SCENARIO:
Exposure to "Dirty Stuff" in the industrial workplace is an issue of major concern to three coalitions representing environmental organizations, industry groups, and labor unions. During past hearings the divergence in their views has become public knowledge. Congress has responded by passing a law requiring The Agency to take action. The Agency, called in a consultant to interview leaders of the concerned coalitions, and draft a proposed agreement. The coalitions and Agency leaders are about to meet to review the draft. The parties will discuss the acceptable levels of risk, the quality of cleaning techniques, and monitoring and evaluation of the cleaning procedures. A neutral party has been asked to help facilitate the meeting
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This is a four-party multi-issue facilitated negotiation simulation involving the drafting of a proposed environmental regulation. It emphasizes the use of active facilitation and examines the issues encountered by neutrals when their role is not well understood by the principal parties.
- The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements, the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
- It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator's instructions are rather vague; therefore, the role may develop into either a mediator's role; a process manager's role; or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiations at all.
- The usefulness of a Single Negotiating Text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences, and help parties structure packages of trade-offs more creatively.
- The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussions are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.
MECHANICS:
This exercise is written to include five roles; however, more than one player may be assigned to any role. Reading in preparation for the role play takes 10-15 minutes. Parties having the same roles caucus to strategize prior to beginning the actual negotiation (approximately 20 minutes). Review of the draft should run for 60-90 minutes. Debriefing requires at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss the outcomes. A table for 5 is recommended. Private breakout rooms are useful but not critical to this simulation.
NOTE: The game manager should meet briefly with the facilitators before the negotiation to make sure they understand their responsibilities.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
- Draft of the Proposed Rule
- Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup Technologies
Role Specific:
- Environmental Coalition Negotiator
Teacher's Package:
KEYWORDS
Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty
THEMES:
Agenda control; Assisted v. Non-assisted negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Creativity; Decision analysis; Distributional dispute; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation, entry; Meeting design; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:
SCENARIO:
Dirty Stuff is an industrial by-product of a large number of industrial processes that has recently found to have harmful health side-effects. A first meeting was convened at which a representative from environmental organizations, labor unions, industry groups, community groups and consumer groups would attend in order to discuss how Dirty Stuff is to be regulated. This meeting ended abruptly and in a highly emotional and hostile fashion – a fact which has become reported in the press. A second meeting has been convened and the various factions have agreed to enlist the help of a facilitator. The goal of the upcoming second meeting is to revise the proposed rule regarding the production and use of Dirty Stuff. This will be published in The Federal Register.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This exercise illustrates how an angry party can alter the tone or balance of a multiparty negotiation or create difficulties for a facilitator.
- With such a wide range of possible agreements, the comparison of several groups' outcomes can demonstrate the usefulness of generating options. Some groups, however, might not reach agreement.
- The facilitator may be asked to mediate or alternatively may simply act as a meeting manager and stay out of the negotiations, depending on how the parties act.
- Caucusing can lead to the formation of blocking coalitions. The effect of caucusing on the prospects of reaching agreements can be compared across groups.
- The usefulness of a single negotiating text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences and help parties structure packages or trade-offs more creatively.
- Contingent agreements may hold the key to dealing with technical uncertainty.
MECHANICS:
This exercise is written to include six roles, however, more than one person may be assigned to any role. Players have 45 minutes to prepare, including time for caucusing between parties with the same role. Actual negotiations should take less than 90 minutes. Debriefing will require at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss outcomes.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
- General Information
- Draft of the Proposed Rule
- Article from newspaper
- Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup technologies
Role specific:
Confidential Advice to
- Agency Negotiator
- Consumer Negotiator
- Environmental Coalition Negotiator
- Industry Negotiator
- Labor Negotiator
- Facilitator
Teacher's Package:
THEMES:
Agenda control; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Creativity; Decision analysis; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Joint gains; Meaning of "success"; Mediation; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions
KEYWORDS:
Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:
Dirty Stuff I
Dioxin – Waste to Energy
Teflex Products
The Carson Extension
Discount Marketplace and Hawkins Development
SCENARIO:
Discount Marketplace, one of the largest discount soft goods retailer in the country, has presented its standard lease to Hawkins Development a regional real estate developer. The developer found most of the lease acceptable, after modifications of some provisions. However, negotiations are at an apparent impasse over the "use, assignment, and subletting" clause proposed by Discount Marketplace. In-house leasing representatives from both parties have been asked to resolve this dispute and to finalize the lease.
MECHANICS:
This exercise is designed as a one-on-one negotiation but also works well with teams of two representing each side. Individual preparation requires about 15 minutes, whereas teams of two will need slightly more time to coordinate a strategy. The negotiation should take from 20-35 minutes and a productive debriefing can take an hour or more.
The Negotiation of a Commercial Lease video is based on this simulation, and is a useful supplemental tool for debriefing. Instructors also may wish to view the first video in the Program on Negotiation's Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series (Professor Michael Wheeler, Harvard Business School), which depicts an experienced negotiation professor using the Negotiation of a Commercial Lease video in an actual Harvard Business School class.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- Relationships are important in this case. A long-term lease means a long-term relationship; which will enhance a good working rapport.
- This case is a good vehicle for exploring each other's interests and designing creative options to solve the leasing problem.
- Discussions should focus on the potential for transforming an apparent zero-sum problem (in which the developer wants use restrictions and the prospective tenant wants a free hand) to one in which joint gain is created. Participants should be encouraged to relate the substance of their agreements to the process by which they uncovered interests and generated options.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:
Teacher's Package:
PROCESS THEMES:
BATNA; Closure; Communication; Interests, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Relationship; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Time constraints; Trust
Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part I
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON faculty member Michael Wheeler running and debriefing the "Discount Marketplace and Hawkins Development" exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.
SCENARIO:
Set in 2021 in the fictional state of Ames, this simulation involves an attempt to negotiation a settlement between two former sexual partners, Chris Wilson and Pat Stevens. At the time of her relationship with Pat, Chris knew that she was infected with the deadly DONS virus, which can only be transmitted through sexual intercourse. Chris did not disclose her DONS-positive status to Pat and proceeded to have unprotected sexual intercourse with him. After her relationship with Pat ended, and following counseling, Chris regretted what she had done and informed Pat that she had had the DONS virus during their relationship. After testing positive for DONS in a home self-test kit, Pat informed Chris that he planned to file suit. Chris responded that this should not be necessary as their lawyers should be able to work out a settlement.
With this general background, the lawyers meet with their clients in Round One of this exercise. During these preparatory meetings, each client discloses a new fact to his/her lawyer: Chris discloses the fact that she has inherited a great deal of money, and Pat discloses the fact that he is actually DONS-negative based on more precise lab testing. Neither Chris nor Pat wants this new information to be disclosed to the other party. In Round Two, the lawyers meet to discuss settlement.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This negotiation is designed to address ethical difficulties about disclosure and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
- This negotiation is also an excellent vehicle for discussing broader issues regarding principal/agent tensions.
Teacher's Package includes:
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:
- Susan Garfield’s Attorney
- Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)
Teacher’s Package (30 pages total):
- 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.
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:
Teacher's Package:
- All of the above
- Teaching Note
PROCESS THEMES:
Competition v. Cooperation; Creating and Claiming value; Financial analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains
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:
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.
SCENARIO:
This is a negotiation between a recently hired computer programmer and a Human Resources Director regarding the new employee's salary, benefits, and start date. The computer programmer, a recent immigrant from "Newtonia," has certain requirements that cannot be disclosed for fear of invoking bad luck. The Newtonian also has cultural expectations of how the Human Resources Director should behave in order to transact business comfortably. The Human Resources Director simply has the task of hiring this candidate who has been interviewed and recommended for hire. There is a given salary range, an established list of benefits, and regular start dates from which the Human Resources Director can operate.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- This exercise highlights the cultural elements of negotiation and helps sensitize participants to potential cultural differences.
- This exercise also highlights the potential discrepancy between intent (by one party) and impact (on another party).
TEACHER'S PACK INCLUDES:
- Participant materials and teaching note.
SCENARIO:
The Hong Kong Property Deal is a simple two-party negotiation that appears to have a single distributive issue (price), but contains several hidden issues that offer integrative opportunities.
The simulation is set in Hong Kong in 1996, just before the British returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. Lee Wing and Terry Jones each operate a business next door to each other on Tai Po Kau Harbour Road. Between their two businesses is a small lot that is unattractive as a separate building site because it sits between two large warehouses. Lee Wing purchased the small lot in 1990 for $70,000 with the intent of expanding his warehouse. These plans were never realized, and the lot is currently vacant.
Wing has decided to move to Australia, and has arranged to sell his construction material importation business to a family friend, Bill Ling. Ling has gathered the necessary funds to buy Wing’s business and warehouse, but can only offer $50,000 for the small vacant lot (which he neither particularly needs nor wants).
Terry Jones conducts the Hong Kong business for Australian-based Outback Foods from the lot on the other side of Wing’s vacant lot. Unbeknownst to Wing, Outback Foods is having great success in Hong Kong and could use some extra space to expand its warehouse. Indeed, Terry Jones has a budget of up to $200,000 to purchase additional space for a warehouse.
Wing called Jones yesterday, and the parties are about to meet.
This case allows for the introduction of several fundamental negotiation concepts:
- Bargaining range (both positive and negative bargaining range); also known as zone of possible agreement (ZOPA);
- First offers in a distributive negotiation: how and when to present a first offer;
- Gathering information to determine the other party’s intentions and goals;
- Managing information about our own intentions and goals; and
- Introduction to integrative strategy.
Teacher’s Package Includes:
- Confidential instructions for Lee Wing
- Confidential instructions for Terry Jones
- Teaching note
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
- Head of the Environmental Action League
- Head of the Dairy Cooperative
Teacher's Package:
- 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)
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:
Teacher's Package:
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.
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:
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
Least-Cost Planning Exercise
SCENARIO:
The electric company, GENCO, has seen its capacity reserve margin drop from 40% to a mere 20% above peak load over the past 10 years. This decrease brings the company uncomfortably close to the minimum level necessary to maintain adequate service reliability. The imbalance between the availability of and demand for electricity has spawned various solutions which include conservation/demand-side management, gas- and oil-fired generation and coal-fired plants, provided either by the utility or an independent power producer. A mediator (Professor Calme), and a party representative from GENCO (the electric company), NOPE (a consumer group), the Public Utility Commission, CLEAN (an environmental group) and IPP (an independent power producer) will attempt to reach a consensus on a project proposal.
MECHANICS:
This exercise is best played with six players (one per role). Preparation should take at least 30 minutes and the negotiation should last 60 minutes. Debriefing should take at least 60 minutes.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- The prospects for achieving joint gains is illuminated in this exercise. When parties value issues differently, they can create trades which benefit both parties and facilitate an acceptable agreement.
- This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions. Adding a neutral allows for discussions of how parties use mediators/facilitators.
- Many aspects of mediation in a multi-party, public policy dispute can be brought into focus, including: maintaining open communication, focusing the discussion on interests rather than positions, packaging options, and the development of a single-text procedure.
- Issue of representation can be explored, 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.
- Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's concerns are illustrated in this game.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
Role specific:
Confidential Instructions for:
- Director of Electric Power Planning
- State Public Utility Commission
- Professor Calme (Mediator)
Teacher's Package (26 pages total):
PROCESS THEMES:
Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Delay tactics; Group process; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Risk aversion; Systems of Negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis; 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?"
Managing Groundwater Beneath the Pablo-Burford Border
SCENARIO:
The fictional countries of Pablo and Burford face a water crisis brought on by extreme water quality and quantity problems. The dismal water situation is largely a result of unsustainable agricultural activities in the borderlands separating the two countries.
Two years ago, the Presidents of Pablo and Burford instructed the responsible national authorities to prepare a sustainable agricultural and water protection plan. Since then, the Burford Environmental Department and the Pablo Agriculture Department having been working to organize a joint summit to negotiate the framework of such a plan. In the midst of summit planning, a new controversy regarding agrochemical pollution of borderland groundwaters emerges. The summit now has been scheduled for six months earlier than originally planned.
The summit will be co-chaired by representatives of the Burford Environmental Department and the Pablo Agriculture Department. The other participants include the Governor of the Burford border state of Grady and representatives from a number of national and international NGOs with interests in groundwater policy. The agenda includes nine decision items, and the participants are expected to reach agreement by at least a two-thirds vote on all nine items.
MAJOR LESSONS:
- Importance of agenda control
- Repercussions of voting procedures on the content and sustainability of the outcome
- Importance of reaching agreement on terms and scientific facts before negotiating
- Impact of BATNA on the negotiation
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
- General Instructions and Information for All Parties
- Appendices A-E (Country Information, Hydrology, Location of Borderland Aquifers, Glossary, and Evaluating Zine)
- Additional Reading References
Role-specific:
- Confidential instructions for representatives of:
- BED (Burford's federal environmental regulatory agency)
- BIO (an international consortium of 72 biotech companies)
- CONSUME (a small anti-hunger NGO in Pablo)
- EARTH (an international consortium of environmental NGOs)
- FARM (Burford Farm Association)
- Chet Freeman (Governor of the Burford border state of Grady)
- PAD (Pablo Agricultural Development)
- SUSTAIN (a nonprofit of sustainable agriculture organization from the Burford border state of North Rhine.
- TRADE (a Pablo agribusiness trade alliance)
- UNION (National Farmer's Union of Pablo)
Teacher's Package (110 pages total):
- Game Manager Position Summary Sheet
KEYWORDS/ THEMES:
Multi-party negotiation; science-intensive policy disputes; transboundary environmental disputes; water quality and quantity negotiations; cross-cultural negotiations; facilitation
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:
Hitana Bay Development Simulation
Tovisaria Power Sector Simulation
IPMS Series
