Monroe Energy Assistance Game I

SCENARIO:

A federal statute requires each state to submit a plan indicating how it will use its share of a national energy assistance fund for low-income residents. The state of Monroe has been criticized for not managing its program effectively. Federal assistance funds have declining significantly, and Monroe must develop a new strategy for energy assistance. A six-member Energy Assistance Task Force including representatives of state agencies, utility companies, the legislature, and consumer groups will attempt to reach a consensus on next year's plan. Issues that they will address include: eligibility criteria for benefits; sources of funding; level of benefits provided by the program; and method of payment of benefits. The Governor has asked the Task Force to submit a report following the session.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Identify and recognize interests: players must clearly identify and express their interests vis a vis energy cost and supply. In addition, players must recognize the interests of the other parties in order to achieve agreement.
  • Relationships: the significance of relationships can be studied in the context of negotiation strategies. In particular, this game explores how existing and future relationships are linked to implementation of agreements.
  • Join Gains: When parties value issues differently, they can create trades that benefit both parties and facilitate an acceptable agreement.
  • Coalitions: This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions.
  • Public Policy Dispute Resolution: This game highlights how public policy disputes can be resolved by bringing stakeholder representatives together in a face-to-face negotiation.
  • Representation and agency: Issues of representation and agency 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.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is best played with six players (one per role). One variation may include replacing the legislative representative's function as convener with an outside mediator/ facilitator. Preparation takes approximately 30 minutes, although more time is recommended. The negotiation can be conducted in one and one-half hours. Debriefing time should be at least one hour.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Appendix Summary of Significant Data

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for Representatives of

  • The Citizens Utility Board
  • The Department of Social Services
  • The League of Low-Income Consumers
  • The Legislature
  • The Public Utility Commission
  • The Utility Companies

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Energy Policy Negotiation; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interests analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Multiparty negotiation: Objective criteria; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Reservation price; Risk aversion; Single-text procedure; Systems of Negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis; Yesable propositions

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

Neighborhood Care, Inc.

SCENARIO:

Neighborhood Care, Inc. is a non-profit mental health organization that provides counseling and recreational health services to mentally challenged adults and teenagers. Neighborhood Care would like to rent space in a local church, and the church is interested. Local residents oppose the idea and plan on staging a protest at the next zoning hearing, when the church will seek a permit to operate the Neighborhood Care facility. The situation is also complicated by the fact that the church is located in a neighborhood with residents of a different religious faith.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

There are two versions of this exercise:

Original by Lawrence Susskind –
Each participant receives a single sheet of paper with a summary of both sides' views. The group is asked to discuss how a mediator, contacted by one side, ought to proceed. The group is then asked to discuss how a mediator, in the mediation, should proceed. The participants are then given a copy of the actual negotiated agreement and asked to evaluate it.

 

Revised version by Bruce Patton –
This is a mediation exercise. Each side receives its views as confidential instructions. The mediator comes to the meeting at the request of the parties. The parties may be represented by individuals and/or teams. Any agreement reached can be compared with the actual signed agreement.

 

Estimated Time Requirements:

Original non-mediated Version:
Group discussion on how a mediator ought to proceed after being contacted by one side: 15-30 minutes
Group discussion on how the mediator should proceed during the mediation: 15-30 minutes
Evaluation of an actual negotiated agreement: 15-30 minutes Total: 45-90 minutes

 

Revised Mediation Version:
Reading and preparation: 10 minutes
Mediation 60-120 minutes
Debrief: 45-60 minutes
Total: 105 – 190 minutes

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Partisan perceptions: This case illustrates how and why groups with competing interests or concerns can view the same situation in different ways.
  • Mediator issues: The difficulties facing mediators trying to gain entry into community disputes are illustrated, especially the problem of maintaining neutrality.
  • Identifying success: The prospects for developing written agreements in community conflicts are presented. The difficulties of defining a "good" outcome in a community dispute are also highlighted.
  • Implementation: Review of the agreement reached in the real-life case highlights the problem of implementing informed negotiated agreements.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties: Non-Mediated Version

  • Memorandum on the Neighbors' and Church's Views
  • The Actual Signed Agreement (names blocked out)

 

Role specific: Mediated Version

  • Confidential Instructions for the
  • Neighbors' Representative(s)
  • Church's Representative(s)
  • Mediator
  • The Actual Signed Agreement (names blocked out)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Extensive teaching notes for mediated version debrief

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Education, as a means; Emotions; Facility siting negotiation; Implementing informed negotiated public agreements; Interest analysis; Issue control; Linkage; Mediation; Mediation, negotiating entry; Meeting design; Negotiating in communities of faith; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Public dispute mediation; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Risk perception; Value-based disputes; Yesable propositions

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Jefferson Hazardous Waste Negotiation

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Mandroa

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.

Pepulator Pricing Exercise

SCENARIO:

The pepulator market is controlled by two giant companies: Pulsar Pepulator and Consolidated Pepulator. The monthly profits of both companies are determined solely by the price each charges and how it compares to the price of the competitor. Participants in this exercise act as the board of directors for each company, determining their company's price of pepulators for each of several months. They are instructed that maximizing profits is their sole objective.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on the board of directors of each company. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each board, though an average of six or seven members is most manageable. This is a time-slice game played in rounds, and it takes about 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours to run the entire exercise with review.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions and Score Sheet
  • Monthly Price Report Message Form

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft 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.

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.

Restaurant Rancor

SCENARIO:

Casey Andrews and Kelly Handler have both worked in the American Cafe for about four months. They often work the same shifts and have become friends. Just today Casey complained to the manager about how tips are split. The current system is for waiters to pool their tips at the end of the shift and divide them equally. Casey has noticed that Kelly has been late recently, and that she has had to pick up the slack. Kelly is surprised to hear that Casey has problems with the tips. The manager told them that the restaurant will go along with anything that seems reasonable.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The power of good preparation is extremely clear.
  • Mutual feelings of betrayal by a friend complicate matters.
  • The two have to continue to work together and with the other people at the restaurant.
  • They have to come up with a policy for the entire wait staff.

Role Reversal 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:

In this exercise participants select an actual negotiation situation from their own lives that they found particularly difficult, and negotiate in the role of their opposing party.

 

MECHANICS:

Preparation for this exercise takes 15 minutes. There are two ways to run the negotiation part of this exercise: one takes 60 minutes and the other takes 90 minutes. In the 60 minute version, half of the participants are given the opportunity to present a case. In the 90-minute version, all participants may present a case. The teaching materials are the same in both versions. Debriefing may take 30 minutes or longer, depending on the size of the class.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all participants:

  • Case Preparation Instructions

 

Teacher's Package:

  • Case Preparation Instructions
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES: Assumptions; Bias; Empathetic understanding; Framing; Partisan perceptions, implications; Preparation

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

The purpose of this case is to increase awareness of how the same "facts" can be perceived differently depending on one's point of view, and to stimulate thinking on the implications of partisan perceptions.

By approaching their cases from new perspectives, participants are able to recognize which of their current arguments are persuasive, and which are not.

Salary Negotiation

SCENARIO:

This case calls for fine interpersonal skills in balance assertiveness and relationship maintenance. What general guidelines seem applicable for preserving a good working relationship?

The problems of power imbalance, typical in employee relations, are highlighted.

This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining. Depending on the skill of the other negotiator, both approaches can do well.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Participant Materials:

  • General Information
  • Sandy Tanner, Director of Mail Order Sales
  • Pat Lynch, V.P. of Marketing

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • No Teaching Note currently available

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.

Sally Soprano II

SCENARIO:

Basic facts are the same as in Sally Soprano I, except that as a result of a discussion between Sally and the Lyric Opera's Artistic Director, all available information is known by both sides. The principals have left their agents to work out the details of a deal, knowing that something mutually advantageous is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of the exercise Sally Swansong II, developed by Norbert S. Jacker, Deborah Winter and Bruce Patton. Sally Swansong II is still available upon request.

 

MECHANICS:

This negotiation is best one-on-one, although two-on-two is possible. Allow 10 to 30 minutes for negotiation. Sally II is usually done as a follow-up to Sally Soprano I with 5-10 minutes preparation and a 20 minute negotiation. The language of the case does not specify whether the negotiators are lawyers or not. Allow at least a half-hour for debriefing. Discussion can extend much longer (up to two hours).

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This case is a litmus test of what participants believe, on an unconscious psychological level, constitutes success in a negotiation. Is it "winning," doing better than the other side, or is it achieving an objectively good outcome, one that satisfies your client's interests about as well as possible? Some participants with a competitive orientation will not settle this case, although that is against the interests of both clients. The question is usually framed, before handing out the case, "Would more information make this case easier or more difficult to negotiate? Participants' answers correspond to their orientation on "success"–"good outcome" negotiators say "easier", competitive bargainers say "harder."

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Constituents; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Precedents; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation

Teflex Products

SCENARIO:

Midland Pharmaceutical Company has developed Renaid, a breakthrough drug that moderates kidney damage due to high blood pressure. In order to make Renaid profitable, a product called Teflex (recently patented by Teflex Products) must be added to allow for a timed-release in the body. Teflex Products and Midland have made a deal giving Midland rights to purchase Teflex, but Teflex Products is ten months late in delivering the first order of Teflex to Midland. This has angered and inconvenienced Midland since Midland has already announced Renaid’s availability to the public. The public is outraged at the delay of the drug due to an apparent monetary dispute between two pharmaceutical companies.

Only Teflex Products knows of the real reason for the delay. In response to Midland’s first order last year, Teflex Products produced a $2.5 million batch of Teflex. Before Teflex Products could deliver the batch to Midland, it received a letter from a disgruntled former mixing room employee, alleging that the Teflex batch had been improperly mixed. Teflex Products has been unable to verify the former employee’s allegations. If the allegations are true, then some Renaid consumers could die, and Teflex Products would be sued and likely go out of business. However, if Teflex Products reveals the possibility of improper mixing to Midland, then Midland might refuse the entire batch of Teflex — causing terrible cash flow, investment, and public relations problems, and possibly causing Teflex Products to go out of business anyway.

The National Science Institute has called a meeting to discuss the Renaid situation. Attending will be the President of Midland Pharmaceutical and his attorney, the chief scientist at Teflex, a representative of the Hypertension Association of America, a representative of Consumer Rights Now! and a representative from the National Consumer Health Council.

 

MECHANICS:

The participants will have 20-30 minutes to prepare for the meeting. The consumer representatives may caucus separately. The main meeting will not last more than 40 minutes. Discussion of the meetings should take about 30-60 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simulation teaches the basic mutual gains strategy for dealing with an angry public
  • Inventing options before committing to them is critical to achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfettered “brainstorming” often yields creative and surprising solutions.
  • Preparation is a major theme of this exercise. Issues to consider in preparation include: What is your BATNA? What is theirs? What are their major interests likely to be? What are yours? What do their choices look like now? How, realistically, could we change these? How do we make it as easy as possible for them to do what we want, and hard for them to do otherwise? How do we best communicate all of this? What yesable propositions do we have for them?
  • Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. This game illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one’s concerns. Outside interests can add considerable pressure to the parties. Outcomes will depends on the balance between competitive and cooperative behavior chosen by the parties.
  • One of the parties in this case has good reasons not to tell the truth. How they handle this provides an excellent opportunity to discuss the ethics of misrepresentation.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is part of the curriculum for ‘Dealing with an Angry Public’ – see Susskind, Field et. al. / Free Press 1995.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Chief Scientist at Teflex
  • Lawyer for Midland Pharmaceutical Company
  • President of Midland Pharmaceutical Company
  • Representative for Consumer Rights Now!
  • Representative for Hypertension Association of America
  • Representative for National Consumers Health Council

 

Teacher’s Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Agenda control; Angry public; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; indemnity-consumer negotiation; Information exchange; Joint gain; Lying; Multi-party negotiation; Options generating; Pharmaceutical negotiation; Preparation

Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part II
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON Vice-Chair of Education Lawrence Susskind running and debriefing the “Teflex” exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.

Tendley Contract

SCENARIO:

A school district and a computer consultant are negotiating a potential contract for repair of the school district's failed computer network. Both parties are eager to work with each other: the consultant's qualifications appear perfect for the school district's needs, and the school district would help the consultant connect with additional governmental clients. After a fair amount of negotiation, however, the parties find themselves at an impasse: the consultant's bid (which the consultant feels is very low) is considerably higher than the school's budget for this project. The consultant and a school representative have agreed to meet one last time in an effort to salvage the deal.

This simulation happens to involve a consulting contract, but the negotiation lessons are generic. The exercise can be used simply to illustrate the importance of the creative, option-generating aspect of negotiation. More importantly, it can also be used as the principal vehicle for presenting integrative theory more broadly.

 

MECHANICS:

This case can be prepared and conducted quickly. Allow 5-15 minutes for preparation, 10-30 minutes for negotiation, and 20-45 minutes for debriefing.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing interest-based negotiation and positional bargaining. Conventional offer/counteroffer positional bargaining will almost always fail in this case.
  • Joint problem-solving and creative option generation can help overcome an apparent negotiation impasse.
  • Creative option generation can involve rescoping the task, rescoping the time frame, and trading on different priorities, among other possibilities.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS INCLUDE:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Representative for the Tendley school district
  • The consultant

 

Teacher's Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note (English Version only)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Breaking impasses, creating options, identifying interests, transforming problems from zero-sum to non-zero-sum, mutual gains, linkage to other possible deals, building a long-term relationship.

 

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 Tendley Enhanced Package click here.