In fall 2025, M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution students Francesca Antonone and Nicholas Bogdos traveled to Zurich to attend the Schranner Institute’s N-Conference, an annual gathering that convenes leading experts in negotiation, leadership, and high-stakes decision-making.
Immersed in discussions on strategy, power, and the architecture of influence, the students returned with insights that highlight how theory translates into real-world practice. Below, they share their key takeaways from this impactful experience.
Francesca Antonone, Candidate for M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
The Kongresshaus room had that rare, electric stillness that precedes an idea worth remembering. Among the many distinguished panelists at the N-Conference, Professor Michael Watkins stood before us in Zurich, speaking not of tactics or persuasion but of architecture. His lecture, “Structural Engineering: The Strategic Advantage in Complex Negotiations,” reframed the discipline in a single gesture. Negotiation, he argued, is not an improvisation of instincts but the deliberate construction of context. The insight landed with quiet precision, dissolving many of the assumptions I had carried through my graduate studies at Columbia.
Watkins spoke of the seven structural dimensions—parties, issues, power, information, relationships, levels, and linkages—as instruments in a kind of symphony, each capable of altering the balance of influence and possibility. His analysis of the Disney-Fox merger, for instance, revealed a choreography of alliances and timing that transformed structure itself into the decisive element. I realized that the elegance of the concept lies in its simplicity, which presents the negotiator as an engineer of systems rather than a performer within them.
When I reflected on the breadth of negotiations that shaped my time at Columbia—some simulated, others disarmingly real—I recognized how often outcomes were shaped long before dialogue began. The seating of parties, the framing of issues, and the rhythm of disclosure were all subtle acts of design that defined what became thinkable. Watkins, ergo, gave language to what had previously been intuitive, something I have come to regard as a grammar of structural agency.
As I left the conference hall, I felt an almost architectural clarity settle in. The practice of negotiation no longer appeared as the pursuit of agreement but as the disciplined art of shaping interdependence. It is an art that rewards perception over performance and patience over assertion, an art I continue to refine with every conversation that seeks coherence amid complexity.
Nicholas Bogdos, Candidate for M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
Jennifer Jordan’s lecture “Power, Status, and Leadership” challenged me to rethink how I perceive influence and authority in both professional and academic settings. I had always associated power with hierarchy—titles, experience, or positional authority—but this session pushed me to see it differently. Jordan described power as transformative, social, relative, dynamic, and context-dependent, which made me realize that real influence often depends less on rank than on awareness, adaptability, and connection.
What stood out most to me was the way she differentiated power and status. Power, as I understood it, comes from the ability to make decisions or control resources, while status reflects how others view and respect you. It was interesting to consider how one can exist without the other—someone might hold a title yet lack credibility, while another person, with no formal authority, can command attention through presence and expertise. This idea connected deeply with what I study in negotiation and conflict resolution, where influence isn’t about having control but about understanding perception and relationships.
Her discussion about the sources of power—education, allies, and organizational culture—made me reflect on my own. My investigative background has given me a strong analytical foundation, but this lecture reminded me that knowledge alone doesn’t create influence. It’s also about how effectively I engage others, build trust, and maintain curiosity. Power, in that sense, has to be sustained through learning and genuine connection.
What resonated most was Jordan’s point about “alchemizing power into leadership.” I took that to mean that leadership isn’t about control—it’s about transforming what you have into something that benefits others.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
Columbia University’s Master of Science in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution prepares students to analyze the root causes and dynamics of conflict and to transform disputes through reasoned and resourceful interventions. The program focuses on developing self-awareness, tenacity, and interpersonal competency; building common ground; opening lines of communication; ensuring representation and recognition; and building sustainable possibilities for resolution.
The priority application deadline for the M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution program is January 15, with a final deadline of May 1. The program has on-campus and online (with residency) modality options. Learn more about the program here.
