Humboldt

SCENARIO:

Imports Inc, a large multi-national corporation, has recently purchased Smith’s Rollers plant. The new owners want to expand the plant and are considering a site in Milltown on the Humboldt River. Milltown is located in Arcadia — a fictitious western European country. In manufacturing the rollers, the chemical by-product ‘Laminia’ is generated. Although community leaders are enthusiastic about the project and the potential creation of new jobs and economic expansion, there is much concern regarding the long-term effects of the chemical releases. The elected regional Governors of Humboldt have invited seven parties, together with a mediator, to participate in an informal discussion that will cover both environmental and economic issues. There will be two preliminary meetings prior to the main meeting. The first preliminary meeting will include leaders from the Dairy Cooperative, Environmental Action League, and Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency. The second preliminary meeting will involve the Mayor of Milltown, the Director of Economic Development in Humboldt, and the Coordinator of the Business Association will meet to review their mutual concerns. When these six parties come together, the Lawyer from Imports, Inc., in addition to a professional mediator will also be present.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The preliminary meetings create a bi-level negotiating process. Participants have an opportunity to compare the differences and similarities of their particular dispute resolution styles when negotiating with parties having some similar ideas and then with parties articulating seemingly opposing interests. In addition, analysis can be made of how agreements may be reached in the face of differing interests and views.
  • Although three main issues are discussed at the meetings, each player has additional concerns as well. This underscores the possibilities of creative settlements, as well as aids players in deciding what coalitions will be most useful.
  • The use of linkage should be explored both in terms of threats and in terms of incentives or promises.
  • The blending of economic and environmental issues provides and opportunity to discuss the costs and benefits of tradeoffs, as well as advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's concerns.
  • During debriefing, discussion regarding the mediator's method of handling dispute should be highlighted. At this point confidential information provided to the mediator by the Governors should be revealed. Analysis of this information and how the neutral party used it to either attempt agreement or decide that a consensus was unreachable provides an opportunity to focus on the role of a mediator in a public policy dispute.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

 

Estimated Time Requirement:

30 minutes- read instructions

45 minutes – private meetings for each of the 2 coalitions

15 minutes – mediator can use this time to meet with the coalitions if she or he has not been present in the private meetings

60-120 minutes – coalitions negotiate

60 minutes – debrief

Total: 2.5-3.5 hours

 

Needed for the exercise:

2 small rooms with seats for 4; 1 large room with seats for 8; Flip charts, markers and writing materials for all parties and in particular the mediator

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Background and Instructions
  • Milltown Journal Editorial

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for

  • Coordinator of the Humboldt Business Association
  • Representative of the Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency
  • Director of Economic Development
  • Lawyer for Imports, Inc.
  • Head of the Environmental Action League
  • Head of the Dairy Cooperative
  • Mayor of Milltown
  • Mediator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Notes on the background readings, logistics, debriefing, summary of major lessons and potential exam questions

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Environmental dispute resolution; mediation; mediating science-intensive policy disputes; contingent agreement; multi-party negotiating; consensus building; brainstorming; packaging; Agenda control; Authority; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions, blocking; Commitment; Communication, public v. private; Compliance; Consensus building; constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creating and Claiming value; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Distributional disputes; Joint gain; Group process; Information exchange; Interest, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic v. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Options generating; Partisan perceptions; Personality; Precedents; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Trading, issues; Undisclosed principles; Yesable propositions

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

Chemco Inc

The Carson Extension (mediated version)

Leaves Before the Fall

SCENARIO:

In "Leaves Before the Fall," lawyers for an employer and a former employee attempt to negotiate a settlement surrounding the employee's termination due to excessive absenteeism. The employee's absences resulted from a difficult pregnancy and the subsequent poor health of her newborn child. Much of her leave was guaranteed under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She now seeks compensation from her former employer.

The primary characteristic of the Leaves Before the Fall simulation is that the facts set out in each representative's "confidential instructions" are the same – identical in every respect. Will the participant assume disagreements and disconfirming (contradicting) information – the confirmation bias trap – and engage in positional negotiation? Will they attempt to exaggerate, conceal, and/or lie about the facts? Or will the participants take on a problem-solving mantle and ask open-ended questions, actively listen and search for creative options?

This two-party negotiation simulation was created by James K.L. Lawrence, a partner at the law firm of Frost Brown Todd LLP and an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law with a long historical connection to PON.

 

MECHANICS:

1-2 hourse – preparation (preferably outside of class)

10 min. – introductory questions

30-45 min. – negotiation

30-60 min. – debriefing

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Attorney for Sharon Stone
  • Attorney for Microtech

 

Teacher's Package:

  • Each of the above
  • Teaching note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Bluffing, Communication, Competitive/ Cooperative negotiation, Disconfirming Information, Information Exchange, Partisan Perceptions, Risk Perception

Negotiated Development in Redstone

SCENARIO:

The grandchild of the founder of the city of Redstone has proposed building an up-scale condominium project. This has been encouraged by the Redevelopment Authority. Rumor has it that the plans include 120 units, street level commercial businesses, and a parking garage. The City Council is opposed to the project. A Neighborhood Association, including supporters of the "slow-growth" platform on which the Council was elected, is very upset and has articulated its opposition to the plan. In addition, the down-zoning laws in Redstone allow the developer of the proposed project an "as of right" density of only 50 units. However, the developer can negotiate for a higher density by offering to exceed the 10% affordable housing requirement set by the city. The City Council has urged that a representative from the Neighborhood Association and the developer meet to try to reach an accord. If no agreement is reached, the dispute will go to the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority (which are at odds).

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Importance of pre-negotiation analysis: It is important to prepare for a negotiation and particularly to identify both aspirations and BATNA's.
  • Distributive vs. Integrative bargaining differences: The participants have an opportunity to analyze the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining.
  • Potential Joint Gains: Focusing on issues that are valued differently will allow participants to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach an agreement.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

A variation of this exercise entitled Ocean Splash is also available from the Clearinghouse.

 

Estimated Time Requirement:

This scorable game takes about 10 minutes to read. Preparation should take approximately 15-20 minutes. The parties are given a chart to assess their scores for all possible agreements. The negotiation should take from 30-45 minutes. At least 30 minutes should be allocated for debriefing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions and Scoring Charts for

  • Angela Redstone
  • John Hammond

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Community development; Constituents; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Land Use Negotiation; Linkage negotiation; Meaning of "success"; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Offers, first; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Public dispute resolution; Public opinion; Reservation price; Risk aversion

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Parking Spaces for Super Computer

Oil Pricing Exercise

SCENARIO:

Alba and Batia are two unfriendly oil producing nations that sell a significant amount of their production to nearby Capita. Anti-dumping agreements and Capita's alternate supply options limit Alba and Batia to prices per barrel of $10, $20, and $30. Each country's monthly profit can vary from $2 to $18 million per month, depending on the two country's relative prices and consequent Pricing Board of Alba or Batia. They are instructed that maximizing their own country's profits is their sole objective.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on each country's Oil Pricing Board. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each Board. The exercise is run in 8 or more rounds, corresponding to months, and takes 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 hours to run and review.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions and Score Sheets
  • Monthly Price Report Message Forms

 

Teacher's Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include teaching note)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Education, as a means; Ethics; Game theory; Group process; Group-think; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of "success"; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Recurring negotiations; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called "social trap" exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. In most rounds, communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don't actually exist. At certain points, the parties are given the opportunity to communicate explicitly, and may choose to reach pricing agreements or not (and subsequently, to honor those agreements or not).

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

The difference between reacting to the other side's moves (or one's perception of what those moves mean or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former, some teams have to take a risk. Players face the tension between seeking high short-term gains and low short-term risk inherent in a competitive strategy, and lower but more stable long-term gains inherent in a cooperative strategy.

The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision making.

Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part III
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON faculty member Sheila Heen running and debriefing the "Oil Pricing" exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.

Parker-Gibson

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

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

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

Materials include: 

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

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

SCENARIO:

The Parkers and the Gibsons own homes on adjacent plots of land. The homes are separated by a 1/2 lot the Parkers purchased years ago in hopes of building a tennis court, which they never got around to. The Parkers are now moving out of state and are interested in selling the half lot, as the buyer of their home is not interested in it. The Parkers have approached the Gibsons (who have interest in the lot for home improvements they have planned) about purchasing the lot. Neither party knows much about the other’s interests. The Parkers and Gibsons are meeting to explore whether a mutually beneficial transaction is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of a former exercise titled Appleton v. Baker (Appleton v. Baker is still available, upon request). This exercise is also analytically similar to the exercises The Book Contract (with a different setting) and Bradford Development (without the linkage payment).

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best run as a one-on-one exercise. Preparation should require 5-10 minutes. Negotiations can take from 10-30 minutes, and review from 30 minutes to 1 1/4 hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Role specific:
    Confidential Instructions for:

      • Parker
      • Gibson

     

  • Teacher’s package:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note (English version only)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Quantitative analysis; Risk aversion; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

When several pairs negotiate this game at the same time, the resulting sale prices vary dramatically. Participants can then discuss how and why different negotiation strategies led to different outcomes.

Concepts of “fair prices” often surface in post-negotiation discussions. If participants do not take a “principled” approach to the negotiation, one side or the other often feels “taken,” especially when other players with the same role appear to do better.

The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.

The advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing your BATNA can also be illustrated, especially when several pairs negotiate the exercise.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Parker-Gibson Enhanced Package click here.

PowerScreen Problem

SCENARIO:

HackerStar, Inc. is a small closely-held corporation that develops and markets software for microcomputers. The six-year-old company was founded by Hacker, a brilliant programmer who is responsible for the company's products and became its manager, and Star, a dentist and computer hobbyist who provided the capital. Hacker and Star are each 50% owners. The company has done moderately well, but now faces a crisis resulting from a dispute between the partners over the ownership and disposition of PowerScreen, a new product developed by Hacker, at least partly on his own time and definitely against Star's wishes. The company lawyer has referred Hacker and Star to separate counsel in order to avoid a conflict of interest. The exercise revolves around the meeting of these lawyers. At issue is the ownership of PowerScreen and the future of HackerStar, Inc.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is designed as a one-on-one negotiation between lawyers. Individual preparation takes at least two hours; there are moderately extensive financials of potential relevance. Individual preparation can be followed by about an hour of group preparation among the negotiators who will represent each side (in separate negotiations). For the negotiation, allow 45-60 minutes, and 30-60 minutes for review. After having participants negotiate this case, it is often useful to show them (perhaps after a break) The HackerStar Negotiation. In the videotaped negotiation, the principals conducted their own negotiation, with their lawyers assisting. The tape shows an example of fairly good principled negotiation, but still raises questions about goals, tactics, and the outcome.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation present the opportunity to use a careful analysis of the interests of the parties to craft a recommended agreement to solve a realistic business dispute between partners in a high-tech business.
  • The issues divide more or less neatly between the dispute over PowerScreen, and the question of how to improve the management structure of the company in general (assuming the dispute is resolved). The former seems more of a distributive problem, the latter a joint problem to be solved. The question arises as to which should be addressed first.
  • The negotiation over PowerScreen can be centered nicely around objective criteria or, alternatively, addressed in a more positional manner.
  • How to reestablish a good working relationship between the disputants is a key question vital to the long-run success of this negotiation.
  • Representatives of Hacker and Star in this negotiation clearly have limited authority. It is important to explore the question of exactly what the product of the lawyers' meeting should be.
  • Participants may opt to recommend arbitration or some other form of third party intervention in the event that they, or their clients, cannot resolve the PowerScreen problem. The question of BATNA should be clearly addressed in advance.
  • If a preparation by side session has been used, preparation and group process issues can usefully be raised when debriefing participants.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Stanley Star's Attorney
  • Allen Hacker's Attorney

 

Teacher's Package (43 pages total)

  • All of the above
  • Teacher's note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Apologies; Agenda control; Attorney/ Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creativity; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Drafting; Emotions, role of; Fairness; Financial analysis; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Reality testing; Relationship; Risk aversion; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Trust; Yesable propositions.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the PowerScreen Enhanced Package click here.

Sally Soprano I

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

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

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

Materials include: 

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

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

SCENARIO

Sally Soprano is a distinguished soprano who is now somewhat past her prime. She has not had a lead role in two years but would like to revive her career. The Lyric Opera has a production scheduled to open in three weeks, but its lead soprano has become unavailable. Lyric’s representative has requested a meeting with Sally’s agent to discuss the possibility of hiring Sally for the production. Neither knows much about the other’s interests or alternatives. There is a wide range of possible outcomes.

NOTE This exercise is a modified version of the exercise Sally Swansong I, developed by Norbert S. Jacker and Mark N. Gordon. Sally Swansong I is still available upon request. The Spanish, Swedish, and Dutch translations are based on the original Sally Swansong exercise. See also Theotis Wiley, a variation of this simulation set in the context of a potential endorsement contract between a basketball player and an athletic shoe company.

TEACHING MATERIALS 

Materials for the standard version include:

  • Confidential Instructions for:
    • Sally Soprano’s Agent
    • Lyric Opera’s Business Manager
  • Post-negotiation handouts:
    • Some possible criteria for establishing salary
    • Some creative options
  • Teacher’s Package includes:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES Anchoring; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Confidentiality; Constituents; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Precedents; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation; Trust

MAJOR LESSONS

This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining.

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 BATNAs.

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 case presents the more difficult challenge of finding an objective basis with which to judge the applicability of alternative objective criteria.

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.

Since the case does have a strong competitive element, there is ample opportunity to explore techniques for indirectly and directly extracting information from the other side. Likewise, techniques of protecting oneself from “giving up” the possibility for gains that were unforeseen can be explored and discussed.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Sally Soprano Enhanced Package click here.

Three-Party Coalition Exercise

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

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

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

Materials include: 

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

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

SCENARIO:

Three independent organizations, “A,” “B” and “C,” have sent representatives to a three-way negotiation. The representatives have learned that there are benefits to working together. If all three groups reach an agreement, benefits totaling 121 points will be split three ways (to be determined by the participants). If only two of the organizations reach an agreement, the total benefits to be split will be less than 121 (varying, depending on which two organizations join together) and the third party will be left with nothing.

You can see students practicing the Three-Party Coalition Exercise negotiation game in this free video:

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The concept of BATNA can be examined, since each participant has the information he or she needs to calculate the expected value of various deals.
  • The power of seemingly “weak” players can be enhanced through the creation of blocking coalitions.
  • When played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is effective.
  • The exercise can also be used to raise questions about the basis for arbitrating multi-party disputes.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

For more information on the lessons of this game, see Howard Raiffa’s book “The Art and Science of Negotiation” (Harvard University Press), also available from the TNRC.

 

MECHANICS:

Time Requirements:

  • This exercise is designed for three participants. Preparation should take 5-10 minutes. Negotiations require 15-20 minutes; more time is useful.

 

Facility Needs:

  • Room with seating for multiple groups of 3. An overhead transparency projector is useful since some of the materials include transparencies.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note
  • Overhead transparency masters

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

BATNA; Closure; Coalitions; Competition v. Cooperation; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Options, generating; Quantitative analysis

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

The Parking Facility Venture

Social Services

Rushing River Cleanup

Work Rules Strategy

SCENARIO:

This exercise simulates a series of negotiations between the management of a Canadian food company and the union representatives. As with many actual labor relations, face-to-face negotiations are infrequent, and most of the negotiation plays itself out in the behavior of the parties rather than in words. For each business cycle, union representatives have the option of strict or flexible contract interpretation, while management representatives have the option of strict or flexible contract enforcement. In a classic "prisoner's dilemma" format, the benefits resulting from each party's choice depend on the other party's choice. Similar to Win-As-Much-As-You-Can or to the more complex Oil Pricing and Pepulator Pricing exercises, this exercise highlights issues around communication, cooperation, trust, reputation, assumptions, reactions, and strategy.

 

Teacher's Pack includes:

  • Instructions for Colonel Lodger's Inc., Local 180, CFWU
  • Instructions for Colonel Lodger's Inc., Management
  • Record of Points (tally sheet)


No teaching note currently available