with the M&A Simulation

Seller and Buyer teams model and negotiate five linked acquisition terms. No formal score is generated, so grade the quality of judgement behind the package rather than the mere fact of completion.

• Preparation: reservation logic, priorities, assumptions and opening package.
• Use of company and financial evidence to support valuation inputs.
• Quality of linked concessions across earnings, synergies, multiple and consideration.
• Discipline of the final agreement or reasoned no-deal outcome.
• Individual explanation of turning points and contribution to team decisions.

Grading with the Startup Funding Simulation

Startup and VC teams negotiate a complete seed-round term sheet. The platform does not generate a formal score; final terms and comparison metrics are evidence for the lecturer’s judgement.

• Funding and valuation judgement.
• Understanding of ownership, dilution, option pool and governance consequences.
• Ability to trade across economic, control and protection terms.
• Role-specific decision discipline rather than a single “best” headline term.
• Individual defence of two concessions and one rejected trade.

Grading with the Debt Financing Simulation

Borrower and Lender teams use company, financial and market evidence to negotiate one coherent refinancing package.

• Debt-capacity assumptions and use of evidence.
• Coherence of pricing, maturity, repayment, security, seniority and covenants.
• Recognition of borrower-lender trade-offs and leverage.
• Defensibility of the final package or unresolved terms.

Grading with the Debt Restructuring Simulation

Lien 1, Lien 2 and Equity teams apply claim priority, calculate recoveries and negotiate an out-of-court restructuring against insufficient enterprise value.

• Accuracy and interpretation of claim priority and recovery.
• Quality of haircut proposals and stakeholder arguments.
• Ability to distinguish legal/economic leverage from positional pressure.
• Reasoned compromise, coalition behaviour and impasse management.

Grading with the ESG Simulation

Management, Investor, Regulator and Union roles negotiate a stakeholder package linking environmental, social and governance decisions to financial and operational outcomes.

• Use of role evidence and stakeholder priorities.
• Quality of multi-party package design and trade-offs.
• Ability to reach a collectively approvable outcome without hiding material consequences.
• Individual explanation of one concession made for system-level value.

Grading with the Corporate Governance Simulation

CEO, CTO, CCO and Shareholder teams resolve a conflict of interest and agree future governance safeguards.

• Use of evidence and governance principles.
• Proportionality and implementability of the immediate resolution.
• Quality of future safeguards, accountability and disclosure logic.
• Same-role performance plus individual defence where marks must be attributable.

Grading with the PESTLE Analysis Simulation

Growth Strategy and Risk Management teams interpret the same external-environment evidence and work toward a shared market-entry view.

• Quality of factor weighting and evidence.
• Ability to challenge a different interpretation constructively.
• Clarity of the final shared recommendation and residual uncertainties.

Grading with the Porter's Five Forces Simulation

Growth and Risk perspectives score the same competitive forces and reconcile their views through committee discussion.

• Use of industry evidence rather than labels alone.
• Quality of disagreement, questioning and revision.
• Defensibility of the final Go, Conditional Go or Reject recommendation.

Grading with the SWOT Analysis Simulation

Business Development and Risk Management teams prioritise the same strategic evidence from different mandates.

• Prioritisation of factors and recognition of role bias.
• Ability to move from list-making to a strategic recommendation.
• Quality of cross-team reconciliation and evidence-based challenge.