67 Fish Pond Lane

SCENARIO:

67 Fish Pond Lane in Cambridge, MA was purchased five years ago for $95,000 by two lawyers. Since then, its value has at least doubled. The owners, expecting to stay for some time, kept the house in excellent condition and added several unique features, including an elegant high-tech aviary for exotic birds. The owners recently moved to California, however, and the house has been on the market for a month. Two graduating business school students are interested in purchasing the house. One or both of them plan to meet with one or both of the owners while the latter are in town for a few days to see if a sale can be arranged.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is a little more natural as a one-on-one negotiation with absent partners, but two-on-two negotiations also work and provide some interesting team dynamics. All instructions are neutral as to sex and marital status.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Map

 

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

  • Buyer(s)
  • Seller(s)

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise usually generates difficult negotiations. In this familiar context the stakes seem large, and while there are many objective criteria on point, they are neither fully consistent nor determinative. The tendency to haggle is strong, and a variety of bargaining tactics can be used. Review can explore which tactics were effective under what circumstances, and why.
  • Many important concerns and legitimate criteria in the case are intangible and/or difficult to measure. This raises the question of how arguments can persuasively be turned into numbers.
  • The exercise is a good one for focusing closely on what specific events cause parties to change their offers, and what brings them to the point of closing the deal.
  • A discussion of deadlines, their effects and how to create them, is usually appropriate.
  • Comparison of results also raises questions about what techniques, attitudes and tactics produce more competition and/or animosity? How does amicability correlate with pareto optimality of results?
  • A variety of questions are raised concerning the concept of BATNA. How does a party’s perception of its BATNA affect conduct in the negotiation? How should it? How can BATNAs be improved? When is it ethical to try to change the other side’s BATNA for the worse? When not? What are some ways of doing that?
  • This exercise also facilitates a rich post-mortem consideration of how the parties might have prepared better.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Commitment; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation

Bakra Beverage

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are new to teaching negotiation or are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts, the Bakra Beverage All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need to teach negotiation.

The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation, track learning outcomes, and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Bakra Beverage. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

The Bakra Beverage All-In-One Curriculum Package requires a minimum of 90 minutes of class time, but is best run in a two and half or three-hour class. To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

Structurally almost identical to the Sally Soprano role simulation, Bakra Beverage is a two-party, nonscorable negotiation between a beverage manufacturer and a soft drink distributor over the terms of a potential distribution contract.

BebsiCo is a multi-billion-dollar, multinational soft drink manufacturer interested in expanding its operations into the Middle Eastern country of Kumar. The distributor that was supposed to handle BebsiCo’s new distribution campaign, Kabir Cola, decided suddenly last week to close its Kumari operations and focus on other Middle Eastern countries. BebsiCo is eager to sign a new distribution contract with the Kumar-based Bakra Beverage, a financially troubled but reputable soft drink distributor. Indeed, BebsiCo headquarters has authorized its Director of Middle East Operations to offer Bakra up to $6.75 million per year for the contract, though BebsiCo would like that figure to be lower if possible.

Bakra desperately wants this contract, which would put it back on the map, attract additional clients, and give the company the confidence and certainty about its future that it has been waiting for to purchase Jayyid Juices (a juice and specialty beverage distributor). The contract is so important that Bakra would almost be willing to distribute for BebsiCo for free, except for the impact on future agreements and reputation.

In addition to the wide zone of possible agreement regarding the distribution fee, the simulation includes a range of possible criteria for determining the fee as well as numerous possibilities for value-creating options. Teaching points include the value of focusing on interests to create mutually beneficial options, the power of objective criteria, the effect of both parties’ BATNAs on the negotiation dynamic, and the importance of balancing both process and substance interests when a long-term relationship is at stake.

This simulation may be used as an alternative to Sally Soprano if a more corporate or international context is desired.

 

Participant materials include:

  • Confidential instructions for Bakra Beverage’s Sales Director
  • Confidential instructions for BebsiCo’s Director of Middle East Operations

 

Teacher’s package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

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 Bakra Enhanced Package click here.

Bentley Convertible

SCENARIO:

Mr. Henry Soles, the wealthy owner of a 1927 custom-made Bentley convertible has hired an agent to sell his car. A corporation has made an offer. The only other likely buyer is Amelia Austin. Mrs. Austin has asked her personal secretary to make an offer for the Bentley. There is no current market price for this unique automobile, although there is some data on various Rolls Royce and other Bentley models. The two representatives are meeting to negotiate the purchase.

 

MECHANICS:

After preparation for as little as 5 minutes, this one-on-one negotiation should take 20-40 minutes depending on the skillfulness of the participants. Average review time is 20-40 minutes, or 60-75 minutes if two participants are asked to negotiate the case in front of class.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

  • Soles's Representative
  • Amelia Austin's Agent

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simple case was designed to explore positional bargaining in a classic situation where objective criteria are scarce. Techniques such as anchoring, asymptotic concessions, final offers, pleading lack of authority, low-balling, and so on, can usually be identified among participants' negotiation tactics.
  • The case also highlights the importance of the fear of being taken, and the role objective criteria can play in handling that fear.
  • The sparseness of the criteria, however, encourage their use as justifications for rigid positions rather than partial data about what might seem fair. This allows a discussion of how the difference manifests in practice and what its consequences are.
  • The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is clearly raised.
  • The differences between agent and principal interests, authority, and strategy are easily explored.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Interests, quantifying; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Reservation price

Big Pipeline in Swagwit

SCENARIO:

Big Pipeline, a construction company, is building a pipeline through land owned by First Nation (Native American) peoples. Twenty years ago, a similar project by the same company left many of the indigenous peoples feeling dissatisfied and unhappy – this has resulted in tensions in this current negotiation. Happily, most of the issues between the Mountain Home Band, the group of First Nations people who will be the most affected, and Big Pipeline have been worked out. One major issue remains – allocation of job opportunities. How many laborers should be used for the construction project and how many of these jobs should be reserved for Mountain Home Band people?

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

It is possible to negotiate agreements that create gains for you and for them–you can both beat your BATNA. To create joint gains, use the Mutual Gains Approach:

  • Know your own BATNA and interests
  • Set your aspirations
  • Communicate your interests, and probe for their interests
  • Trade across issues you value differently
  • Use standards you can both accept to help you choose among options and packages

 

Manage the opportunities and dangers involved in setting aspirations:

  • Set your aspirations high
  • Be responsive to new information; don't be rigid.
  • When you do adjust your aspirations, be careful not to leave value unclaimed.
  • Help your partner do the same.

 

Negotiate as if relationships mattered:

  • Don't jeopardize long-term relationships by pushing too hard for short-term gain.
  • Effective "cross-cultural" negotiation depends upon making sure you are understood (and understand).
  • The rewards of modest risk-taking can be substantial. There will always be tension between the advantages of cooperation and the need to "compete."
  • Good negotiators develop a repertoire of negotiating styles.
  • You have to talk about relationships to improve them.

 

MECHANICS:

This negotiation may be run within 30 minutes with a 10 minute prep-time. You should allow at least 20 minutes for debriefing

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

  • Big Pipeline Project Manager + score sheet
  • Mountain Home Band Chief + score sheet

 

Additional Teaching Notes:

  • Summary of 'lessons learned'
  • Summary score sheet for 120 players
  • Chart of possible scores

Blender, The

SCENARIO:

The complaints clerk in a department store sees a customer coming with a blender recognizable as one of the store's special super-sale items. The store cannot return these items to the manufacturer. The clerk has a small weekly budget to absorb the cost of such items, if returned, and the department head has instructed that it be used sparingly. The budget for this week is overspent. The customer, having used the blender for over a week, believes it is either defective or an inadequate appliance, and has therefore decided to return it.

 

 

 

MECHANICS:

This negotiation works well as one-on-one, but can be extended to two-on-one, by including another participant on either side. It takes no more than five minutes to run; debriefing can last up to half an hour with several replays. The exercise can be run as is, or one or both parties can be given additional psychological instructions about their character (making it more of a role play for that party, instead of a negotiation).

 

 

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes often resulting.
  • Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party as relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem-solving.
  • The persuasive effect of threats, cajoling, anger, helplessness, crying and other techniques can be explored.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the Clerk
  • Confidential Instructions for the Consumer

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

 

SUBJECTS:

Consumer; Interpersonal; Psychological; Small claims

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Apologies; BATNA; Communication; Credibility; Emotions, role of; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Power imbalance; Threats; Yesable propositions

 

Camilia Pictures

OVERVIEW:

Camilia Pictures is a film production company dedicated to producing movies with artistic merit, strong market potential, and cutting-edge sensibilities. Seven years ago, Camilia Pictures President Raven Reynolds, then an independent producer with a small company and a big Hollywood name, and Rick Statler, CEO of family entertainment powerhouse Labrador Entertainment, agreed to a merger. Camilia would continue to produce high-quality films, but it would do so as a part of the larger Labrador empire. Though Reynolds would still run Camilia, all movies it produced would now belong to Labrador.

For its first few years under the Labrador umbrella, Camilia Pictures thrived. But for the past few years, it has struggled as Reynolds and Statler continue to battle over money. Reynolds insists that she needs more to succeed. Statler, meanwhile, is increasingly concerned about the bottom line. The dispute between these two came to a head when Reynolds used her own money to purchase Privileges and Immunities, a controversial new documentary, against Statler’s direct orders. Reynolds contends that because she used her own money to buy it and Statler is refusing to distribute it, she has the right to make her own arrangements to bring Privileges to theaters. Statler insists that the film belongs to Labrador and that he is completely within his rights to refuse distribution. Labrador’s in-house counsel has referred both parties to separate lawyers to avoid a conflict of interest.

This simulation revolves around the meeting between the lawyers for Labrador Entertainment and Camilia Pictures, but is also suitable for use by non-lawyers. At stake is not only the ownership of the new documentary, but also the future of Raven Reynolds and Camilia Pictures at Labrador Entertainment.

 

MECHANICS:

Time Required:

  • 2 hours individual preparation (preferably outside of class)
  • 45-60 minutes preparation by side (optional)
  • 45-60 minutes negotiation
  • 1-2 hours debriefing

Group Size: 2 or 4 persons (lawyers may negotiate individually or in pairs)

 

Materials Required:

  • General Instructions for both parties
  • Confidential Instructions for Raven Reynolds’ attorney
  • Confidential Instructions for Rick Statler’s attorney
  • Illustrative 7-Element Preparation worksheet (to be distributed after the negotiation)

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This simulation is useful for focusing on a range of negotiation issues, including:

  • Use of the Seven Element framework in preparation and negotiation (particularly interests, options, and objective criteria)
  • Tension between empathy and assertiveness
  • Tension between creating and distributing value (and associated issues such as disclosure)
  • Dispute resolution in the context of a long-term relationship
  • Issue control and strategy in a multi-issue negotiation
  • Agreement-drafting skills and implementation orientation
  • Relationship between negotiation process and substance
  • Role of attorneys / agents in negotiation

Casino

SCENARIO:

Jamie Jackson, the Vice President for Programming at a large software company, is meeting with Allison Shore, one of the programming managers. Allison’s team has been working on a “virtual casino” computer game. Jamie is concerned about negative internal reviews of the Casino prototype, and about the way in which Allison has been managing her programmers. Allison, on the other hand, is insulted by some recent unfriendly treatment from her colleagues and the negative reaction to Casino. She is also convinced that she is paid less than her male counterparts. Though the main objective of this meeting is to determine the fate of the Casino program, the various side issues should make the meeting interesting.

This case is particularly well-suited for use in connection with the book “Difficult Conversations,” also available through the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center.

 

MECHANICS:

The parties’ instructions require at least 15 minutes to read and analyze. Negotiation can take 30 minutes; review can last anywhere from 30-60 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party as relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem solving.
  • The skills involved in separating the people from the problem are especially apropos in this negotiation as emotions between formerly friendly people may run high.
  • If the participants choose to try to resolve workplace environment difficulties, they must face the difficulties of ordering the behavior of those around them.

 

CASINO TWO – UPDATED VERSION OF CASINO 

In this updated version of the original simulation, Casino Two explores the complex role that gender plays in workplace dynamics. Jamie and Allison are both employees at Digital Development, a male-dominated Silicon Valley start-up that makes profitable phone apps. Jamie is the vice president for Programming and recently promoted Allison, moving her from the kids and family app team to the gaming team. Jamie feels that Allison has not been performing well in her new position. The two are meeting to discuss her performance and then negotiate next steps. The Casino Two simulation, as compared to the original Casino, features updated technological references and a new teaching note.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Disclosure; Issues of difference; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Interests, internal ordering; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Power imbalance

Chestnut Drive

SCENARIO:

Four weeks ago, Bunyon Brothers Construction Company began work on a 77-unit condominium complex at the end of a quiet, wooded, dead-end street named Chestnut Drive. The residents of Chestnut Drive were surprised and angered by this development, but, after some inquiry, concluded that there was little that could be done. Now, however, the construction process has once again brought their tempers to a boil. The neighbors' complaints include: the excessive noise from blasting, dangerously speeding trucks, the lack of a fence around the project area, foul language and habits among the construction workers, and damage to windows and at least one foundation allegedly caused by the blasting. They have elected a six-member negotiating committee consisting of a retired executive, a lawyer, a cab driver, a dentist, a small businessman, and a carpenter. The lawyer has set up a meeting of the community group with the Bunyon Brothers General Counsel. This exercise revolves around the neighbors commit- tee's preparation meeting.

NOTE: This exercise is an intra-team negotiation and is one of the two sides that makes up the exercise Chestnut Village (the other side is the exercise The Bunyon Brothers).

 

MECHANICS:

After individual preparation, groups of (roughly) six neighbors meet for about 90-105 minutes preparing to negotiate with Mr. Murphy of the Bunyon Brothers Company. A message is delivered to the lawyer 10 minutes into the session informing him that a newspaper reporter would like a statement. The group must choose whether or not to spend time on this, and if so, how much. A break after 45 minutes for a presentation on meeting design and group process is often effective. By that point, participants are familiar with the problem and interested in any insights that might be helpful in their remaining preparation time. At the end of the preparation period, groups traditionally have 20-minute negotiating sessions with Mr. Murphy or a management team from the Bunyon Brothers Company, often played by the instructor(s) demonstrating various negotiation styles. The negotiating sessions can be run serially, with one group picking up where the last left off, or consecutively, in either case with the rest of the class observing and thinking how they would proceed differently. An alternative to the instructor demonstration is to have groups of prepared neighbors negotiate with representatives of the Bunyon Brothers Company who have prepared Case No. 10004.0, The Bunyon Brothers.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case focuses on two major themes. The first is preparation. What is your BATNA? What is theirs? What are their major interests likely to be? What are ours? What does their choice look like now? How, realistically, could we change it? What can they actually do? What can we do? How do we make it as easy as possible for them to do what we want, and hard for them to do otherwise? How do we best communicate all this? What yesable propositions do we have for them? Should we consult before deciding?
  • The second theme is meeting design and group process. How do six people work together to prepare for a negotiation? Set an agenda? Set strict time limits? Use a flipchart and a recorder? A facilitator? Separate inventing from deciding? And how do they work together in the ultimate meeting? How do they avoid divide and conquer tactics or distractions that keep them from focusing on any one point? How do they get commitment?
  • Another important theme is the problem of representing a constituency without firm authority. Can the negotiators really commit their neighbors? How should the Bunyon Brothers deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other one wants?
  • The case also raises the question of relationship and reputation. Both sides have important long-term interests.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Cab Driver
  • Carpenter
  • Retired Executive
  • Shopkeeper
  • Dentist
  • Lawyer
  • Telephone Message to Lawyer

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; public vs. private; Compliance; Constituents; Crisis decision- making; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Education, as a means; Emotions; Force; Group-think; Group process; Media; Meeting design; Preparation; Public opinion; Threats; Yesable propositions

Chestnut Village

SCENARIO:

Version A: Four weeks ago, the Bunyon Brothers Construction Company began work on a 77-unit condominium complex at the end of a quiet, wooded, dead-end street named Chestnut Drive. Residents of Chestnut Drive were surprised and angered by this development, but the construction company properly, although quietly, obtained all necessary permits. Recent developments have the neighbors fuming. Among them are noise, speeding trucks, lack of a fence around the site, foul language and habits among the construction workers, and damage to windows and at least one foundation allegedly caused by blasting. The neighbors (a retired executive, a lawyer, a cab-driver, a dentist, a shopkeeper and a carpenter) have arranged a meeting with the construction company (General counsel, a Senior VP, VP for Marketing & Development and VP of Construction Management) in an attempt to correct the situation. Each group will have a preparation meeting before an external negotiation is held.

Version B: Same as version A, except the role of cab driver is eliminated and the roles of Senior VP and General Counsel have merged into one.

NOTE: This exercise is a merger of the one-sided exercises Bunyon Brothers and Chestnut Drive and is structurally similar to the exercise Construction in Bunyonville without mediators.

 

MECHANICS:

Allow 90-105 minutes for internal negotiations. External negotiation should last 60-90 minutes. All members shall be present at the meeting but it works best if there is only one presenter for the construction company.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Map

 

Role Specific:

  • General instructions for the Neighbor Representatives

 

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Cab Driver (Version A Only)
  • Carpenter
  • Dentist
  • Lawyer
  • Retired Executive
  • Shopkeeper

 

General Instructions for Construction Company

 

Confidential Instructions for:

  • General Counsel (Version A only)
  • Senior Vice President (Version A Only)
  • Senior Vice President/ General Counsel (Version B Only)
  • Vice President of Construction Management
  • Vice President of Marketing & Development

 

Teacher's Package (34 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Crisis decision-making; Currently perceived choice analysis; Emotions; Force; Group-think; Group process; Media; Meeting design; Preparation; Public opinion; Threats; Yesable propositions

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This case focuses on two major themes. The first is preparation. What is your BATNA? What is theirs? What are their major interests likely to be? What are ours? What does their choice look like now? How, realistically, could we change it? What can they actually do? What can we do? How do we make it as easy as possible for them to do what we want, and hard for them to do otherwise? How do we best communicate all of this? What yesable propositions do we have for them? Should we consult before deciding?

The second theme is meeting design and group process. How do groups work together to prepare for a negotiation? Set an agenda? Set strict time limits? Use a flip-chart and a recorder? A facilitator? Separate inventing from deciding? And how do they work together in the ultimate meeting? How do they avoid divide and conquer tactics or distractions that keep them from focusing on any one point? How do they get commitment?

Another important theme is the problem of representing and dealing with a representative of a constituency without firm authority. Can the negotiators really commit their neighbors? How should the Bunyon Brothers deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other one wants?

The case also raises questions of relationship and reputation. Both sides have important long-term interests.

Consultant, The

SCENARIO:

S. Smith, of the town Riverton, has been assigned the task of overseeing the reprogramming of the town's computerized municipal operations and the training of those employees. Smith, after careful review, has selected J. Brown of Northeast Computer Services for the sizable job. The problem, however, is that Brown has offered to do the job for $20,000, somewhat below the corporate rate, and Smith, due to a restricted budget, is constrained to spending no more than $10,000. The two have agreed to one last meeting in hopes of reaching an acceptable solution.

 

Teaching Materials:

For all parties:

General Information

Teacher's Package:

All of the Above

Teaching Note (from the Tendley Contract)

 

PROCESS THEMES: Anchoring; BATNA; Constituents; Constraints; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Precedents; Risk perception

MAJOR LESSONS:

The available data allow a number of more or less equally persuasive arguments about what a "fair" contract would be. This is at a minimum good practice in developing and using objective criteria. Beyond that, the case presents the more difficult challenge of finding an objective basis with which to judge the applicability of alternative objective criteria.

DirtyStuff II

SCENARIO:

Dirty Stuff is an industrial by-product of a large number of industrial processes that has recently found to have harmful health side-effects. A first meeting was convened at which a representative from environmental organizations, labor unions, industry groups, community groups and consumer groups would attend in order to discuss how Dirty Stuff is to be regulated. This meeting ended abruptly and in a highly emotional and hostile fashion – a fact which has become reported in the press. A second meeting has been convened and the various factions have agreed to enlist the help of a facilitator. The goal of the upcoming second meeting is to revise the proposed rule regarding the production and use of Dirty Stuff. This will be published in The Federal Register.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise illustrates how an angry party can alter the tone or balance of a multiparty negotiation or create difficulties for a facilitator.
  • With such a wide range of possible agreements, the comparison of several groups' outcomes can demonstrate the usefulness of generating options. Some groups, however, might not reach agreement.
  • The facilitator may be asked to mediate or alternatively may simply act as a meeting manager and stay out of the negotiations, depending on how the parties act.
  • Caucusing can lead to the formation of blocking coalitions. The effect of caucusing on the prospects of reaching agreements can be compared across groups.
  • 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 or trade-offs more creatively.
  • Contingent agreements may hold the key to dealing with technical uncertainty.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include six roles, however, more than one person may be assigned to any role. Players have 45 minutes to prepare, including time for caucusing between parties with the same role. Actual negotiations should take less than 90 minutes. Debriefing will require at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss outcomes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft of the Proposed Rule
  • Article from newspaper
  • Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup technologies

 

Role specific:

Confidential Advice to

  • Agency Negotiator
  • Consumer Negotiator
  • Environmental Coalition Negotiator
  • Industry Negotiator
  • Labor Negotiator
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Creativity; Decision analysis; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Joint gains; Meaning of "success"; Mediation; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions

 

KEYWORDS:

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

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dirty Stuff I

Dioxin – Waste to Energy

Teflex Products

The Carson Extension

DONS Negotiation

SCENARIO:

Set in 2021 in the fictional state of Ames, this simulation involves an attempt to negotiation a settlement between two former sexual partners, Chris Wilson and Pat Stevens. At the time of her relationship with Pat, Chris knew that she was infected with the deadly DONS virus, which can only be transmitted through sexual intercourse. Chris did not disclose her DONS-positive status to Pat and proceeded to have unprotected sexual intercourse with him. After her relationship with Pat ended, and following counseling, Chris regretted what she had done and informed Pat that she had had the DONS virus during their relationship. After testing positive for DONS in a home self-test kit, Pat informed Chris that he planned to file suit. Chris responded that this should not be necessary as their lawyers should be able to work out a settlement.

With this general background, the lawyers meet with their clients in Round One of this exercise. During these preparatory meetings, each client discloses a new fact to his/her lawyer: Chris discloses the fact that she has inherited a great deal of money, and Pat discloses the fact that he is actually DONS-negative based on more precise lab testing. Neither Chris nor Pat wants this new information to be disclosed to the other party. In Round Two, the lawyers meet to discuss settlement.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation is designed to address ethical difficulties about disclosure and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
  • This negotiation is also an excellent vehicle for discussing broader issues regarding principal/agent tensions.

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • Participant materials
  • Teaching note

DS-30

SCENARIO:

Veritas and Pulchra are neighboring countries with a long history of friendly, mutually beneficial relations. Recently, however, relations between the two countries have been strained due to a catastrophic industrial accident wherein a concentrated form of the Class M chemical pesticide DS-30 leaked from a chemical plant in Veritas near the Pulchran border, adversely affecting a large tract of Pulchran farmland. To comply with Pulchran regulations on Class M pesticides, a significant amount of Pulchran wheat had to be destroyed because of excessive exposure to DS-30.

Compensation and emergency relief to affected Pulchran farmers are central issues in that country's upcoming elections, but the Pulchran National Legislature is unwilling to appropriate any money without first getting some commitment from Veritas to pay for the damage it caused. There are a wide range of standards that the two countries could use to determine the amount and nature of compensation. Because of significant political concerns, negotiators from each country's Foreign Ministry have been asked to meet and settle this case quickly.

 

MECHANICS:

The case is designed for one negotiator on each side, though pairing participants and running the case as a 2-on-2 negotiation can also work. The participants should take approximately 30 minutes to negotiate. A review and discussion period requires 45-60 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simulation provides a good vehicle for illustrating various negotiation strategies. There are a fair number of interests with varying intensities, some shared, some dovetailing, and others conflicting. Options for joint gain are plentiful.
  • The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
  • It almost always pays to maintain cordial working relations with adversaries, even in the face of substantial disagreement. Energy should be focused on solving the problem, not "beating" the other side.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

The following materials may also be distributed as handouts at the end of the exercise:

  • Some possible Criteria for Establishing Reparations
  • Illustrative Preparation Memo

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Pulchra representative
  • Veritas representative

 

Teaching Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Commitment; Information exchange; Interests; Legitimacy; Options, generating; Personality

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.

Harborco

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Harborco All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Harborco. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

Harborco is a consortium of development, industrial, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deepdraft port. It has already selected a site for the port, but cannot proceed without a license from the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA). The FLA is willing to grant Harborco a license, but only if it secures the support of at least 4 of 5 other parties: the environmental coalition, the federation of labor unions, a consortium of other ports in the region, the Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR), and the Governor of the host state. The parties have several issues to negotiate before deciding whether or not to approve the port, including the types of industries that will be be permitted to locate near the port, the extent to which environmental damage be mitigated, the extent to which organized labor will be given preference in hiring during construction and operation of the port, the amount of any federal financial assistance to Harborco, and the amount of any compensation to other ports in the region for potential economic losses?

 

MECHANICS:

This game is best played with 12 people (2 per role) although 6 people also works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read; more preparation is helpful. Negotiations require a minimum of 2 hours. However, the more time allowed for negotiation, the better.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.
  • Players are exposed to elementary utility analysis in the point scoring scheme. The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. The players can then explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes.
  • Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions–especially blocking coalitions. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies.
  • Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all one’s concerns are illustrated in this game.
  • Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements are illustrated by the scores.
  • When 12 players play the game (2 per role) they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of negotiations involving non-monolithic parties.
  • The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is also illustrated, as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
  • The advantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucuses; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Negotiator for:

  • Harborco
  • Other Ports
  • Environmental League
  • Union
  • Federal DCR
  • Governor

 

Teacher’s package (67 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note
  • Game Review Chart

 

Please note that this exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Delay tactics; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

Hard/Soft Negotiation Choice Exercise

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact tnrc@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or +1-301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.).

SCENARIO:

The form asks, “What is your negotiating style?” In the left column it lists the key characteristics of relatively “soft” bargainers. In the right column are listed the corresponding characteristics of relatively “hard” bargainers. In between, for each key factor there are spaces for writing in where you come out on the spectrum. The factors addressed are concession strategies and offer strategies.

 

MECHANICS:

Distribute the form and allow ten minutes for participants to fill it in. It is particularly useful as a prelude to an overview presentation on effective negotiation. It was designed for use before an overview of principled negotiation, but in theory other approaches could also follow from it. It works even after participants have read Getting to YES.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Two column form with blank centers.
  • Three column form with third columns listing the characteristics of principled negotiation.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Competition v. Cooperation; Personality; Systems of Negotiation

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This exercise stresses the fundamental elements of principled negotiation as logical alternatives to the seeming dilemma of “hard” or “soft” positional bargaining.

The final portion of the exercise provides a quick reference to the main elements of principled negotiation.