Building Bridges

Through the use of three role plays, the Building Bridges curriculum helps students learn how to resolve their differences through negotiation. The curriculum is based on the principled negotiation method developed by Roger Fisher (co-author of the bestselling book Getting to YES) and his colleagues at the Harvard Negotiation Project.

The curriculum includes three role plays, a sample syllabus, a background memo on teaching negotiation, a memo on the goals of teaching negotiation, and a memo on student-generated role plays. Please note that the cost of the Building Bridges curriculum package includes a copyright license to duplicate the role plays. The role play scenarios are as follows:

 

"How Could You Say That?": This simulation is between two high-school siblings. In a previous conversation, the younger sibling has asked the older sibling for help finding a job in the same mall where the older sibling worked. A misunderstanding resulted, and the siblings became upset with one another. The siblings are now meeting to try and resolve the issue.

 

Major lessons:

Exercises help students to:

  • Focus on underlying interests rather than positions or demands.
  • Invent options that are good for both parties.
  • Use legitimacy and persuasion rather than force or violence.
  • Develop empathy, to see the problem from the other's perspective.
  • Become aware of the role emotions play in negotiation.
  • Learn the importance of listening in negotiation.

 

Teaching Materials Include:

  • Confidential Instructions for Cory (older sibling)
  • Confidential Instructions for Terry (younger sibling)
  • Teaching Note

 

The Leather Jacket: This simulation is between two high-school friends. One student just bought a leather jacket at a one-day sale which, unfortunately, doesn't fit. The jacket does fit the second student perfectly, however, and the second student is very interested in buying it. The issue to be negotiated is price. The first student purchased the jacket for $100 but needs $150 to purchase a properly fitting jacket at its original, non-sale price. The second student knows that the first student bought the jacket on sale.

 

Teaching Materials Include:

  • Confidential Instructions for the Buyer
  • Confidential Instructions for the Seller
  • Teaching Note

 

Playing Time: This simulation is between a high school basketball player and his/her coach. The students wants more playing time on the basketball team; the coach thinks that the students needs more work. The two have agreed to meet to discuss the situation.

 

Teaching materials include:

  • Confidential Instructions for the Coach
  • Confidential Instructions for the Player
  • Teaching Note

Bunyon Brothers

SCENARIO:

Four weeks ago, the Bunyon Brothers Construction Company began work on a 77-unit condominium complex at the end of a quiet, wooded, dead-end street named Chestnut Drive. All permits were properly, if quietly, obtained, and the quality of construction is high. Some resistance from the neighborhood was, of course, expected, but tempers now seem to be unusually high and a credible threat has developed of neighbors blocking the site access. The Company's General Counsel has scheduled a meeting with a neighborhood "negotiating committee." In preparation, he has scheduled an internal planning meeting with the Vice Presidents for Construction Management and for Marketing and Development. The exercise revolves around their three-party meeting.

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

 

MECHANICS:

The Company officers should meet for 45-105 minutes. A break after 45 minutes for a presentation on intra-group process can be useful. After the completion of these preparation sessions, the groups should meet with one or more neighbor representatives (one or more of the officers at a time, however they chose in their planning session). Neighbors can be played by the instructor(s) or by other participants who have prepared as neighbors in the context of Chestnut Drive. Instructors can model various styles of negotiation. These negotiation sessions usually run about 20 minutes each. Different groups of executives and neighbors can continue by the substitution method (taking over where things left off) or by starting over.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • General Counsel
  • V.P. for Marketing and Development
  • V.P. for Construction Management

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communica- tion; Compliance; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Education, as a means; Force; Group process; Media; Meeting design; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Reality testing; Threats; Yesable propositions

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

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

Another important theme is the problem of dealing with a representative of a constituency who does not have firm authority. The neighbor negotiators cannot really commit their neighbors. How should the Bunyon Brothers deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other wants?

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

Caitlin’s Challenge

Caitlin's Challenge is a short case with an accompanying video written and produced by Deborah Kolb. The case recounts Caitlin Elliot's history with a company called Microenterprises Incorporated as the background to a negotiation she plans to have with its CEO, George Baker, about a promotion and bonus. The video shows Caitlin's negotiation discussion with George. The case and video are set within an organizational context with potential gender issues as part of the negotiating context. The case lends itself to a discussion about what makes negotiating for oneself in an organization more challenging than negotiating on behalf of others, how to prepare for a negotiation where personal issues are at stake, and what strategies work best in dealing with a difficult boss. Gender issues can be discussed at individual, interactional, and organizational levels. The video can be effectively analyzed using a moves and turns framework to structure the discussion. Caitlin's Challenge, because it is set in an organizational context, can be used in management and leadership courses as well as in negotiation and conflict classes where instructors want to help students think about and practice what to do in real time. Accompanying the teaching note and video, we include a PowerPoint exemplar to teach Caitlin's Challenge.

 

Objectives:

  • The case illustrates the complexity of negotiating for oneself in an organization where there are significant power differentials and where the issues to be negotiated are often unclear and/or contested.
  • Students are invited to consider how a person prepares herself for a negotiation that has been contentious in the past and where there is not much of a negotiating track record.
  • The video provides an opportunity for students to observe different moves and turns.
  • The case provides an opportunity to discuss gender and how it might matter in these negotiations.

 

Camilia Pictures

OVERVIEW:

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

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

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

 

MECHANICS:

Time Required:

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

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

 

Materials Required:

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

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

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

Cape Development Case

SCENARIO:

Approximately three years ago, Cape Development Corporation sold one of its thirteen adjoining lots to Charlie Davis. Although Davis had plans for the lot, it is still undeveloped. The City Council has now passed a cluster zoning ordinance which permits townhouse development if some land is permanently dedicated as open space. The 12 remaining lots, which are still owned by CDC, together with Davis' lot, make a prime location for a cluster development. Such a financial asset is appealing to both parties, and has led them to this meeting to pursue a development. Both Davis and CDC have empowered agents to represent them, giving them authority up to maximum offers.

 

MECHANICS:

This one-on-one negotiation can run from 30-60 minutes. Teams of two can also be used, with somewhat longer times for preparation and negotiation.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Cape Development Corp. Representative
  • Charlie Davis' Representative

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the Above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Attorney/Client relations; Authority; Competition v. Cooperation; Cost-benefit analysis; Financial analysis; Information exchange; Joint gains; Lawyering; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Quantitative analysis; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk aversion

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

There is tremendous opportunity for exploring creative options in this negotiation. Poorly handled, however, an adversarial deadlock can result. What techniques minimize the likelihood of that outcome?

The distributive bargaining component of the negotiation permits participants to perform cost-benefit analysis, as well as reflect on the importance of focusing on joint gains.

It is useful to explore how the participants use their reservation prices to determine opening positions and concession strategies. Is this justified? Effective?

Participants can see what role analysis of projected costs plays in achieving a Pareto-optimal outcome, and what effect it has on the decision-making process.

Carter Estate Problem, The

SCENARIO:

James Carter, husband of Rosie Carter and father of Chris and Terry Carter, recently died after a four year battle with an undisclosed illness. Having plenty of warning, Mr. Carter (also head of the successful family cosmetic business) carefully planned for the disposition of his assets upon his death. The majority of issues surrounding the settlement of his estate have been resolved, however, a few minor issues remain unresolved and have led to dispute between his two children. The first dispute concerns Mr. Carter’s lakeside retreat. Secondarily, there are concerns over the distribution of some of Mr. Carter’s personal effects. The personal effects include: a stamp collection, a diamond ring, a pocket watch, a membership in the Metropolitan Club and the award-winning, family dog, Bonzo.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise presents the opportunity to use a careful analysis of the interests of the parties to craft an agreement to solve a dispute.
  • This exercise illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, Chris and Terry will be locked in a contest of wills. Hard bargaining may well emerge, resulting in a situation in which one party’s gain means a corresponding loss to the other party.
  • Good negotiators put the distributive issues in this case in perspective and reduce their importance by dovetailing interests with creative options that expand the pie. This case has an enormous potential range of such creative options.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is best one-on-one. Allow approximately 30 minutes for preparation and 30-45 minutes for negotiation. Debriefing should last at least 30 minutes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • For all parties:
    • General Information

     

  • Role specific:Confidential Instructions for:
    • Chris Carter
    • Terry Carter

     

  • Teacher’s Package:
    • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Emotions; Fairness; Interest, dovetailing; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Options, generating

Chestnut Drive

SCENARIO:

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

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

 

MECHANICS:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

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

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

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

Chestnut Village

SCENARIO:

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

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

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

 

MECHANICS:

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

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Map

 

Role Specific:

  • General instructions for the Neighbor Representatives

 

Confidential Instructions for:

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

 

General Instructions for Construction Company

 

Confidential Instructions for:

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

 

Teacher's Package (34 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

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

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

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

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:

  • 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

Colortek Job

SCENARIO:

J.B. Daniels is the Vice President of Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs at Colortek, a large manufacturer of film and photographic equipment located in the Northwest. In the four years that J.B. Daniels has been with Colortek, he/she has done much to increase the environmental awareness at the company. Recently, Daniels' second-in-command got the ball rolling on a "Green Marketing" campaign but has since left Colortek. Daniels has a strong interest in filling this position as soon as possible so that his/her department does not lose control of the "Green Marketing" project. Chris Dawson, a former Assistant Press Secretary to the Governor, has interviewed with J.B. Daniels twice thus far and has easily been the strongest candidate for the job. Dawson, however, is due to start business school in eight months. Daniels and Dawson are about to meet for the third time to discuss the final details of the position and money. There is a lot of overlap in terms of salary.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a one-on-one exercise. Participants should be given 15-30 to prepare and 30 minutes to negotiate. Debriefing should take at least 30 minutes, 60-90 minutes is sufficient.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • 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 analyses should be based on a consideration of the parties' relative BATNA's.
  • The available data allow a number of more or less equally persuasive arguments about what a "fair" salary would be. This is at a minimum good practice in developing and using objective criteria. Beyond that, the exercise presents the more difficult challenge of finding an objective basis with which to judge the applicability of alternative objective criteria.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Creative Options Sheet

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • J.B. Daniels
  • Chris Dawson

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Communication; Creativity; Fairness; Information exchange; Joint gains; Offers, first; Options, generating; Relationship

Commonwealth v. McGorty

SCENARIO:

Two police officers on routine patrol were stopped at 2:35 a.m. by a woman screaming that she had been raped by a man in a nearby car. When approached, the man fled, but was soon apprehended. The woman's story bears a remarkable similarity to that of another woman for whose alleged brutal rape the man, Martin McGorty, was recently acquitted. However, the knife that the woman claims McGorty used cannot be found, and the woman has announced that she will not testify against McGorty in court for fear of ridicule if he is not convicted.

This negotiation involves four parties: a District Attorney, an Assistant District Attorney, the criminal defendant Martin McGorty, and McGorty's Public Defender. The DA was the original prosecutor in McGorty's previous trial but was disqualified for prejudice after a public remark about castration. The DA is running for higher office, and his campaign has regularly emphasized stiffer sentencing for sex crimes. The Assistant DA, a young attorney aspiring to the DA's office, is handling the current McGorty case. The Public Defender representing McGorty here also represented him in his previous trial. Part One of the negotiation involves client interviews: the Assistant DA interviews the DA, and the Public Defender interviews defendant McGorty, in order to determine their clients' interests and to decide how to represent them. Part Two is a plea-bargain negotiation between the Assistant DA and the Public Defender about the fate of the defendant. An optional third part may be used, in which the Assistant DA and the Public Defender brief their clients on the outcome. It should be noted that this case involves highly sensitive issues and that one-quarter of the participants are asked to assume the role of an alleged rapist. The sensitivity of the issues often makes for a provocative and memorable learning experience. At the same time, some participants may find the scenario upsetting. The Teaching Note contains suggestions for how to handle the emotional sensitivity of this case.

 

SUBJECTS:

Criminal law; government parties; legal ethics; legal representation; plea bargaining; psychological issues; rape; unpopular causes

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Principal-agent tension: How does an attorney reconcile the tension between his/her own interests, the client's interests, and societal interests? How do an attorney's personal feelings influence the outcome of negotiation?
  • Importance of relationship building: How does the quality of attorney-client communication and the strength of the attorney-client relationship influence the outcome? How does the ongoing relationship between the Assistant DA and the Public Defender negotiate affect their ongoing relationship?
  • Ethical and policy issues: How should the legal system weigh probability of future harm against procedural rights?

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • Participant materials
  • Teaching Note

 

Minimum Participants: 4

Preparation Time: 80 min.

Negotiation Time: 90 min. (45 min. for Part One and 45 min. for Part Two)

Debriefing Time: 40 to 60 min.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

  • State v. Huntley
  • People v. Malvenue
  • Probation Games

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

Construction in Bunyonville

SCENARIO:

Four weeks ago, the Bunyon Brothers Construction Company began work on a 77-unit condominium complex at the end of a quiet, wooded, dead-end street named Chestnut Drive. All permits were properly, if quietly, obtained, and the quality of construction is high. Some resistance from the neighborhood was, of course, expected, but tempers now seem to be unusually high and a credible threat has developed of neighbors blocking the site access. The Company’s General Counsel and VP of Public Affairs has scheduled a meeting with a dentist and a lawyer representing the neighborhood “negotiating committee.” Two representatives of the largest bank in town will also attend the meeting to attempt to facilitate a resolution of the problem.

NOTE: This exercise is similar to the exercise Chestnut Village, however, in this case local bankers act as mediators.

 

MECHANICS:

Participants representing each side, as well as the mediators, should prepare for 45-90 minutes. A break for a presentation on intra-group process can be useful. After the completion of these preparation sessions, negotiations begin in groups between the two neighborhood representatives, the two construction company representatives, and the two local bank representatives. Between an hour and an hour and one-half should be allocated to the negotiation session. In debriefing the negotiations, instructors may discuss the effectiveness of the preparation sessions, the techniques used by the mediators, how the parties moved toward commitment and how the negotiations might have proceeded had they been bilateral without mediators present.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

 

  • This case focuses on three major themes. The first is preparation. What is your BATNA? What is theirs? What are their major interests likely to be? What are ours? What does their choice look like now? How, realistically, could we change it? What can they actually do? What can we do? How do we make it as easy as possible for them to do what we want, and hard for them to do otherwise? How do we best communicate all this? What yesable propositions do we have for them? Should we consult before deciding?
  • The second theme is meeting design and group process. How do groups work together to prepare for or conduct a negotiation? Set an agenda? Set strict time limits? Use a flip chart and a recorder? A facilitator? Separate inventing from deciding? And how do teams work together in the ultimate meeting? How do they get commitment?
  • The third major theme is mediation and facilitation. What process should be used by the bank’s representatives to facilitate a resolution of the problem? Should they meet with each side separately, or all together? To what extent would caucuses be useful? How should a team of mediators divide up responsibilities? What techniques are particularly effective for third-party mediators? How can these techniques be used by negotiators mediating their own disputes? Another important theme is the problem of dealing with a representative of a constituency who does not have firm authority. The neighbor negotiators cannot really commit their neighbors. How should the Bunyon Brothers and the Bank deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other wants?
  • The case also raises questions of relationship, precedent, and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

General Instructions

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Bunyon Brothers VP of Public Affairs
  • Bunyon Brothers General Councel
  • Neighborhood lawyer
  • Neighborhood dentist
  • Representatives of the Bank (for two participants to serve as mediators)

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Education, as a means; Emotions; Force; Group process; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Reality testing; Threats; Yesable propositions

Death in the Family

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:
  • Professor
  • Student

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

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

Designing an Integrated Account System

Scenario: This is a four party, multi-issue, team decision involving the development of a new account system. The HR representative serves as facilitator. The exercise examines ways that a fifth party, the facilitator, assists the process of consensus building in a tense conflict situation. Key lessons include:

  • Gathering information about interests and options.
  • Packaging agreements across interests that are valued differently.
  • Managing a process of agreement through coalition building.
  • Practicing the functions and responsibilities of human resource facilitators.