Camp Lemonnier Case Study
Scenario:
In the spring of 2014, representatives from the United States of America and the Republic of Djibouti were in the midst of renegotiations over Camp Lemonnier, the only permanent U.S. base on the continent of Africa. Djibouti, bordering Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, has been home to Camp Lemonnier since the September 11, 2001 attacks prompted the United States to seek a temporary staging ground for U.S. Marines in the region. Since then, Camp Lemonnier has expanded to nearly 500 acres and a base of unparalleled importance, in part because it is one of the busiest Predator drone bases outside of the Afghan warzone.
The U.S. is not alone in recognizing the strategic importance of Djibouti. France and Japan have well-established military presences and launch operations from the Djibouti-Ambouli International airport, as well. As of spring 2014, Russia was also reportedly vying for a similar land lease in the country.
Tensions between the United States and Djibouti have flared in recent years, due in large part to a string of collisions and close calls because of Djiboutian air-traffic controllers’ job performance at the airport. Americans have complained about the training of air-traffic controllers at the commercial airport. Additionally, labor disputes have arisen at the base where the United States is one of the largest non-government employers within the country.
Major lessons of this case study include:
- Defining BATNA: what is each party’s BATNA?
- Understanding the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): what is the ZOPA in this case?
- The impact of culture in negotiation.
- Uncovering interests.
- Principal-agent dynamics.
- Uncovering sources of power in negotiation.
This case can be paired with the Camp Lemonnier Simulation, available for purchase separately from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC). The simulation is a two-party, multi-issue, fictionalized version of these negotiations.
Materials:
- Case Study Part A
- Case Study Part B
- Teaching Notes
SCENARIO:
Carson Rug Company is a middle-sized, family owned business located in Garth, along the Melrose River. Carson applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to construct a seawall extending into the Melrose River. After this application was denied, Caron's second application, specifying a considerable smaller extension, was approved. However, the actual modifications nearly doubled the size of the authorized seawall fill. Carson contends that the noncompliance was unintentional and blames the engineering firm for misinterpreting instructions.
Representatives from the Army Corps, Garth Town Council, Hills Engineering, an environmental group, and the president of Carson Rug must negotiate the removal of the seawall fill in a manner that is agreeable to all.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- 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.
- The need for a neutral "process manager" of some sort is also illustrated, as the participants must structure their discussions.
Teacher's Package includes:
- General instructions for all participants
- Confidential instructions for:
- Stuart Carson (owner of the Carson Rug Company)
- Representative from Hills Engineering
- Army Corps of Engineers Lawyer
- Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Engineer
- Representative from Garth Town Council
- Local environmentalist from Massachusetts Chapter of Green Earth
- No Teaching Note Currently Available
Also available: Carson Extension – Mediated Version
Carson Extension – Mediated Version
SCENARIO:
Carson Rug Company is a middle-sized, family owned business located in Garth, along the Melrose River. Carson applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to construct a seawall extending into the Melrose River. After this application was denied, Carson's second application, specifying a considerably smaller extension, was approved. However, the seawall that was actually built was nearly double the size of that authorized in the permit. Carson contends that the noncompliance with the permit was unintentional and blames the engineering firm for misinterpreting instructions.
Representatives from the Army Corps, Garth Town Council, Hills Engineering, an environmental group, and the president of Carson Rug have agreed to a mediation regarding the removal of the unauthorized seawall fill.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- 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.
- The mediator can play a key role in defusing emotions and facilitating a solution.
- This simulation is sometimes used in conjunction with the non-mediated version, in order to compare process and outcomes between groups with and without a mediator.
Teacher's Package includes:
- General Instructions for all participants
- Confidential Instructions for:
- Stuart Carson (owner of Carson Rug Company)
- Representative from Hills Engineering
- Army Corps of Engineers Lawyer
- Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Engineer
- Representative from Garth Town Council
- Local environmentalist from Massachusetts Chapter of Green Earth
- No teaching note currently available
Also available: Carson Extension (non-mediated version)
Case of the Puerile Printer
SCENARIO:
Six months ago, Liza Brown filed a grievance with Systech's Human Resource manager. She claims that every time she had to go into the back room of the print shop either to pick up or drop off documents she felt extremely uncomfortable because of the suggestive, and even pornographic, calendars hanging in the back room. Liza says that the printer also began to make suggestive comments and even brushed up against her unnecessarily. At that point Liza complained to the print shop manager who told her to keep out of the back room if it bothered her. The results of the grievance procedure that Liza filed were a reprimand in the printer's file and orders for Liza to avoid the print shop. Liza believes that she has been denied a promotion since her grievance procedure because this situation gave her a reputation as a trouble-maker. Since Liza is unhappy with the results of the grievance procedure she asked to enter a formal mediation with an outside mediator, which is allowed in Systech's policy manual.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes 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.
- Participants can discuss how partisan perceptions affected their acceptance of differing interpretations of the case, and how they tried to educate the other members of their group as to their perceptions.
- Fairness and power imbalance questions are triggered by the issues of sexual harassment in the exercise. These two problems can be specifically addressed, or they can be broadened to serve as a base for a discussion of difference issues in negotiating.
- Some of the managers have to decide how much information they wish to reveal. Where do their loyalties lie?
MECHANICS:
At least 7 players are required. This exercise takes 45-60 minutes to run it is suggested that the participants will need 20 minutes to prepare and 30-60 for debriefing.
PROCESS THEMES:
Agenda control; Anchoring; Coalitions; Consensus building; Grievance procedures; Meaning of "success"; Systems of negotiation
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
Charlene Barshefsky – Negotiating a Trade Agreement with China
Charlene Barshefsky (A):
Set between 1994 and 1996, this 16-page factual case study describes the challenges former United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky faced in negotiating a trade agreement with China to improve its domestic intellectual property rights enforcement regime. After briefly describing Barshefsky's past experience and trade negotiations, this case discusses the history of U.S.-China trade relations and analyzes Ambassador Barshefsky's strategy in coalition-building in the United States and abroad toward the goal of achieving a sustainable deal. As a result of her work in this context, Ambassador Barshefsky received the 2001 Program on Negotiation "Great Negotiator" Award.
Charlene Barshefsky (B):
Also set between 1994 and 1996, this 17-page factual case study details former United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky's strategic and tactical approach to surmounting the barriers laid out in the (A) case.
Both Charlene Barshefsky (A) and Charlene Barshefsky (B) are designed to help students examine complex negotiation and coalition building strategies in an international context. They explore national/ cultural negotiating styles, barriers to doing a deal amidst splintered commercial and political interests, and innovative approaches to surmounting those barriers. The two case studies are related, but may either be used together or separately.
Choosing the Dispute Resolution Forum
This discussion piece presents twelve case studies for review. The case studies involve a range of factual and legal scenarios, including personal injury, discrimination, breach of contract, employment termination, hazardous waste, business leasing, fraud, divorce, date rape, partnership, dissolution, and juvenile delinquency. After reading each case study, students decide and discuss which form of dispute resolution (case evaluation, mediation, arbitration, mini-trial, summary jury trial, or trial) would be most appropriate. Some of the case studies include follow-up questions for further discussion.
Christiana Figueres and the Collaborative Approach to Negotiating Climate Action
The Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School periodically presents the Great Negotiator Award to an individual whose lifetime achievements in the field of negotiation and dispute resolution have had a significant and lasting impact. In 2022, PON selected Christiana Figueres as the recipient of its Great Negotiator Award.
As UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres was tasked with a seemingly insurmountable challenge of putting together an impactful, global climate agreement to save the planet. Coming out the dramatic failure of the Copenhagen summit, many believed that such an agreement was not possible. However, with persistent optimism and careful, targeted interventions aimed at building momentum, in 2015 the Paris Agreement was unanimously adopted by the 196 participating nations and set forth a new framework for international climate agreements.
Figueres had to personally undergo a transformation to let go of her identity as a Costa Rican diplomat so she could approach the negotiations from a global perspective and meet each participating nation from their perspective. The negotiation process itself was not just the two-week conference in Paris but instead was a years-long series of actions taken by Figueres and others to help enhance the probability of a successful outcome at the negotiating table. These actions included things like discussions with private industry groups, repeated talks with the Saudi government, and Operation Groundswell, in which a small team of strategic influencers worked with partners behind the scenes to build support for an ambitious outcome. By bringing different coalitions of countries and non-state actors together to lead the way, a more expansive agreement became possible.
Major lessons of this case study include:
- Coalition and spoiler management in complex international treaty negotiations
- Principal-agent dynamics
- Active listening and difficult conversations
- Building momentum for an agreement
- Power dynamics in negotiation
- Deal implementation and sustainability
This case can be paired with the Great Negotiator 2022: Christiana Figueres videos, available for purchase separately from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC).
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:
- Inventing Options for Mutual Gain — Instructions
For Union Members (L. Rigley, A. Jones, and M. Bemis):
For Management Members (K. Lewis, R. Gentry, and J. Evans):
Confidential Instructions for Internal Team Negotiations:
- 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:
PROCESS THEMES:
Agenda control; Caucusing; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Interest, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Options, generating; Packaging; Recurring negotiations
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:
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
SCENARIO:
Professor Famous teaches a course on the Theory and Practice of Problem-Solving. On the first day of class, an announcement is always made as to the "No-extension" policy. The Professor explains that the policy is intended to help students avoid the unpleasant consequences of procrastination that he suffered as a young lawyer. This year, when a student did not hand in an optional rough draft, due three weeks before the final, Famous attempted to reach the student by telephone to no avail. The student finally handed in the paper two weeks late, explaining plans to write the paper in the last week before the deadline went awry when the student's father died suddenly and unexpectedly.
MECHANICS:
This one-on-one negotiation takes 10-20 minutes. Either party can be given additional psychological role instructions. The negotiation can be repeated with the roles reversed. Videotaping is helpful for review.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This exercise pits Carol Gilligan's two "voices" in direct conflict. This situation is exactly the kind contemplated by the professor's policy, yet we have immense sympathy as well for the student's position, both substantively and emotionally. Is it possible to "separate the people from the problem" here, and if so how?
- The professor must also be concerned about whether the intended lesson will be understood by the student, or whether the experience will merely be souring. In the latter case, the professor may want to consider possible impacts on the professor's reputation, either as a person or as a teacher. What weight should that be given?
- What are the student's interests? Getting an extension? Learning the professor's lesson? Doing the "right" thing? What, in fact, is perceived as the "right" thing? Like many of these exercises, this is based on a real case, and there seem to be no easy answers.
- The case is a good vehicle for revealing various psychological assumptions and nonverbal behaviors, thereby generally increasing psychological awareness.
TEACHER'S MATERIALS:
Role Specific:
- Confidential Instructions for the:
Teacher's Package:
PROCESS THEMES:
Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Interpersonal skills; Issue control; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Power imbalance; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Psychological games; Separating the people from the problem
SCENARIO:
Riverside Lumber is a pulp manufacturer in a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Riverside regularly dumps effluent into a nearby river. The Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC) claims that the effluent is toxic and jeopardizes the local salmon catch. Relations between the two parties have deteriorated. DEC has filed suit against Riverside in an attempt to close the plant. The trial date is three days away, and the parties are meeting to see if a last minute settlement is possible. Several issues will surface in the negotiation: Should Riverside be forced to purchase a special scrubber to neutralize the toxic effects of its effluent? Should Riverside be forced to close temporarily or permanently? Can DEC provide Riverside financial incentives to encourage cooperation?
OPTIONAL VIDEO:
- A discussion of the game, "DEC v. Riverside" — David Lax
- An analysis of players' scores from an actual run of the "DEC v. Riverside" role simulation, which is included in the video's teaching notes. (85 minutes)
MECHANICS:
The game can be played with one or two negotiators per side. No game manager is needed. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read. For thorough preparation, more time is suggested. Negotiations require at least 90 minutes; more time is preferable. Allow 60-90 minutes for review.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- Even though the two parties are likely to settle, the agreements they reach are typically far from optimal. Pareto-optimal scores can be displayed in this game. The players can then explore how and why superior agreements were not found. The concept of the pareto frontier can be developed.
- The concept of Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is illustrated, since each side is given the information it needs to calculate the expected value of going to court. This can be compared to the value of possible negotiated agreements.
- Unless the parties cooperate (i.e., seek to respond to each other's most important interests), possible joint gains will be lost. The comparative advantages of cooperative versus competitive negotiation strategies can be illustrated. The tension between the urge to cooperate to claim value and the urge to compete to claim individual advantage is nicely illustrated. This allows for an extensive discussion of strategies for eliciting cooperation without making oneself vulnerable.
- The role of both shared and conflicting interests in creating joint gains is also illustrated. (Trading less important interests for more important interests is critical to achieving a pareto-optimal agreement).
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:
Teacher's Package (55 pages total):
PROCESS THEMES:
BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; Litigation analysis; Managing uncertainty; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Negotiator's Dilemma; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Power imbalance; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Time constraints
This video lecture features former PON Executive Director Jeffrey Z. Rubin discussing the elements involved in the development of a conflict, including theories on interdependence and escalation.
Production Quality: Utility
Euro-Idol is the longest-running international singing competition featuring contestants from European and other invited countries. Every year, each participating country independently conducts a national song competition to choose its country’s “Idol” to represent it at Euro-Idol. Hosting the Euro-Idol competition is one of the most prestigious and sought-after events a country and city can bid for, often compared to hosting the Olympics or the World Cup. Euro-Idol has the potential to bring economic benefit and prestige to cities that are granted this privilege. Typically, the winning country of the previous year’s competition has priority in conversations about hosting, if they choose to be considered. But this pattern was disrupted after the 2020 competition was cancelled, due to coronavirus. Now, countries are free to directly apply to host Euro-Idol’s competition. After a country is chosen by the Euro-Idol Corporation, it is up to the country to choose the city. The Kingdom of Denion is entering the negotiations with the Euro-Idol Corporation in an attempt to secure hosting the upcoming competition.
This negotiation takes place in two rounds. The first round is between the Euro-Idol Corporation and the prospective host country of Denion. If the Euro-Idol Corporation and Denion can come to an agreement, the second round of negotiations takes place between the cities of Bardane and Eindborg, as well as the Denion Office of Special Events, to determine which city will host the competition. Major lessons of this simulation include:
- Acquire competencies in negotiation preparation, defining BATNA, process, management and agenda setting, uncovering interests, sequencing and packaging issues, and uncovering sources of power in negotiation.
- Acquire skills in negotiating based on changing information and/or information decided by others.
- Understand sequencing issues between rounds and how to build momentum for a deal.
- Negotiate effectively in a process set up to incentivize winner take all (a bidding process).
- Manage waxing and waning relevance.
Materials for this simulation are:
- General Instructions (for all parties)
- Confidential Instructions for the Representative from the Euro-Idol Corporation
- Confidential Instructions for the Representative from the Denion Office of Special Events
- Confidential Instructions for the Representative from Bardane
- Confidential Instructions for the Representative from Eindborg
- Update Memo (in the case of no deal in Round I or a deal not to proceed with Denion)
- Results Sheet for the Representative from Euro-Idol Corporation
- Results Sheet for the Representative from Denion Office of Special Events
First City Bank and the Press
SCENARIO:
The local newspaper, ‘the Gazette’ has recently published an article about a possible mortgage scam involving the First City Bank (‘the Bank’). The Bank has allegedly offered high interest rate loans in low-income and minority neighborhoods and has forced a high number of foreclosures in these areas. Private mortgage companies have been accused of colluding with contractors, and the city government has been blamed for its lack of regulation of the private lending industry. A meeting has been arranged between representatives of First City Bank, the mayor's office, political leaders of low-income neighborhoods, private mortgage companies, the city wide trade association of contractors and the State Banking Commission to discuss the situation.
MECHANICS:
Allow a minimum of 30-45 minutes for preparation. The negotiation itself should last at least 2 hours with an additional 60-90 minutes for discussion and debriefing afterwards.
There is another version of this game used in the angry Public course. This other version focuses on media strategy public relations in crisis situations.
Lawrence Susskind has published ‘Dealing with an Angry Public’ that addresses the major points of this game.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- The primary focus of this game is on the formulation of a media/public relations process appropriate to a multi-party public disputes resolution effort.
- The efforts of a chief elected official to act as consensus-builder can backfire. When and how elected officials should try to play facilitative roles is a sub-theme worth exploring in this case.
- Coalitions are often formed in multi-party negotiations. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies especially blocking.
- This exercise provides the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues. 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 of one's concerns are illustrated in the exercise.
- The advantages of caucusing can be explored. Some players will invite pre-negotiation caucusing while others will not participate in private caucuses.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
- Public Relations Strategy
Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Representative of the
- Citywide Trade Association of Contractors
- First City Bank
- Private Mortgage Companies
Teacher's Package (28 pages total):
KEYWORDS/THEMES:
Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Dealing with an angry public; Delay tactics; Financial analysis; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media strategy in crisis situations; Multi-party negotiation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Pressure tactics; Public disputes; Public opinion
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:
Teflex Products
Dirty Stuff II
Other angry public games
