Coastal Flooding in Shoreham

Coastal Flooding in Shoreham: Responding to Climate Change Risks is a seven-person, multi-issue facilitated negotiation among local government, community, business, and environmental representatives trying to reach agreement on a strategy for managing climate change risks in a medium-sized coastal community.

 

The game focuses on the difficulties of minimizing coastal flooding and storm damage through flood protection infrastructure, flood-proofing requirements, and land use planning. It is one of four exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project.* The Shoreham game highlights the fiscal realities of climate adaptation, addressing important questions about how public money should be spent on risk management efforts, especially in the face of scientific climate change projections that involve a measure of uncertainty.

 

Scenario:

Residents of Shoreham, a 65,000-person coastal town, have grown increasingly concerned about the number of “freak” storms that have hit their town and region. Big rainstorms, snowstorms, and hurricanes have led to severe flooding, which is particularly problematic given the number of people and businesses that are concentrated along the waterfront, where the flooding is worst. Shoreham recently experienced a major flooding event, which generated a lot of media attention highlighting the potential for climate change increasing Shoreham’s flooding risk. The storm and related media coverage prompted residents to demand that their town do something to provide protection from the long-term effects of sea level rise and increased storm intensity.

 

In response to these public concerns, the Town Manager commissioned a climate change risk assessment and convened a small working group called the Coastal Flooding Task Force to figure out how to reduce the town’s long-term vulnerability. The job of the Task Force is to come up with a fiscally responsible and environmentally sound proposal. Three approaches to reducing flood risk are under consideration: flood protection infrastructure, flood-proofing, and land use management.

 

Major lessons

  • Climate change adaptation poses difficult planning choices, but there are actions cities and towns can take now to protect themselves that will be beneficial regardless of how severe climate change risks turn out to be.
  • Development, conservation, and infrastructure investments decisions made today will continue to affect communities far into the future. Short-term actions that do not take long-term climate change risks into account could prove extremely costly in the long run.
  • A community-wide approach to managing the collective risks associated with climate change can create opportunities to address other issues while reducing vulnerability and enhancing community resilience.
  • Communities must assess their vulnerabilities and decide which adaptation strategies are most appropriate.
  • Stakeholders may have conflicting interests that shape their views about which public policy choices make the most sense. By working collaboratively and taking science into account, communities can find creative solutions that meet the interests of diverse stakeholders.
  • At-risk towns and cities will have to consider how the financial responsibility for reducing climate risks will be distributed and whose responsibility it is to implement adaptation measures.

 

Mechanics:

This exercise requires seven roles: six stakeholders and one facilitator. Multiple groups of seven can play at the same time. Where there are uneven multiples of seven, players may be doubled up in certain roles.

 

Total time requirement: 2 – 3 hrs

Preparation: 30 minutes

Negotiation: 60 – 75 minutes

Debriefing: minimum of 30 minutes, during which players can reflect on the game experience and how it relates to real life situations

 

Teaching Materials:

For all parties:

  • General instructions, including a climate change risk assessment memo and floodplain map

 

Role-specific

  • Confidential instructions for:
    • Assistant Town Manager
    • Town Planner
    • Director of the Association to Preserve Shoreham County
    • Director of the Shoreham Chamber of Commerce
    • Owner of Shoreham Realty
    • President of the Shoreham Shores Civic Association
    • Facilitator

 

Teacher’s Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes

 

* The other three exercises developed as part of the New England Climate Adaptation Project include:

Coastal Flooding and Climate-Related Risks in Launton

Flooding and Climate Change Risks in Northam

Flooding in Milton: Collectively Managing Climate Change Risks

Collective Bargaining at Central Division

SCENARIO:

The union and management bargaining teams for American Phone Company are preparing for upcoming negotiations. The last round of negotiations in 1986 was disastrous; there was a strike and relationships were damaged. The leadership on both sides would like things to go better this time around and has said that they want to work toward a more cooperative relationship. Trust between the two groups has eroded over the years, however, any attempts to employ a mutual gains approach here is not necessarily met with enthusiasm by their constituencies. The negotiations revolve around three issues likely to be on the table in 1989: wages, employment security and medical benefits.

 

MECHANICS:

Individuals should be given at least 30 minutes to read general and confidential material. Internal group negotiations and preparations should take 60-90 minutes. External negotiations between management and the union can take 60-90 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • There are often legitimate differences within bargaining teams. These internal conflicts ought to be worked out before serious bargaining begins as unresolved internal conflict can create problems when it comes time to ratify carefully crafted draft agreements. This exercise creates the opportunity for participants to practice techniques and strategies of managing internal team conflict.
  • In most collective bargaining situations, each side begins by staking out its position. Both usually do this before they even hear what the concerns are of the other side. This often leads to the process of trading concessions which results in minimally acceptable outcomes. To achieve maximum joint gains it is necessary to focus instead on listening to the interests of the other side before staking out opening positions. The best techniques for probing interests can be studied.
  • Using statements developed during the session on probing interests, the best ways of inventing options for mutual gain and the power of creative options can be explored.
  • The significance of relationships can be studied in the context of negotiation strategies. The impact of existing and future relationships on implementation can be explored.
  • Issues of representation can be examined, since each of the players represents a group or institutional constituency. Each representative has a mandate which aids or constrains his or her ability to negotiate.
  • This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties.
  • The game raises questions of relationship, precedent and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Inventing Options for Mutual Gain — Instructions

 

For Union Members (L. Rigley, A. Jones, and M. Bemis):

  • Union Fact Sheet

 

For Management Members (K. Lewis, R. Gentry, and J. Evans):

  • Management Fact Sheet

 

Confidential Instructions for Internal Team Negotiations:

  • Union Representatives
  • M. Bemis, President of the Local
  • A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union
  • L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

 

Management Representatives:

  • J. Evans, Manager of Large Business Services
  • R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department
  • K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

 

Confidential Instructions for Identifying Interests:

Union Representatives:

  • M. Bemis, President of the Local
  • A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union
  • L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

 

Management Representatives:

  • J. Evans, Manager of Large Business Services
  • R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department
  • K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above


PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Caucusing; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Interest, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Options, generating; Packaging; Recurring negotiations

Discord at the Daily Herald

SCENARIO:

Discord at the Daily Herald is a two party, internal negotiation between co-owners of a newspaper embroiled in management conflicts. J. Blanton and K. Logan are the co-owners of the Daily Herald newspaper. J. Blanton previously worked in the freight-shipping industry, while K. Logan worked in the Logan family media business. The co-owners have become embroiled in conflict over the direction of the paper’s future. As a result of this conflict, K. Logan has terminated the paper’s long-time editor in chief without consulting J. Blanton. K. Logan is seeking an overall shift to a digital-only publishing model in order to expand readership and return to profitability. J. Blanton wants to maintain a more print-based, traditional newspaper model to serve the community. Underlying this management discord are strained relationship dynamics been the owners and plummeting morale among the staff. J. Blanton feels that K. Logan does not take others’ input seriously, and K. Logan feels that J. Blanton is resistant to change and evolution. J. Blanton and K. Logan have also just been informed of a planned staff walkout in protest of management’s erratic leadership and they must now break their previous impasse on these issues to try to avert a crisis. Major lessons of this negotiation include:

  • Importance of agenda setting in multi-issue negotiations.
  • Breaking an impasse in a negotiation.
  • Negotiating with very weak alternatives (BATNA) and under pressure of escalating consequences.
  • Having difficult conversations in relationships with low trust.

MATERIALS: 

  • Teaching Notes
  • Confidential Instructions for J. Blanton
  • Confidential Role Instructions for K. Logan
  • Outcome Form

Ellis v. MacroB

OVERVIEW:

This is a five-person, non-scorable simulation focused on mediating values-based legal disputes; specifically, disputes involving potentially conflicting values and interests around issues of homosexuality and religious faith. Based on a real case, this simulation focuses on a dispute between an employee and his/her employer, a large, privately-held software company. It also explores the role of attorneys representing their clients in negotiated agreements around values-based disputes.

In this simulation, until recently Ellis was senior project manager at MacroB, a computer software company headquartered in California. The simulation begins after a dispute arose between Ellis and MacroB after the launch of a company-wide diversity campaign that featured a series of diversity posters, including one that read: “I am a gay man and I am MacroB.” The posters were placed in employee work areas, including one located on the exterior wall of Ellis’s cubicle. Ellis is devoutly religious in a faith tradition that holds that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, and Ellis was deeply disturbed by the poster.

In response, Ellis posted several Bible scripture verses on the inside wall of his/her cubicle that included quotations that condemned homosexuality and predicted dire outcomes for those who engaged in homosexual acts. When asked to remove them by management, Ellis refused. The issue was elevated to the company’s Diversity Manager, P. Geer. After several meetings with Geer, Ellis offered to remove the passages if MacroB removed its posters depicting homosexual employees. After several meetings and no agreement, Ellis was given a week off with pay to reconsider, and MacroB removed the Bible verses that Ellis posted.

Upon returning to work, Ellis reposted all of the Bible passages and refused to remove them. During multiple meetings, the conversation between Ellis and Geer deteriorated, and when it became clear that Ellis would not remove the passages, Ellis was fired for insubordination. At the urging of a mutual legal professional, Ellis and MacroB have reluctantly agreed to speak with a mediator. After hearing from both parties, the mediator, Cheney, believes that some consensual resolution might be possible. The simulation begins at the point where Ellis, Geer, and their attorneys have convened with the mediator, Cheney.

 

MATERIALS INCLUDED:

Participant materials include:

  • General Instructions for all participants

 

Confidential Instructions for:

  • V. Ellis, former MacroB Employee
  • P. Geer, MacroB Diversity Manager
  • S. Chapin, Attorney to V. Ellis
  • S. Davis, Attorney to MacroB
  • H. Cheney, Mediator, Mediation Services

 

Teacher's Package Includes:

  • All of the above
  • Jennifer Gerarda Brown, Peacemaking in the Culture War Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty, 95 Iowa Law Review 747 (2010).
  • Teaching Note

 

TEACHING POINTS:

The key teaching objective is to demonstrate that assisted negotiation (i.e., mediation) can be used to resolve values-based disputes, not just interest-based disputes. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties and their attorneys can craft a settlement that does not require them to compromise their fundamental values. Key teaching points include the importance in values-based disputes of avoiding threats to individual identity, stressing the human element, focusing on ongoing relationships, focusing on overarching values, and focusing on individual interests as well as values.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Ellis v. MacroB is one of a 3-part series of simulations focused on the mediation of values-based disputes. The other two simulations in the series are Williams v. Northville and Springfield OutFest.

If you wish to purchase all three simulations at a discount we have a bundle option available click here. You can also download a PDF version of "Teaching about the Mediation of Values-Based and Identity-Based Disputes".

ENCO

ENCO is a Texas-based power company that has begun to move aggressively into emerging markets. The Indian government has approached ENCO to build an electrical generating plant to increase the power supply to Maharashtra State, one of India's most economically developed states. ENCO is willing to undertake the project if it can be assured of a credible, long-term purchaser that will buy the electricity t a price profitable to ENCO. Toward this end, ENCO has negotiated but not yet signed a long-term "Power Purchase Agreement" (PPA) with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, a state enterprise that distributes electricity to consumers.

Since the negotiation of the PPA, however, developments in Maharashtra State have raised some concern. Communal rioting has begun and the local media has changed the ENCO project with corruption and foreign exploitation. Elections are scheduled for next year and the Congress Party, which controls the Maharashtra State Government and negotiated the PPA, might lose.

ENCO's CEO Janet Thron, is scheduled to fly to India next to sign the PPA. She has asked her top five associates for advice on how to proceed. All five associates have offered differing advice, and Thorn must make a series of decisions in response to deteriorating circumstances.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

All international contracts are potentially unstable, especially when governments are parties.

Political change is a prime cause of contractual instability.

  • Contract enforcement mechanisms (such as international arbitration) can be important, but at best they are alternatives that strengthen a party's position.
  • Because international deals involve continuing negotiations, parties need to develop strategies to help cope with change even after a contract is signed.
  • The legal and political context of a deal can influence its stability.
  • When the net benefits to one party of not having a contract become greater than maintaining the contract, one can expect that party to reject or seek to re-negotiate the contract.
  • Standard contracting practices in one country may not work effectively in other countries.

 

Teacher's Package Includes:

  • Participant Materials
  • Teaching Note
  • Charts that can be used as overhead transparencies

Federal Lands Management I

Jackson County covers 4,000 square miles in the northern Rocky Mountains and is home to about 10,000 people. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage more than 70 percent of the land. For more than 100 years, the timber industry and ranchers have relied on federal lands to conduct their businesses. But newcomers to Jackson County and national environmental groups are challenging this relationship, often leading to contentious battles both in and out of the courtroom.

Last month, the Coalition to Preserve the Watershed (CPW) announced its intent to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Rocky Mountain spotted trout as threatened and/or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Watersheds in Jackson County form the heart of the spotted trout’s fairly limited range. CPW claims that current land-use practices, chiefly cattle grazing and timber harvesting, have severely harmed water quality and habitat integrity.

At the request of a concerned group of citizens in Jackson County, the State Office of Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building asked the identifiable stakeholders, particularly the CPW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to suspend further action for 30 days and allow an impartial facilitator to conduct a situation assessment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would help fund a consensus-seeking process if the situation assessment indicated that the key stakeholders were willing to participate in good faith, and that the process might result in a mutual gain outcome, rather than the all-too-familiar win/lose outcome of the standard contentious ESA listing process.

J. Jones, a well-respected facilitator from the state office, conducted the situation assessment. Based on the results of the situation assessment, Jones has recommended that a core group of representatives from key stakeholder groups convene to design a collaborative process and then negotiate the substantive issues. The first goal of the stakeholder committee is to develop a process for guiding the negotiation. At least five critical issues must be discussed in depth:

 

  • What basic rules of conduct should be employed?
  • Who should be at the table?
  • What is the decision rule for the negotiations?
  • How will scientific and technical disagreements be handled?
  • What is the time frame for the negotiations?

 

Participant materials include:

  • General instructions for all participants

 

Confidential instructions for:

  • The Coalition to Preserve the Watershed, an anti-logging and grazing group, made up of members of several local, state, and regional environmental organizations
  • The Rocky Mountain Forest Association, a coalition of logging associations and wood product mills
  • The Western Stock Growers' Association, an organization representing ranch families, united for the common purpose of protecting and promoting the beef and sheep industries
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency with jurisdiction over threatened and endangered species, on private or public lands
  • The U.S. Forest Service, the federal agency that determines the amount and type of logging allowed, and issues grazing permits for forested land within the watershed
  • The Jackson County Commission, which is responsible for numerous county functions, including promoting the country's economic base: forestry, ranching, and tourism

 

Teacher's package includes:

  • All of the above (no teaching note currently available)

 

Note: This simulation is designed to introduce participants to consensus building process design. It may be used with or without  Federal Lands Management II, in which the participants negotiate the substantive land management issues.

Federal Lands Management II

Jackson County covers 4,000 square miles in the northern Rocky Mountains and is home to about 10,000 people. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage more than 70 percent of the land. For more than 100 years, the timber industry and ranchers have relied on federal lands to conduct their businesses. But newcomers to Jackson County and national environmental groups are challenging this relationship, often leading to contentious battles both in and out of the courtroom.

Last month, the Coalition to Preserve the Watershed (CPW) announced its intent to petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Rocky Mountain spotted trout as threatened and/or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Watersheds in Jackson County form the heart of the spotted trout’s fairly limited range. CPW claims that current land-use practices, chiefly cattle grazing and timber harvesting, have severely harmed water quality and habitat integrity.

At the request of a concerned group of citizens in Jackson County, the State Office of Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building asked the identifiable stakeholders, particularly the CPW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to suspend further action for 30 days and allow an impartial facilitator to conduct a situation assessment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would help fund a consensus-seeking process if the situation assessment indicated that the key stakeholders were willing to participate in good faith, and that the process might result in a mutual gain outcome, rather than the all-too-familiar win/lose outcome of the standard contentious ESA listing process.

J. Jones, a well-respected facilitator from the state office, conducted the situation assessment. Based on the results of the situation assessment, Jones has recommended that a core group of representatives from key stakeholder groups convene to design a collaborative process and then negotiate the substantive issues.

This negotiation commences after the stakeholder committee has completed its first task: to develop a process for guiding the negotiation. Now, the committee must turn to its second task: to negotiate the three key issues that may allow the petition to be postponed and an active conservation plan put into place, in lieu of an EPA listing:

  • Federal lands use including the appropriate balance of ranching, forestry, recreation, and conservation;
  • Grazing and timber permit buy-outs and compensation for the ranching and forestry industries; and
  • Structure of the management process that would monitor the implementation of the agreement.

 

Participant materials include:

  • General instructions for all participants

 

Confidential instructions for:

  • The Coalition to Preserve the Watershed, an anti-logging and grazing group, made up of members of several local, state, and regional environmental organizations
  • The Rocky Mountain Forest Association, a coalition of logging associations and wood product mills
  • The Western Stock Growers’ Association, an organization representing ranch families, united for the common purpose of protecting and promoting the beef and sheep industries
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency with jurisdiction over threatened and endangered species, on private or public lands
  • The U.S. Forest Service, the federal agency that determines the amount and type of logging allowed, and issues grazing permits for forested land within the watershed
  • The Jackson County Commission, which is responsible for numerous county functions, including promoting the county’s economic base: forestry, ranching, and tourism

 

Teacher's package includes:

  • All of the above (no teaching note currently available)

NOTE: This simulation may be used with or without Federal Lands Management Part I, which is designed to introduce participants to consensus building process design. If participants play Part I first, they will have developed a set of ground rules and a work plan specific to their group. If not, participants may use the ground rules and work plan provided in Part II, which focuses on the substantive issues of the negotiation.

Franklin Family Foundation and Westbrook Regional School District

SCENARIO:

A recent report has stated that minority groups in the Westbrook Regional School District show a significant disparity in academic performance with regards to their white peers. In response, the Executive Director of the Franklin Family Foundation (a local charitable foundation) and the Superintendent of the District have developed a tutorial program for high school minorities, to be funded be the Foundation. Reaction from the community and the School Board has been mixed. The Foundation Board of Directors and members of the community, headed by members of the school board, are meeting to discuss what should be done to proceed in improving the program. The two groups will first meet separately to determine their collective goals and objectives, and then will meet together to negotiate on the program.

 

MECHANICS:

Ideally, all parties should be given their roles at least a day in advance to prepare.

The simulation takes place in 2 parts. The first part involves the community group and the board members meeting separately for 45 minutes. The second part involves the two groups having a joint meeting for 90 minutes.

There should be 3 rooms available. 2 rooms should be set-up for a 6-person meeting and a one room should be set-up for a 12 person meeting.

 

Time Requirements:

  • At least 30 minutes and preferably 1 day: preparation
  • 45 minutes: separate meetings of the two groups
  • 90 minutes: joint meeting of the two groups
  • At least 45 minutes: debrief
  • Total of at least 210 minutes

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation presents the opportunity to discuss creatively and to address a realistic problem facing many public education systems today.
  • The issues, and the participant's stances on those issues, do not divide neatly. Part of the challenge of this negotiation is figuring out what is important to the individual players. Only once that is clear, can the participants begin to craft a creative solution to which the parties can agree.
  • The internal negotiations within each side can quickly dissolve into interpersonal bickering and posturing.
  • Learning how to work together in the face of past disagreements is key to this negotiation. Separating internal or external negotiations properly is the key to consensus building in multi-party negotiations.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is part of a series in the Council on Foundations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General instructions
  • Profile of Westbrook Regional School District
  • Study titled “bridging the gap” on academic performances of ethnic groups
  • Notes on logistics and objectives
  • Worksheet for preparing for negotiations

 

Role Specific:

Foundation Board Members –

  • Ellen Rigby Franklin, Chairman of the Board
  • Thomas F. Leighton, Executive Director
  • Stephen J. Franklin, III, Board Member
  • Nancy Franklin Michaels, Ph.D., Board Member
  • Kevin Macloud, Board Member
  • Dr. Suzanne Lowe, Board Member

 

Community Members –

  • Martin O'Leary, Board President
  • Ruth Simone, Board Member
  • Julia Statner, Superintendent of Schools
  • Kyle Whitberg, President of PTA
  • Lynda Johnson, President of African-American Leaders
  • John Rayburn, President of Westbrook NEA

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Notes on logistics and major lessons

 

KEYWORDS:

Foundations; education reform; community consultation, multi-party negotiation; collaborative problem-solving

Hans Brandt

Hans Brandt, a short film written and produced by Jeswald W. Salacuse, presents a dramatized problem for use in courses on negotiation, conflict resolution, management, or leadership. The brevity of the film and the richness of the teaching notes make the film highly adaptable for use in a variety of classroom settings.

The viewer is placed in the position of the leader of a software development team that has been successful in creating new products. The leader believes that the team's success has been due to the leader's efforts to develop a sense of cohesion and teamwork among its members. One important element in the team leader's approach is the holding of staff meetings twice a week, at 9 am on Monday and Thursday, for team members to share ideas and resolve problems. Six months ago, the leader's company acquired the U.S. subsidiary of a German software manufacturer. As part of integrating the two companies, Hans Brandt, a German software engineer in his late fifties, was assigned to the leader's team. Brandt attends staff meetings irregularly and says little or nothing when he does attend. Technically brilliant, he has proposed an innovative project idea that the leader's superior have just agreed to fund. When the team leader tells Hans of the company's decision, Hans takes that occasion to announce that due to the demands of the new project he will not be attending staff meetings any longer. He rises to leave. The film ends with a freeze frame of Hans rising from his chair.

Under the guidance of an instructor, students seek to resolve the problem through discussion. It is hoped that a dramatized problem will engage students more actively in discussion than a traditional written case and will also help develop students’ perceptual skills — key assets for any negotiator, manager, or leader. In a further attempt to simulate reality in the classroom, the video seeks to encourage students to react and make decisions in real time. This teaching note is designed to aid instructors in using the film and in conducting the classroom discussion of the various issues it raises, including cross-cultural communication, the tension between empathy and assertiveness, the potential gap between communicative intent and impact, and the risks and benefits of various approaches to conflict management. Attached as appendices to the teaching note are a student questionnaire, which may be reproduced for classroom use, and slide masters that the instructor may use in discussing the film.

 

  • "I like to use short dramatized problems such as Hans Brandt to launch classroom discussions. Video is an attention-getting medium, and it gives students a rich set of common background facts and data for their analyses and recommendations. Moreover, this video is short enough to be used in virtually any class period or training session while leaving plenty of time for discussion. The accompanying detailed teaching notes are intended to help the instructor guide the discussion. I have used this video with great success in both graduate classes and executive education seminars on negotiation, management, and leadership." – Jeswald W. Salacuse, Henry J. Braker Professor of Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University

Happy Valley Consolidated School District/AFTEA Labor-Management Committee Meeting

SCENARIO:

The monthly labor-management committee meetings between the Happy Valley Consolidated School District and the American Federated Teachers Education Association (AFTEA) was created over a year ago during the collective bargaining session. Recently, both the labor and management went through a training session where they discussed new ways to run meetings. There is still a great deal of apprehension within the group as to whether these committee meetings are worthwhile. The next monthly meeting will discuss the issues of a "Wellness" program, dress codes, asbestos in the High School Roof, and the public image of the schools.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • There are often legitimate differences within the bargaining teams. These internal conflicts ought to be worked out before serious bargaining begins. This exercise creates opportunities for participants to practice techniques of managing internal team conflict.
  • The role play provides a vehicle for exploring behaviors appropriate to the effective operations of a labor-management committee.
  • This exercise allows the players to explore the on-going relationship between two groups that have been adversaries, and raises questions of relationship and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

John Janssen and the Company

SCENARIO:

A multi-issue negotiation in which the HR representative is one of the parties. The company is concerned about a decision to retain or fire a newly transferred manager because of an alleged drinking incident.

This exercise is one of six modules in the "Collaborative Negotiation for Human Resource Professionals" curriculum package. For details, please see Collaborative Negotiation for Human Resource Professionals under "Curricula."

Managing Change

SCENARIO:

NUTECH, Inc. is a hypothetical company that manufactures electrical and injection-molded plastic parts for the automotive and aerospace industries. The Plastics Division and Electronic Division each are responsible for advanced engineering, prototypes, and final manufacturing. The Sales & Service Operations Division generates orders and handles customer complaints and other service issues for both manufacturing divisions.

The CEO of NUTECH has asked the HR Managers and senior line managers for each of the three divisions to conduct a summit session on (a) a plan to improve communication between the service and manufacturing divisions; and (b) a plan to support the outsourcing of recruitment.

This simulation is designed to be run in four phases: separate preparatory meetings of all participants playing the same roles; a "fishbowl" in which six volunteers (each playing one of the six roles) illustrates an unconstructive approach to the summit meeting; "company meetings" with separate groups of HR Managers and Division Managers; and "company meetings" with the full group of all HR Managers and Division Managers.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The different phases of the negotiation allow the advantages of preparation and caucusing to be explored at length.
  • The complexity of the case provides room for a wider range of solutions, thus highlighting the power of creative option generation.
  • The collective representative aspect of the negotiation highlights issues of representative authority and constituent management.
  • The number of parties raises a range of issues about intra- and inter-party multilateral negotiation.

MAPO – Administration Negotiation

SCENARIO:

Negotiations between the Metropolitan Association of Police Officers (MAPO) and the Administration of Mayor Holmes of Metropolis are soon to begin. Discontent among MAPO is demanding an increase in the police budget, which is essential for the police to provide adequate police protection in the community. Rising crime statistics have placed Metropolis as the 10th most dangerous city in the nation. The leader of the Metropolis Association of Police Officers (MAPO) has threatened "some kind of protest activity" by the policemen if the budget is not increased substantially. Proposition 6, which will limit municipal budget increases for any department to a maximum of 6% over the previous year's allocation, is on the ballot for elections taking place in two months. However, the mayoral budget can be enacted before that time. The Mayor (who is seeking another term) is anxious to have the whole affair behind him, and has arranged a meeting between his representatives and MAPO. In addition to overall budget increases, specific issues likely to be addressed include: starting salaries, maximum salaries, vacation days, sick leave, holidays, life insurance, pension benefits, health insurance, weapons upgrading, and drug testing proposal.

 

MECHANICS:

This negotiation is intended to be a team effort, though the size of the teams may vary from two to four persons. Extensive budget and salary information on other cities requires thorough preparation and analysis before teams can plan effectively for the negotiation.

Outside research can also be useful.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simulation provides an ideal setting for concentrating on objective criteria. Standards can be derived from careful analysis of the data provided and other data collected through outside research. The general information for this case contains five appendices with comparative statistical data.
  • The complexity of the case provides enormous room for crafting more or less Pareto-efficient solutions. The power of creative options is highlighted.
  • The potential tension between preserving a good working relationship and pressing hard for what might be seen as substantive concessions is a central concern in the case (on both sides), and a good subject for discussion. This tension is exacerbated by the temptation on both sides to try to use the media to enhance that side's bargaining power by courting public opinion.
  • As in any collective, representative negotiation, the questions of how much authority the negotiators have, whether they can really speak for their constituents, and how the chances of a revolution at home can be minimized, are ever-present and important.
  • The number of parties raises the range of issues about both intra- and inter- party multilateral negotiation. What is a good meeting design? How do you prepare? How do you organize the teams?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Administration Representatives
  • MAPO Representatives

 

Teacher's Package (36 pages total)

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Commitments; Communication, public vs. private; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Force; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Linkage; Meaning of "success"; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Quantitative analysis; Systems of negotiation; Threats

Multisumma

SCENARIO:

Six weeks ago, the Presidents of four of the world's largest aircraft engine companies drafted a joint memorandum announcing an "agreement in principle" on a 30-year joint partnership in the design, manufacture, and sales of a new generation engine, the A-2000. The memorandum requested that the company negotiators convene to negotiate details of the agreement.

The U.S. company, Airborne, has been the world leader in engine technology and will be the lead partner in the venture, with primary responsibility for coordinating with the other three partners. Each of the partners has agreed to pay Airborne a fee in exchange for which Airborne will provide the majority of the technical information needed to build the A-2000. Today, three negotiators from Airborne will meet with one representative from each of the other companies: SERSI (France), Novo (Italy), and Kiatsu (Japan), to try to reach a universally acceptable agreement.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful external negotiations on successful internal negotiations. Thorough preparation is required.
  • Don't jeopardize long-term relationships for short-term gains.
  • Effective cross-cultural negotiation depends upon making sure what you are saying is what is being heard, and what you are hearing is what is being said.

Negotiating with Another Federal Agency

OVERVIEW:

This negotiation training module includes two separate two-person, non-scorable negotiation simulations focused on efforts to combat HIV/AIDs.  The first is a negotiation entitled “Negotiating with Another Federal Agency” between a Center for Disease Control (CDC) Technical Co-Chair and a USAID Technical Co-Chair.  The second is entitled “Negotiating with the Ministry of Health” and is between a CDC Technical Co-Chair and the Minister of Health in Sabada, the (imaginary) host country.  The focus is on cross-cultural and political perspectives on public health initiatives.

 

The simulation highlights the challenges faced by public health personnel when working with their political counterparts in host countries.  The game is designed to help CDC-type personnel practice negotiation techniques in order to effectively collaborate with personnel from other US federal agencies and with government officials in a host country.  The negotiation scenarios involve elements that CDC personnel often face in the field: ill-defined negotiating protocols, funding constraints, preference for evidence-based programming, inter-agency competition, tensions around headquarter authority, political considerations, time constraints, difficult personalities, and in particular, competing public health priorities.  The game emphasizes the importance of preparation; in particular, thinking about one’s own interests before entering negotiations.

 

The CDC and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and are working with Sabada’s Ministry of Health to address the country’s significant HIV/AIDS challenge. Parties must come to agreement about 1) how the prevention and treatment funds will be shared between the two agencies, and 2) how to allocate $55 million among four HIV/AIDS relief programs in a limited timeframe.

 

 

LOGISTICS:

The simulations are designed to be played sequentially. Each simulation requires two people, and two hours to complete: 15 minute introduction, 30 minute role preparation, 30 minute negotiation, 45 minute debrief

 

TEACHER’S PACKAGE INCLUDES:

Teaching Notes

General Instructions (2 sets)

Confidential Instructions for:

USAID, CDC Technical Co-Chair, MIH, CDC Technical Expert

 

TOPICS COVERED:

Back Tables, BATNA, Communication, Creating Joint Gains, Cross-Cultural Communication Interest analysis, Options, Packaging, Preparation, Role Simulations, Quantifying Interests, Relationships, Sharing Interests, Trading across issues

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

• negotiation preparation is an organizational not just an individual task

•internal disagreements impact external negotiations

• arguments based on quantitative assessments of results won’t be convincing unless they also take account of the other side’s interests

 

Negotiating with the Ministry of Health

OVERVIEW:

This negotiation training module includes two separate two-person, non-scorable negotiation simulations focused on efforts to combat HIV/AIDs.  The first is a negotiation entitled “Negotiating with Another Federal Agency” between a Center for Disease Control (CDC) Technical Co-Chair and a USAID Technical Co-Chair.  The second is entitled “Negotiating with the Ministry of Health” and is between a CDC Technical Co-Chair and the Minister of Health in Sabada, the (imaginary) host country.  The focus is on cross-cultural and political perspectives on public health initiatives.

The simulation highlights the challenges faced by public health personnel when working with their political counterparts in host countries.  The game is designed to help CDC-type personnel practice negotiation techniques in order to effectively collaborate with personnel from other US federal agencies and with government officials in a host country.  The negotiation scenarios involve elements that CDC personnel often face in the field: ill-defined negotiating protocols, funding constraints, preference for evidence-based programming, inter-agency competition, tensions around headquarter authority, political considerations, time constraints, difficult personalities, and in particular, competing public health priorities.  The game emphasizes the importance of preparation; in particular, thinking about one’s own interests before entering negotiations.

The CDC and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and are working with Sabada’s Ministry of Health to address the country’s significant HIV/AIDS challenge. Parties must come to agreement about 1) how the prevention and treatment funds will be shared between the two agencies, and 2) how to allocate $55 million among four HIV/AIDS relief programs in a limited timeframe.

 

LOGISTICS:

The simulations are designed to be played sequentially. Each simulation requires two people, and two hours to play for each exercise: 15 minute introduction, 30 minute role preparation, 30 minute negotiation, 45 minute debrief

 

TEACHER’S PACKAGE INCLUDES:

Teaching Notes

General Instructions (2 sets)

Confidential Instructions for:

USAID, CDC Technical Co-Chair, MIH, CDC Technical Expert

 

TOPICS COVERED:

Back Tables, BATNA, Communication, Creating Joint Gains, Cross-Cultural Communication Interest analysis, Options, Packaging, Preparation, Role Simulations, Quantifying Interests, Relationships, Sharing Interests, Trading across issues

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

• negotiation preparation is an organizational not just an individual task

•internal disagreements impact external negotiations

• arguments based on quantitative assessments of results won’t be convincing unless they also take account of the other side’s interests