Negotiating Lessons from the Browser Wars Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

Many negotiators focus too closely on the sides, interests and options that one can see in the table. Successful negotiations have to take a much broader view on the other side and their deeply held assumptions. All talks may be viewed from the point of view of the basic elements in common, says the expert talks James K. Sebenius, but few chosen to shed light on the special process itself. In 1996, negotiations on the web browser offers one such case. Backed by abundant public records, the author provides a thumbnail sketch of players - Netscape, Microsoft and America Online - and a brief description of the dramatic process dynamics. He then holds a series of broad classes of negotiations: it is necessary to assess the full range of parties, issues, and no options transactions and the benefits of sustainable development of a value proposition, and not the cost of maintaining those risks arrogance and prejudice, and changing the game away from the table, not just play well at the table. The fall of Netscape domination involved much more than the failed negotiations, and there is no guarantee that a broader view of the negotiation process would have changed the ultimate fate of the company. But leaders in the same thorny situations should go beyond the mythical table that too often limit the possibilities inherent in any negotiation. "Hide
by James K. Sebenius Source: MIT Sloan Management Review 10 pages. Publication Date: July 1, 2002. Prod. #: SMR085-PDF-ENG

Share This