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

Ad Sales, Inc.

SCENARIO:

Ad Sales, Inc., a firm that sells advertising space in business publications, has a new management team that will negotiate its first contract with the union representing its employees. Tension has been building, and both sides have been maneuvering for strategic advantage. Some issues to be addressed are salary, vacation time, pensions, sub-contracting, compensation, and work assignments.

 

MECHANICS:

The two teams will meet separately for an hour to discuss their strategies and objectives. Then the two teams will meet and negotiate for two hours. The threat of a strike is motivation for progress in the negotiations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Supplementary Information and Stated Positions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Lawyer on Management Team
  • Regional Sales Manager
  • Vice President for Sales
  • Vice President of AFL-CIO Local 1502
  • Representative of the International Advertising Workers Federation
  • President of Local 1502
  • Supplementary Instructions for all of the above roles

 

Teacher's Package (24 pages total):

  • All of the above

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Interval team conflicts must be ironed out before union-management negotiation can proceed smoothly.
  • This case encourages parties to trade across issues and within issues. Players must decide what their BATNA's are and the differences in values of issues will determine the amount of trading.
  • This is a good exercise for people in actual contract negotiations.
  • This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties. These must be handled carefully.
  • The problems of power imbalance, typical of employee relations, are highlighted. This is probably a good case for a mutual gains approach, but useful objective criteria may be hard to come by.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda Control; Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Consensus Building; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Emotions; Fairness; Financial analysis; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; meaning of "success"; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Risk perception; Threats

Alplaus Supply Company

SCENARIO:

The senior field representative for Alplaus Supply Company is meeting with the General Manager of a company that prints and distributes many kinds of documents. The general manager recently bought a machine that performed simple folding and envelope-stuffing tasks. The machine was a good deal, but now the company is having some problems with it. The general manager wants to return the machine. The field representative knows that Alplaus has already gone over their returns budget for this month. This negotiation is based on The Blender by Bruce Patton.

MECHANICS:

This is a simple two party that may be done with teams or individually.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

  • General Manager
  • Field Representative for Alplaus Supply Company

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes usually resulting.
  • Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem solving.
  • The perception of who is in power in this negotiation and how that affected the results of the negotiation can be explored by comparing different groups.
  • In this negotiation, unlike in The Blender, the two parties have a previous relationship, and may have one in the future. The values involved are also much larger.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

Appleton vs. Baker

SCENARIO:

The Appletons and Bakers own homes on adjacent parcels of land. The Appletons are selling their house, and they also want to sell the half-lot which rests between their home and the Bakers'. The purchasers of their home are not interested in buying the lot. The Bakers are interested in the lot. There is a large bargaining zone ($5,000 to 20,000), but neither party knows of the other party's interests.

Note: After debriefing, it is an option to have a five-minute re-negotiation once everyone knows the actual constraints placed on the other party.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

  • Appleton
  • Baker

 

Teacher's package:

  • English version: Copies of both participant roles plus teaching notes
  • Non-English versions: Copies of both participant roles only

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When several pairs negotiate simultaneously, the sale prices vary dramatically, which provides for a good discussion of the results of different strategies.
  • The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.
  • Advantages and disadvantages of disclosure are also illustrated.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

Armenia/Azerbaijan/Nagorno Karabakh

SCENARIO:

This case is based on the ethnic conflict between the ex-Soviet Transcaucasian states of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the predominantly Armenian enclave of Nagorno Karabakh, located within Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at war with each other since the late 1980s, although animosities go back many centuries. This study brings together influential private citizens from both sides of the conflict and attempts to involve them in an interactive dialogue intended to change relationships among the participants. It is based on the assumption that, although governments are the official bodies responsible for making peace agreements, citizens have a critical role in peace-making, as they are best equipped to address the non-negotiable human issues in ethnic conflicts. The case study is based on real-life efforts undertaken by several U.S.-based non-governmental organizations to bring together influential individuals from countries entangled in bitter ethnic wars.

Each party in this negotiation has experienced more or less directly the war that has engulfed the region. Not only do the participants have fresh memories of the wrongdoings by the other side, but they also carry with them a sense of historical injustice for the real or exaggerated harms perpetrated by the other nation. Each group does not realize, however, that the other one carries a different and incompatible view of the history of the region. These different views are a product of diverging versions of history perpetrated through the educational system and word-of-mouth learning.

The parties must deal with the issues of fairness, historical injustice, historical blaming and, if possible, the power of apologizing. They have to grapple with the difficulty of moving beyond the circle of hate, which they have been conditioned to nurture. They have to face the decision of whether to acknowledge the pain and suffering on the other side and whether to end the blaming game, becoming able to make plans for the future with the perceived "enemy." Finally, they must engage in the process of building coalitions not only within their own group but perhaps also with the other.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a 13-participant, two-team facilitated role simulation. It may be played without a facilitator if necessary. Both teams should meet privately before the official negotiation begins. The intra-team preparation time should take at least 1 hour, and the actual negotiation time ranges between 4 and 6 hours. Debriefing may be run at another time and should last at least 1 hour.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • International Daily New Article
  • Public Peace Process Policy
  • Soviet Nationalities Policy

 

For each team:

  • Armenian history(for Armenian team)
  • Azerbaijani history (for Azerbaijani Team)

 

Role specific:

  • Fuad
  • Irana
  • Maral
  • Yosef
  • Marif
  • Adrineh
  • Anoush
  • Armen
  • Haig
  • Levon
  • Narmina
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package (46 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Facilitator's guide
  • Teaching Note

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflicts and the difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationship.
  • The application and study of the major negotiation techniques in settings that do not involve negotiating, e.g., active listening.
  • The role of partisan perceptions, prejudices, and blaming in ethnic conflicts, and ways to move beyond them.

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

Book Contract, The

SCENARIO:

Terry Holtz, a senior editor with a highly regarded, independent publishing firm has received a proposed book entitled Entrepreneurial Schools written by a young, up and coming, but never before published author. Terry is extremely interested in the book and is willing to pay an exceptionally high author's advance for the book. Jay McIntyre is a successful literary agent and represents Rachel Leonard, author of Entrepreneurial Schools. Jay has shown Rachel's manuscript to one other publishing firm than Terry's and has since found out that they are not interested. This coupled with Rachel's professional ambitions, which would be helped greatly by the visibility that comes with publication, has made Rachel anxious to close the deal with Terry's firm fast. She has told Jay to settle for what he can get from Terry's firm, but not to leave any money on the table.

NOTE: This exercise is analytically similar to the exercise Parker-Gibson in a different setting.

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise works best as a one on one exercise. Preparation should take 10-15 minutes and negotiation can take 10-30 minutes. Review and debriefing can last from 30-75 minutes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the Agent, Jay McIntyre
  • Confidential Instructions for the Publisher, Terry Holtz

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining. Depending on the skill of the other negotiator, both approaches can do well. Both parties should be risk averse, however, and wary of an adversarial approach that might get out of hand.
  • The knowledge that one's BATNA is weak often leads people to negotiate much less vigorously than they otherwise would. Is this ever justified? If so, under what conditions? The case affords a good opportunity to point out that any such analysis should be based on a consideration of the parties' relative BATNA's.
  • Since the case does have a strong competitive element, there is ample opportunity to explore techniques for indirectly and directly extracting information from the other side. Likewise, techniques of protecting oneself from "giving up" the possibility for gains that were unforeseen can be explored and discussed.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

  • GE International
  • A Salary Negotiation
  • Sally Soprano
  • San Morgan Contract
  • Tendley Contract

 

SUBJECT:

Business; Contracts; Interpersonal

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Commitment; Confidentiality; Disclosure; Fairness; Information exchange; Meaning of "success"; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Precedents; Risk aversion; Trust

Brief Outline of the Mediation Process

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.)

This is an overview of the formal mediation process. It includes a list of the advantages of formal mediation over a court hearing. The goals of each step of the process are touched upon. There are some tips as to technique and caucuses. This outline is meant for people who want to learn to mediate, but can also be very useful for people who are going to be involved in a formal mediation in another capacity. In other words, it is exactly what it claims to be.

Conference with a Professor

SCENARIO:

A law student has an appointment with the only professor who has given the student an A+. The student has two objectives for the meeting–getting a recommendation and a research assistant-ship with the professor. The professor is currently writing a book on copyright law and computer software, a subject of great interest to the student, who in fact borrowed the professor's manuscript, and has kept it longer than agreed. The professor does not know why the appointment was made, but remembers the student as being intelligent and personable, and thinks that perhaps it is the same student who borrowed the missing manuscript. A search for this draft manuscript was initiated sometime ago. Since that time, the professor has had to rewrite many portions from scratch.

 

MECHANICS:

The two parties meet for approximately 5-15 minutes. Either party can be given additional role instructions about the kind of person to play. Videotaping is helpful for review. The exercise can be run twice, with the parties switching roles in the second round.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise focuses on interpersonal skills and psychological awareness. How do different individuals approach each role? What does that suggest about their psychological interests? Are they effective? Why or why not?
  • There is also a clear opportunity and considerable incentive for misrepresentation by the student. How do different people handle this, and what consequences does misrepresentation have in their verbal and nonverbal behavior?
  • This exercise presents a challenge worthy of a skilled negotiator: to tell the truth in a way that strengthens the relationship and allows the other issues to be dealt with positively, each on merits.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Professor
  • Student

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Apologies; Communication; Credibility; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Information exchange; Interpersonal skills; Issue control; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Personality; Power imbalance; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk aversion; Separating the people from the problem

Development on Bay Island

SCENARIO:

Manatee Townhomes, Inc., has proposed a residential development for a harbor island in Bay City. Before proceeding it must obtain the approval of Bay City's Department of Streets and Thoroughfares. Streets and Thoroughfares will grant approval only if Manatee agrees to pay a sum money in the form of a traffic impact exaction.

In this exercise the two groups meet to determine the amount of the exaction. Manatee wants a low exaction in order to keep its profits high; Streets and Thoroughfares wants a high exaction in order to minimize future tax levies. There is a large zone of potential agreement ($3.8 million to $10 million), but neither side knows too much about the interests of the other side. There are few, if any, opportunities for joint gains.

 

MECHANICS:

  • Divide the group into teams of one or two Manatee representatives and one or two Street and Thorough-fares representatives. Distribute the confidential instructions, and allow 20-30 minutes for reading the instructions, preparing strategies, and, if there are two-person teams, caucusing with teammates. Allow 30-45 minutes to negotiate the exaction. Debriefing should last for 30-60 minutes.
  • This case has a wide zone of potential agreement where each of the parties has reason to misunderstand the interests of the other side. In this sort of situation, the first offer is often powerful in anchoring the decision, but making a first offer that is advantageous to one's own side is difficult without securing information about the other side's true interests.
  • This case explores the advantages and disadvantages of sharing information. Since this is a one-issue case with a wide zone of agreement, gaining information about the other side is to one's advantage and revealing information about one's own side is a disadvantage.
  • This case presents the opportunity to distinguish between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining situations, and to consider negotiation tactics that might be useful in each situations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for:
  • Department of Street and Thoroughfares
  • Manatee Townhomes

 

Teaching Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Bluffing; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Misrepresentation; Offers, first

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

Discount Marketplace and Hawkins Development

SCENARIO:

Discount Marketplace, one of the largest discount soft goods retailer in the country, has presented its standard lease to Hawkins Development a regional real estate developer. The developer found most of the lease acceptable, after modifications of some provisions. However, negotiations are at an apparent impasse over the "use, assignment, and subletting" clause proposed by Discount Marketplace. In-house leasing representatives from both parties have been asked to resolve this dispute and to finalize the lease.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is designed as a one-on-one negotiation but also works well with teams of two representing each side. Individual preparation requires about 15 minutes, whereas teams of two will need slightly more time to coordinate a strategy. The negotiation should take from 20-35 minutes and a productive debriefing can take an hour or more.

The Negotiation of a Commercial Lease video is based on this simulation, and is a useful supplemental tool for debriefing. Instructors also may wish to view the first video in the Program on Negotiation's Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series (Professor Michael Wheeler, Harvard Business School), which depicts an experienced negotiation professor using the Negotiation of a Commercial Lease video in an actual Harvard Business School class.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Relationships are important in this case. A long-term lease means a long-term relationship; which will enhance a good working rapport.
  • This case is a good vehicle for exploring each other's interests and designing creative options to solve the leasing problem.
  • Discussions should focus on the potential for transforming an apparent zero-sum problem (in which the developer wants use restrictions and the prospective tenant wants a free hand) to one in which joint gain is created. Participants should be encouraged to relate the substance of their agreements to the process by which they uncovered interests and generated options.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Discount Marketplace
  • Hawkins Development

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the Above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Closure; Communication; Interests, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Relationship; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Time constraints; Trust

Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part I
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON faculty member Michael Wheeler running and debriefing the "Discount Marketplace and Hawkins Development" exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.

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

Eazy’s Garage – Four-Party

Note: This simulation may be used in conjunction with the PON video Lawyers and Clients: The Initial Interview, available from the TNRC in videotape, DVD or downloadable format. The Lawyers and Clients video is based on the same fact pattern as this four-party version of Eazy's Garage.

Note: This simulation is also available in a two-party (lawyers only) version 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. The negotiation involves both lawyers, and may or may not involve clients Susan Garfield and John Eazer as well.

 

MECHANICS:

This simulation involves 1-2 hours of preparation (preferably outside class), 30-45 minutes of lawyer-client interviews, and 30-45 minutes of negotiation. The negotiations may involve lawyers only or lawyers and clients, at the instructor's (or students') discretion.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Importance of lawyer-client interviewing skills, particularly in a negotiation context
  • Roles of lawyers and clients in negotiation, and possible tensions in the lawyer-client relationship
  • 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.
  • 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?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Eazer
  • John Eazer's Attorney
  • Susan Garfield
  • Susan Garfield's Attorney
  • Sample Preparation Memo

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note


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; Principal/agent tensions; Public opinion; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Yesable propositions