DirtyStuff I

SCENARIO:

Exposure to "Dirty Stuff" in the industrial workplace is an issue of major concern to three coalitions representing environmental organizations, industry groups, and labor unions. During past hearings the divergence in their views has become public knowledge. Congress has responded by passing a law requiring The Agency to take action. The Agency, called in a consultant to interview leaders of the concerned coalitions, and draft a proposed agreement. The coalitions and Agency leaders are about to meet to review the draft. The parties will discuss the acceptable levels of risk, the quality of cleaning techniques, and monitoring and evaluation of the cleaning procedures. A neutral party has been asked to help facilitate the meeting

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This is a four-party multi-issue facilitated negotiation simulation involving the drafting of a proposed environmental regulation. It emphasizes the use of active facilitation and examines the issues encountered by neutrals when their role is not well understood by the principal parties.
  • The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements, the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
  • It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator's instructions are rather vague; therefore, the role may develop into either a mediator's role; a process manager's role; or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiations at all.
  • The usefulness of a Single Negotiating Text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences, and help parties structure packages of trade-offs more creatively.
  • The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussions are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include five roles; however, more than one player may be assigned to any role. Reading in preparation for the role play takes 10-15 minutes. Parties having the same roles caucus to strategize prior to beginning the actual negotiation (approximately 20 minutes). Review of the draft should run for 60-90 minutes. Debriefing requires at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss the outcomes. A table for 5 is recommended. Private breakout rooms are useful but not critical to this simulation.

NOTE: The game manager should meet briefly with the facilitators before the negotiation to make sure they understand their responsibilities.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft of the Proposed Rule
  • Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup Technologies

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Advice to:
  • Agency Negotiator
  • Environmental Coalition Negotiator
  • Industry Negotiator
  • Labor Negotiator
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS

Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Assisted v. Non-assisted negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Creativity; Decision analysis; Distributional dispute; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation, entry; Meeting design; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

  • Dirty Stuff II
  • Dioxin – Waste to Energy
  • Teflex Products
  • The Carson Extension

Eazy’s Garage – Two-Party

Note: This simulation is also available in a four-party version (with roles for two lawyers and two clients) here.

SCENARIO:

Susan Garfield has a billing dispute with John Eazer, owner of a local garage, over some work done on Garfield's car. Finding the bill significantly higher than the original informal estimate, Garfield angrily confronted Eazer. Eazer prepared a second bill at an even higher figure. Frustrated, Garfield returned to the garage after closing time with a spare key and drove her car home, without paying anything. Eazer turned to his child-in-law, an attorney, wishing to file a criminal complaint. When phoned, Garfield referred the attorney to her father, a senior partner in a local law firm. Garfield's father is letting one of his young associates handle the case.

 

MECHANICS:

This case takes 30-45 minutes to negotiate, either one-on-one or two-on-two. Debriefing can take from 45 minutes to 2 hours.

 

TEACHER'S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Eazer's Attorney
  • Susan Garfield's Attorney
  • Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)
  • Sample Preparation Memo

 

Teacher's Package (30 pages total):

  • All of the Above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include a Teaching Note)

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Tension between empathy and assertiveness, especially in the context of a long-term relationship.
  • The relevance and uses of objective criteria.
  • Negotiating in the shadow of the law (and under the threat of a possible lawsuit).
  • Balance among short-term and long-term interests, including financial, relationship, reputation, and emotional interests.
  • Role of agents (such as lawyers) in negotiating a resolution to an emotional dispute between clients with a long-term relationship.
  • Questions about what constitutes "success" in this negotiation? Is it making the other side back down? Avoiding litigation? Getting a "fair"deal? What are the criteria for a "good" outcome in negotiation?

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Apologies; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Joint gains; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Litigation analysis; Meaning of "success"; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Yesable propositions.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Eazy's Garage Enhanced Package click here.

Negotiated Development in Redstone

SCENARIO:

The grandchild of the founder of the city of Redstone has proposed building an up-scale condominium project. This has been encouraged by the Redevelopment Authority. Rumor has it that the plans include 120 units, street level commercial businesses, and a parking garage. The City Council is opposed to the project. A Neighborhood Association, including supporters of the "slow-growth" platform on which the Council was elected, is very upset and has articulated its opposition to the plan. In addition, the down-zoning laws in Redstone allow the developer of the proposed project an "as of right" density of only 50 units. However, the developer can negotiate for a higher density by offering to exceed the 10% affordable housing requirement set by the city. The City Council has urged that a representative from the Neighborhood Association and the developer meet to try to reach an accord. If no agreement is reached, the dispute will go to the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority (which are at odds).

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Importance of pre-negotiation analysis: It is important to prepare for a negotiation and particularly to identify both aspirations and BATNA's.
  • Distributive vs. Integrative bargaining differences: The participants have an opportunity to analyze the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining.
  • Potential Joint Gains: Focusing on issues that are valued differently will allow participants to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach an agreement.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

A variation of this exercise entitled Ocean Splash is also available from the Clearinghouse.

 

Estimated Time Requirement:

This scorable game takes about 10 minutes to read. Preparation should take approximately 15-20 minutes. The parties are given a chart to assess their scores for all possible agreements. The negotiation should take from 30-45 minutes. At least 30 minutes should be allocated for debriefing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions and Scoring Charts for

  • Angela Redstone
  • John Hammond

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Community development; Constituents; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Land Use Negotiation; Linkage negotiation; Meaning of "success"; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Offers, first; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Public dispute resolution; Public opinion; Reservation price; Risk aversion

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Parking Spaces for Super Computer