Eazy’s Garage – Two-Party

Note: This simulation is also available in a four-party version (with roles for two lawyers and two clients) here.

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Eazy’s Garage All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation 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 Eazy’s Garage. 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:

Susan Garfield has a billing dispute with John Eazer, owner of a local garage, over some work done on Garfield’s car. Finding the bill significantly higher than the original informal estimate, Garfield angrily confronted Eazer. Eazer prepared a second bill at an even higher figure. Frustrated, Garfield returned to the garage after closing time with a spare key and drove her car home, without paying anything. Eazer turned to his child-in-law, an attorney, wishing to file a criminal complaint. When phoned, Garfield referred the attorney to her father, a senior partner in a local law firm. Garfield’s father is letting one of his young associates handle the case.

 

MECHANICS:

This case takes 30-45 minutes to negotiate, either one-on-one or two-on-two. Debriefing can take from 45 minutes to 2 hours.

 

TEACHER’S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Eazer’s Attorney
  • Susan Garfield’s Attorney
  • Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)
  • Sample Preparation Memo

 

Teacher’s Package (30 pages total):

  • All of the Above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include a Teaching Note)

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Tension between empathy and assertiveness, especially in the context of a long-term relationship.
  • The relevance and uses of objective criteria.
  • Negotiating in the shadow of the law (and under the threat of a possible lawsuit).
  • Balance among short-term and long-term interests, including financial, relationship, reputation, and emotional interests.
  • Role of agents (such as lawyers) in negotiating a resolution to an emotional dispute between clients with a long-term relationship.
  • Questions about what constitutes “success” in this negotiation? Is it making the other side back down? Avoiding litigation? Getting a “fair”deal? What are the criteria for a “good” outcome in negotiation?

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Apologies; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Joint gains; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Litigation analysis; Meaning of “success”; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; 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 Eazy’s Garage Enhanced Package click here.

Flagship Airways

SCENARIO: Three years ago Flagship Airways signed a ten-year, $1 billion contract with Eureka Aircraft Engines. Since then, things have changed for both Flagship and Eureka. Flagship's revenues have steadily decreased and they are now reluctant to put forth $1 billion to expand. Meanwhile, Eureka's development of its "revolutionary" engine has not proved as efficient as Eureka had hoped. Today, at Flagship's request, the two companies are meeting to discuss how to restructure the agreement. This is not an unprecedented procedure. The two companies have met in the past to restructure deals when circumstances have changed significantly for either party. In their negotiation, there is a great deal of data to be managed by both parties. There is also a longstanding relationship between the two lead negotiators for each side. Each must decide how to secure the best deal for his/her respective company, while maintaining their relationship. Each must also build trust within his/her team to make sure that the terms agreed upon are acceptable to all.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • To insure relationships that promote quality within the organization, both long-term and short-term interests must be balanced very thoroughly.
  • This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful internal negotiations on successful external negotiations. Thorough preparation is absolutely critical in this negotiation.
  • Don't jeopardize long-term relationships by pushing too hard for short-term gains.
  • Effective cross-cultural negotiation depends upon making sure what you are saying is what is being heard and that you are hearing what is said. Clear communication is critical.

 

SIMILAR SITUATIONS:

  • Common Measures
  • BMP Policy
  • Multisumma

GE International Contract

SCENARIO:

Several years ago, GE International purchased a networked computer system to serve all of its operating departments. Unfortunately, the computer system has become utterly ineffective. GE International's Senior Manager of Information Management Operations has been charged with finding an expert to divide and reprogram the computer system, rewrite the manuals, and maximize the value of the existing high-quality hardware and software.

The Senior Manager has located a computer consulting company that seems to be far better equipped than any of the alternative companies to handle this project. The consulting company, in turn, is eager for the publicity of working with a world-renowned company like GE International. At the last minute, the Senior Manager and the computer consultant realize that they have been exploring this contract without knowing that the other party had an enormously different idea regarding the appropriate price for the project. The parties are meeting one last time to see if there is a way to salvage the deal.

This case is similar to The Tendley Contract but takes place in a more corporate setting.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation to positional bargaining.
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of revealing one's BATNA in this situation? How do the parties' BATNAs — and their disclosure or nondisclosure of them — affect the negotiation?
  • The fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in what the two parties want GE International to pay for the job makes it very difficult to come up with a contract without generating creative options. What can the parties do to facilitate option generation?
  • This case often generates discussion around "fair" pricing for the contract. What are some criteria for determining a fair price? Are the parties' initial expectations regarding the price relevant to what the price should be? Do the parties' BATNAs have any bearing on what the price should be?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Confidential Instructions for:
    • Computer Systems Consultant
    • GEII Team
  • Teacher's Package includes:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note

George and Martha

SCENARIO:

George and Martha are about to be divorced, and have reached agreement on all issues but one–child support. They are in different tax brackets, and value child support and alimony differently. Both sides have chosen a representative to negotiate a decision.

 

MECHANICS:

Divide the class into teams of two, distribute the instructions, and allow approximately 10 minutes for participants to read and prepare a strategy. Following this preparation period, allow participants approximately 20 minutes to negotiate the case. Debrief the negotiation for about 45 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should the participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, George and Martha 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.
  • Despite George and Martha's diverging preferences in characterizing payments, it is possible to obtain mutual gain by trading on the two parties' attachments to their relative interests.
  • This exercise demonstrates the feasibility of Howard Raiffa's notion of post-settlement settlement. As it is designed, the lesson points out that a "win-win" solution is possible when the parties closely analyze their interests and their potential for mutual gains. The failure to identify interests and invent options in a negotiation may lead to failure to reach any agreement, let alone an optimal one.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

  • George
  • Martha

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Competition v. Cooperation; Creating and Claiming value; Financial analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains

Harborco

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Harborco All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation 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 Harborco. 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:

Harborco is a consortium of development, industrial, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deepdraft port. It has already selected a site for the port, but cannot proceed without a license from the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA). The FLA is willing to grant Harborco a license, but only if it secures the support of at least 4 of 5 other parties: the environmental coalition, the federation of labor unions, a consortium of other ports in the region, the Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR), and the Governor of the host state. The parties have several issues to negotiate before deciding whether or not to approve the port, including the types of industries that will be be permitted to locate near the port, the extent to which environmental damage be mitigated, the extent to which organized labor will be given preference in hiring during construction and operation of the port, the amount of any federal financial assistance to Harborco, and the amount of any compensation to other ports in the region for potential economic losses?

 

MECHANICS:

This game is best played with 12 people (2 per role) although 6 people also works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read; more preparation is helpful. Negotiations require a minimum of 2 hours. However, the more time allowed for negotiation, the better.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.
  • Players are exposed to elementary utility analysis in the point scoring scheme. The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. The players can then explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes.
  • 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.
  • Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements are illustrated by the scores.
  • When 12 players play the game (2 per role) they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of negotiations involving non-monolithic parties.
  • The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is also illustrated, as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
  • The advantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucuses; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Negotiator for:

  • Harborco
  • Other Ports
  • Environmental League
  • Union
  • Federal DCR
  • Governor

 

Teacher’s package (67 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note
  • Game Review Chart

 

Please note that this exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Delay tactics; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

Hard/Soft Negotiation Choice Exercise

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact tnrc@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or +1-301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.).

SCENARIO:

The form asks, “What is your negotiating style?” In the left column it lists the key characteristics of relatively “soft” bargainers. In the right column are listed the corresponding characteristics of relatively “hard” bargainers. In between, for each key factor there are spaces for writing in where you come out on the spectrum. The factors addressed are concession strategies and offer strategies.

 

MECHANICS:

Distribute the form and allow ten minutes for participants to fill it in. It is particularly useful as a prelude to an overview presentation on effective negotiation. It was designed for use before an overview of principled negotiation, but in theory other approaches could also follow from it. It works even after participants have read Getting to YES.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Two column form with blank centers.
  • Three column form with third columns listing the characteristics of principled negotiation.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Competition v. Cooperation; Personality; Systems of Negotiation

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This exercise stresses the fundamental elements of principled negotiation as logical alternatives to the seeming dilemma of “hard” or “soft” positional bargaining.

The final portion of the exercise provides a quick reference to the main elements of principled negotiation.

Jerry

SCENARIO:

Jerry has been a steady worker for the company for four years. During the last three months, Jerry's work and attitude have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Jerry's supervisor does not know the reasons behind Jerry's decline, but the situation has come to the point where the supervisor is prepared to fire Jerry, and is under considerable pressure from management to do so. At the supervisor's instigation, the two are about to meet to discuss this situation.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise can be done between students, or between a student and the instructor. It works well both ways. The issue of firing someone seems to have high general salience. In playing Jerry, the instructor can model the psychological game of "victim." Videotaping participant exercises can produce psychologically rich interactions. In participant-instructor demonstrations, the interaction with Jerry can be followed by a meeting between the supervisor and the supervisor's superior.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Jerry
  • Supervisor

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teacher's Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Information exchange; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Power imbalance; Pressure tactics; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem

 

MAJOR THEMES:

This case was designed to explore the psychological games of "victim" and "rescue." By gaining awareness of the archetypes, participants become more sensitive to analogous, but less dramatic, interpersonal dynamics that they encounter in negotiations.

This case provides an excellent opportunity to plan, practice, and test skills in "separating the people from the problem," and dealing with each on their own merits. Dealing humanely with Jerry should not require continued disastrous reliance on his handling of important company business.

The power of good preparation is also apparent here.

Kelly Corporation, The

SCENARIO:

Two productive employees of the Kelly Corporation are about to meet with their boss to discuss a raise. The employer and each of the employees have different ideas concerning pay increases.

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise is structured as a single negotiation between both employees and the boss. As little as five minutes can a be allowed for planning; the meeting itself can last from 5-15 minutes. Videotaping can be useful for review of assertiveness and nonverbal communication.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case calls for fine interpersonal skills in balancing assertiveness and relationship maintenance. What general guidelines seem applicable for preserving a good working relationship?
  • The problem of power imbalance, typical in employee relations, are highlighted. This is probably a good case for principled negotiation, but useful criteria may be hard to come by.
  • In speaking to the boss together, the employees have to address the issue of whether to take a competitive, cooperative, or monolithic approach, and how to maintain it in the face of various employer tactics.
  • The employer has to confront the issue of how to distinguish between the two employees, without embittering the less well rewarded. Ethical choices loom as potentially important.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Employer
  • Employees (same or both)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; BATNA; Closure; Communication; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Personality; Power imbalance; Precedents; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk perception

Lattitude.com

SCENARIO:

Lattitude.com is a simple two-party, single-issue, primarily distributive negotiation regarding the potential sale of an internet domain name. It is designed to be negotiated entirely via e-mail, and may either be used in an online course or as a supplement to a face-to-face course. This simulation is a good vehicle for discussing the dynamics of distributive bargaining as well as the effect of the communication via email on both process and outcome.

Participant’s materials include:

  • Confidential instructions for the potential seller
  • Confidential instructions for the potential buyer

 

Teacher’s Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teacher’s note

 

NOTE: The time required refers to actual online negotiating time, but that this simulation is typically conducted over several days of asynchronous e-mail communication.

Law Library, The

PLEASE NOTE: This role simulation was updated in 2005 with higher dollar figures, to make it seem more realistic and worthwhile. The older version with the original dollar figures is available upon request.

 

SCENARIO:

Burns & Burns, a law firm, is splitting into two new firms, the smaller of which wants to sell 300 volumes from its library that form a set on a specialized topic. So far they have not received any particularly attractive offer. The small law firm of Jones and Solomon is now interested. Purchasing these books as a used set could save Jones & Solomon money over assembling a new library. Two young lawyers are meeting to discuss whether a deal is possible.

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise can be run in a one-on-one or two-on-two configuration. Negotiation time can range from 20-45 minutes; 30 is usual. Preparation time can be as little as 30 minutes, but it is helpful to allow time for a little outside research on the law book industry. Review can range from 30-90 minutes, and is enhanced by participant demonstrations. These can be new negotiations between people who have just done the negotiation, but not with each other, negotiations between participants who have held off negotiating until this time, or continuing negotiations between participants who have been unable to settle. Both during the basic negotiations and any demonstrations, one or both negotiators can be given additional instructions on the style of negotiation to employ.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This is an excellent case for exploring the uses of objective criteria. A variety of criteria can be gathered from the case and outside research, and others, with a little thought, can be inferred.
  • This case is also a convenient vehicle for exploring different systems of negotiation and how they fare against each other.
  • The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is easily illustrated here.
  • The case suggests how seldom one encounters a true single-issue negotiation. A little reflection suggests the presence of significant opportunities to expand the pie. In particular, the possibility of establishing an ongoing relationship that might lead to client referrals merits careful consideration.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • List of Some Possible Objective Criteria

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Sellers — Burns & Burns
  • Buyers — Jones & Solomon

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Relationship; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Yesable propositions

Listening and Interviewing Exercise

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact tnrc@law.harvard.edu  or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or +1-301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.)

In any negotiation, it is helpful to have some information about the people with whom one is dealing. Who are they? What are their backgrounds? It is important to be skillful in asking questions and listening actively to responses. The purpose of this exercise is to give participants an opportunity to practice interviewing and listening skills while getting to know one another as people, beyond their roles in business or school

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

Developing good working relationships with one's colleagues can lay the groundwork for dealing effectively with differences when they arise.

The instructor can promote class discussion and analysis of effective listening and interviewing techniques by asking questions such as, "When did you find it easiest to listen to your partner?" and "What might you do in the future to make sure that you have been heard correctly?"

MedLee

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 MedLee 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 MedLee. 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 MedLee 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:

MedDevice, a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company that manufactures high technology medical equipment, and Lee Medical Supply, a small Thailand-based company that distributes medical equipment in Southeast Asia, seek to conclude a joint venture. The venture, to be named MedLee, Ltd., will take the form of a Bangkok sales office that distributes MedDevice brand medical equipment. The CEOs have met and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They have now instructed their subordinates (Pat Armstrong, the Director of International Strategic Market Research at MedDevice, and T.S. Lee, the Vice President and son of the owner of Lee Medical Supply) to conduct preliminary negotiations on four issues they consider central to the joint venture: decision making, staffing, profit distribution, and a conflict resolution mechanism. MedDevice and Lee Medical Supply differ greatly in their corporate cultures, which are shaped by their national cultures and the demands of their respective industries. MedDevice, a publicly traded company in a highly regulated industry, is rule-oriented, efficient, structured, data driven, and merit-based. Lee Medical Supply, a family-owned and operated company, places a high value on relationships and family loyalty, and favors informal consensus arrangements over rules. The respective negotiators must develop a way for companies with such divergent cultures to work together.

 

SUBJECTS:

Joint ventures; cross-cultural negotiations; agent-principal tensions

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Handling the challenges involved in preparing for and conducting cross-cultural negotiations.
  • Recognizing and dealing with divergent assumptions and perspectives.
  • Bridging cultural differences and communicating effectively across cultures.
  • Handling agent-principal tensions.

 

Minimum Participants: 2

Preparation Time: 30 min. – 1 hour

Negotiation Time: 90 min. – 2 hours

Debriefing Time: 30 min. – 1 hour

 

Teacher’s Package (30 pages total) includes:

  • Participant materials
  • Teaching Note

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

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

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

To order the MedLee Enhanced Package click here.

Mountain View Farm

SCENARIO:

A Vermont farmer somewhat interested in the possibility of expanding activities has considered going into maple syrup production, wood cutting, or increasing the farmer's cow herd. The farmer's neighbor is a person from Boston who only comes up on occasional weekends and holidays and is currently interested in selling or leasing at least part of the property. In preliminary discussions, the two have differed significantly on their assessments of the land owned by the Bostonian, but have agreed to meet and discuss the situation further.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is usually conducted one-on-one for about 45-60 minutes. With a bit more time, participants can be asked to spend some time drafting a written agreement. Communication with unresponsive parties can be explored in review by modeling a typically smart, but cautious Vermont farmer of few words. Review should take from 60-90 minutes. Asking each participant silently to jot down the points of their agreement usually highlights the imprecision and ambiguity of most oral negotiations.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation focuses squarely on interests, options, and objective criteria. Positional bargaining is virtually certain to leave large potential joint gains unrealized. On the other hand, there is the challenge of engaging in joint brainstorming without unintentionally committing oneself.
  • While a variety of options seem likely to be of mutual benefit, most require additional information for full analysis and decision-making. This raises nice questions of how to structure contingent decisions under uncertainty, and how to build in appropriate incentives for objective information-gathering.
  • Poorly thought out agreements often ignore important unknowns and details of implementation. Clear thinking suggests setting realistic expectations about what can be accomplished in the meeting. Agreements will tend to vary dramatically in their scope.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Owner
  • Farmer

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Creativity; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Pareto optimization

Multimode, Inc.

SCENARIO:

T. Boyd, a Vice President of Budget and Finance at Multimode, Inc., (a manufacturing firm) is about to meet J. Arnold, a Vice President of the Human Resource Development Office at Multimode. T. Boyd has formally met with other departments to discuss the upcoming year's budget as well as expected productivity increases. The maximum allowable budget increase has been set at 5%. In order to implement a new reorganization plan, J. Arnold is requesting an 8% increase.

 

MECHANICS:

This game is designed for two players. Reading and preparation takes approximately 15 minutes and actual play of the simulation runs about 30 minutes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

    • For all parties:
      • General Information

 

    • Role specific:Confidential Instructions to:
      • J. Arnold
      • T. Boyd

 

  • Teacher's package:
    • All of the Above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Closure; Commitment; Communication; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Fairness; Financial analysis; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Relationship; Reservation price

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

In post-negotiation discussion, participants may review the advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing their bottom lines.

The parties presume there is a gap between what one can offer and what the other can accept. In fact, there is an overlap. Their initial perceptions shape their subsequent efforts to probe for information.

The degree to which issues other than the percentage increase or cut should come into play is a useful focus for a discussion of good "outcomes".

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

Negotiating Budget Cuts at Newtowne Hospital

SCENARIO:

Dr. Van Hagen, a distinguished heart surgeon, will soon join the staff at Newtowne Hospital, a 750 bed teaching institution. Although some staff members are elated and perceive the arrival of the doctor as an indication of the hospital’s coming-of-age, other staff members are in shock. Newtowne is already facing financial difficulties, including the fact that the annual wage increase for staff has not kept up with the cost-of-living. Now that the hospital has promised financial support to Dr. Van Hagen and his special staff, and will also fund his new equipment, Newtowne is going to have to cut $3.5 million from the rest of its budget. John Demars, the Chief Operating Officer, has met privately with five people who will serve as a budget advisory committee. The five members: the Chief of the Medical staff, Vice-President of Nursing, Chief Financial officer, Head of the Nurses Union, and president of the Hospital Workers Association all were a bit angry and worried about suggested cuts in their departmental budgets. Demars has asked the Advisory Committee to try to reach a consensus on the budget cuts. If no agreement is reached, the Chief Financial Officer will submit his own recommendation to the hospital Board of Directors.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Relationships: Relationships are a key issue in this case. In order to keep the hospital running smoothly, the players must remain accountable to their constituents while maintaining a good working rapport with each other.
  • Identifying 'success': During post-negotiation discussions, participants can take a close look at the different notions of a good outcome in each of the negotiating groups. did the parties try to accommodate each other's interest? What were the results when they did?
  • Interests vs. Positions: The parties must separate their interests from their positions, as well as the people from the problem in order to reach a consensus in a distributive bargaining situation. Reactions of the parties make this dispute difficult. The players are very concerned about their status within the hospital hierarchy, causing symbolic aspects of the negotiation to be quite important.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Budget Cutting Strategies Memorandum

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Demars, Chief Operating Officer
  • Harry Baxter, Chief of the Medical Staff
  • Diana Antry, Vice-President of Nursing
  • Bob Carter, Financial Officer
  • Vickie Eaton, Head of the Nurses Union
  • Felicity Fulton, President of the Hospital Workers Association

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above
  • Results form
  • Teaching Note

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Anchoring; Assumptions; Authority; BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus Building; Constituents; Cost-benefits analysis; Cut-back planning; Fairness; Financial analysis; Group process; Health care management; Hospital administration; Internal budget negotiations; Interests, quantifying; Legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Meeting design; Message analysis; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Preparation; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Williams Medical Centre