from $7.00

Three new role-play simulations focus on the mediation of values-based disputes. They are now available with Teaching Notes and an Annotated Bibliography from the Program on Negotiation Clearinghouse. Each game provides an opportunity for students to explore how mediation might be used to address values-based and identity-based disputes–not just interest-based disputes. The parties and their attorneys are asked to craft settlements that do not require them to compromise their fundamental beliefs or values. (Students do not have to be studying law to participate effectively in these simulations.)

The first simulation is entitled Williams v. Northville. It is a five-person, non-scorable negotiation simulation based on a real case. It focuses on a dispute between a public school and a family over classroom discussions and educational materials that are part of a school diversity program depicting same-sex couples and their children. In this simulation, Jim and Jan Williams are the parents of two elementary school children in the Northville Public School System. They have asked the school principal for advance notification anytime homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or families headed by same-sex couples might be discussed in class, and for their children to be excused from such discussions. The principal has denied this request, explaining that no parental notification is required or appropriate when homosexuality is to be discussed as part of the regular school curriculum. The Williamses filed a lawsuit against the school district in state court asserting their right to have their children excused from any part of the curriculum that is contrary to their religious beliefs. The judge resolved the legal question in favor of the school district, holding that parents do not have the right to dictate what a public school may teach their children. The simulation begins when the Williamses file an appeal of the lower court’s decision. Prior to oral argument, the appellate court administrator has urged the parties (and their lawyers) to try to mediate the dispute.

The second simulation is called Ellis v. MacroB. It is another five-person, non-scorable simulation based on a real dispute between an employee and his/her employer, a large, privately held software company. Until recently, Ellis was senior project manager at MacroB, headquartered in California. The simulation begins when a company-wide diversity campaign is launched featuring a series of diversity posters, including one that reads: “I am a gay man and I am MacroB.” The posters were placed in employee work areas, including on the exterior wall of Ellis’s cubicle. Ellis is devoutly religious and part of a faith tradition that holds that homosexuality is sinful and wrong. Deeply disturbed by the poster, Ellis taped several Bible verses to the inside wall of his/her cubicle including quotations condemning homosexuality and predicting dire consequences for those who engages in homosexual acts. When asked to remove the verses, Ellis refused. After several meetings with the company’s diversity manager Ellis offered to remove the passages if MacroB removed its posters depicting homosexual employees. When no agreement was reached, Ellis was given a week off with pay to reconsider. MacroB removed the Bible verses that Ellis had posted. Upon returning to work, Ellis reposted all of the Bible passages, refused to remove them, and was fired for insubordination. Ellis and MacroB reluctantly agreed to speak with a mediator. After hearing from both sides, the mediator suggested that resolution might be possible. The simulation begins as both sides and their lawyers are about to meet the mediator.

The third new simulation is called Springfield OutFest. Based on a real case, it focuses on a dispute between two private organizations and a city over the terms under which a permit for a festival on city property will or won’t be granted. The first organization, Springfield Pride, is a local advocacy group for Springfield’s sizeable lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Springfield Pride organizes an annual street festival called the OutFest to celebrate National Coming Out Day. Salvation Now!, a nationwide network of grassroots religious and social campaigners seeks to bring its religious message directly to those it considers to be living sinful lifestyles. In years past, tensions have flared between the two groups. Last year, they clashed during the OutFest and the police had to restore order. The confrontation dampened the festival atmosphere and attracted unfavorable media attention to the city and the OutFest. The simulation begins one year later. Springfield Pride is again requesting a permit to hold its upcoming OutFest in the city park. Fearing a confrontation and worried about its liability, the city has asked the parties (and their lawyers) to meet and discuss proposed guidelines and restrictions.

All three cases present authentic and hard-to-mediate values-based and identity-based disputes. The Teaching Notes, written by students in Professor Lawrence Susskind’s course at Harvard Law School, reviews five different strategies that mediators might want to try in these situations. Key teaching points include the limits on interest trading when values and identity are at stake, the possibility that resolution may not be the most appropriate goal in such situations, and the need for mediators in values-based disputes to learn how to help parties confront their value differences effectively.

Each case study is also available separately.

To download a PDF version of the Teaching Notes, “Teaching about the Mediation of Values-Based and Identity-Based Disputes,” click here.

A Workable Peace Curriculum“>A Workable Peace Curriculum” width=”96″ height=”96″ style=”float: left; margin: 0 10px 0 0;” />

from $29.95

One copy of a Teacher’s Guide DVD will be included with your order. (Funded by the Roy A. Hunt Foundation and JAMS Foundation.)

Note: Purchase of the teacher’s manual for this Workable Peace Curriculum Unit includes a site license, which grants the user permission to reproduce its contents (including the role simulation instructions) for academic purposes at a single site, such as a school or organization. The individual role simulation for the Ancient Greece and the Peloponnesian War curriculum (entitled “The Athens-Melos Role Play”) may be purchased on a per-participant basis by clicking here. If you have any questions about the scope of the site license, please contact Stacie Nicole Smith, Director of Workable Peace, at stacie@workablepeace.org or 617.492.1414 ext. 124; or PON’s Director of Curriculum Development at 617.495.1684.

Ancient Greece and the Peloponnesian War

This unit examines the historical conflict among the Greek city-states before, during and after the Peloponnesian War. Students explore the relationships between Athens, Sparta and their allies—a relationship that culminated in war. Drawing from the Melian Dialogues of Thucydides, the Athens-Melos Role Play simulates the historical negotiations between the city-states of Athens and Melos during the seven-year interlude of peace in the middle of the Peloponnesian War, when an Athenian fleet arrived to demand that Melos—which was independent but culturally connected to Sparta—join the Delian League, a coalition of Greek city-states led by Athens.

Overview of Workable Peace

Workable Peace is an innovative high school humanities curriculum and professional development project for secondary school classrooms. Using new teaching materials and strategies, Workable Peace integrates the study of intergroup conflict and the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and perspective-taking skills into social studies and humanities content. It gives teachers academically rigorous tools for teaching the major themes and key events of history in ways that enliven the imagination, awaken moral reasoning, and impart social and civic skills that students can use throughout their lives.

By inviting students to examine history and current events from multiple perspectives, Workable Peace develops students’ abilities to understand the underlying sources of intergroup conflict, and allows them to practice skills for resolving conflicts without violence. Workable Peace integrates the study of intergroup conflict with core social studies and humanities subjects, and helps students understand and make connections between conflicts around the world, in the U.S., and in their own schools and communities. In these ways, Workable Peace makes the teaching and learning experience more creative, productive, and meaningful.

A team from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education evaluated the Workable Peace curriculum and found significant improvements in students’ tolerance for difference points of view, understanding of conflicts and strategies for resolving them, and listening and perspective-taking skills. In addition, students demonstrated deeper understanding of the historical content they were studying, and a stronger ability to connect this with other historical conflicts, and conflicts in their own lives.

The Workable Peace curriculum reflects core concepts and key content areas in the Curriculum Standards for Social Studies of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) and similar state standards. It is designed to be integrated into secondary school social studies and humanities classes. It can also be used in after-school or out-of-school settings.

Each curriculum unit contains five sections (each with a detailed Teacher’s Guide):

1. an analytical framework that teaches the sources of intergroup conflict and conflict management strategies;
2. introductory activities to teach conflict analysis, using historical events and primary source documents;
3. an in-depth role play that challenges participants to voice their group’s needs, understand the needs of others, and seek ways to meet their goals through negotiation with representatives of other groups;
4. additional resources, including an annotated bibliography of additional information on the issues in the role play, as well as civic learning activities that apply the conflict resolution skills to parallel issues in students’ lives; and
5. additional negotiation and mediation skill-building activities.

To order at the highly reduced K-12 rate, please provide (in the “Comments” box in the online check-out process) the name and address of the K-12 institution, the name of the teacher who will be using the curriculum, and the name of the course in which the curriculum will be used.

the monthly newsletter“>the monthly newsletter” width=”96″ height=”96″ style=”float: left; margin: 0 10px 0 0;” />

from $147.00

Negotiation brings you cutting-edge information on building successful agreements and partnerships.

Negotiation is packed with everything you need to walk into a business negotiation with confidence, and walk out with a great deal.

Recent articles in Negotiation detail these victories and defeats of seasoned dealmakers:

• Lessons from a labor conflict: How the Writers Guild of America got back to work for Hollywood
• Facing negotiations with multiple parties: What to do when the table gets crowded
• Dealing with liars: Tips on working with negotiators who lie to you
• Ethics and negotiation: Why your negotiating behavior may be ethically challenged
• Deadlines: A useful tool in breaking through impasse
• When you are overly committed: How to level the playing field
• Bargaining in the shadow of doubt: How to judge your performance objectively
• Learning to negotiate more rationally: How to keep your emotions from getting the upper hand
• The strike zone: How to defuse protracted labor conflicts
• The spy satellite debacle: How not to contract long-term projects
• Resolving family conflicts: How to negotiate better relationships with your children
• Wheeling and dealing: How to negotiate the best price for a new car
• Major League success or mess: Lessons from the “Dice-K” Red Sox deal
• Negotiating with your agent: Should you let an expert set the terms of your relationship?
• A question of ethics: What to do with inside information

I look forward to welcoming you to the community of business leaders and other professionals who subscribe to Negotiation.

Robert H. Mnookin
Samuel Williston Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Chair of the Program on Negotiation

P.S. Your very next deal could be the one that clinches your budget…lands that big account…or puts your business way out in front of the competition.

Don’t go it alone — not when you can get real, practical, and immediate help from the faculty and editors at Negotiation. Subscribe now!

P.P.S. One thing I can guarantee you: Negotiation must help you achieve consistently better outcomes, or you may request and receive a full refund at any time during the term of your subscription.

That’s my 100 percent guarantee of your satisfaction — a bargain that’s non-negotiable!

from $30.00

Negotiation, not adjudication, resolves most legal conflicts. However, despite the fact that dispute resolution is central to the practice of law and has become a “hot” topic in legal circles, a gap in the literature persists. “Legal negotiation” — negotiation with lawyers in the middle and legal institutions in the background — has escaped systematic analysis.

The Harvard Negotiation Law Review works to close this gap by providing a forum in which scholars from many disciplines can discuss negotiation as it relates to law and legal institutions. Unlike Negotiation Journal, which has a general audience of negotiation scholars and practitioners, the Harvard Negotiation Law Review is aimed specifically at lawyers and legal scholars. The premier issue (spring 1996) explored interdisciplinary academic perspectives on such topics as decision analysis, litigation settlement, and the variety of mediator roles, strategies and tactics. Subsequent volumes have expanded on these topics, and included additional discussion of the lawyer’s role as a problem solver, reconsideration of legal education in light of negotiation, and a range of case studies of innovative negotiation and mediation systems around the world. For current and past tables of contents, please click here.

All submissions are reviewed by the board of the Harvard Negotiation Law Review in a process that focuses on the individual article’s contribution to the existing negotiation literature. The advisors to the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Robert H. Mnookin, Samuel Williston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and chair of the Program on Negotiation Steering Committee and Frank E.A. Sander, Bussey Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, provide valuable input, with additional assistance from Robert C. Bordone, Thaddeus R. Beal Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and Roger Fisher, Williston Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School and director of the Harvard Negotiation Project. For submission information, please click here.

from $49.00

The Negotiation Journal is a multidisciplinary international journal devoted to the publication of works that advance the theory, analysis, practice, and instruction of negotiation and dispute resolution.

The journal is committed to the development of better strategies for resolving differences through the give-and-take process of negotiation. Negotiation Journal’s eclectic, multidisciplinary approach reinforces its reputation as an invaluable international resource for anyone interested in the practice, analysis, and teaching of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution including:

• educators,
• researchers,
• diplomats,
• lawyers,
• business leaders,
• labor negotiators,
• government officials, and
• mediators.

The kinds of articles that appear in the Journal range from brief columns reporting or commenting on interesting ideas to research reports; from analytic descriptions of negotiation practice to essays aimed at building negotiation theory; from integrative book reviews to accounts of educational innovations.

Editor
Michael Wheeler

Managing Editor
Nancy J. Waters

Managing Editor Emeritus
J. William Breslin

Associate Editors
Daniel Druckman
Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Associate Editor, Reviews
Robert C. Bordone

Associate Editor, Education
Melissa Manwaring

Current Issue:

The April 2010 issue of Negotiation Journal features a special section on communication and negotiation guest edited by Phillip Glenn and Lawrence Susskind. Closer attention to the analytical methods used by communications scholars, the editors and authors argue, can provide negotiation scholars with greater insight into the impact of communication practice on negotiation, and, they hope, with ideas for improving negotiation practice.

In an introduction to the section, the guest editors describe the fields of conversation analysis and discourse analysis, which are two areas of communication studies that they argue hold great potential for negotiation scholars and practitioners. In his contribution to the issue, Doug Maynard considers the structure of negotiation talk by closely analyzing several real-life negotiation sequences, including plea bargaining sessions and a real estate negotiation. He focuses on core bargaining sequences that lie at the heart of negotiations, which include such activities as deferring, demurring, and deterring.  Please click here to hear an excerpt from the real estate negotiation.

In her article, Linda Putnam reviews discourse analytic research on how language use in negotiation informs strategy, relational development, identity management, emotional expression, issue development, and framing. She examines a real estate negotiation to show how negotiators jointly frame such issues as risk, certainty, and loss-gain as they discuss the issues.

In another article, Phillip Glenn takes a close look at videotaped excerpts from an actual small claims court mediation session, identifying a central concern for mediators: how to deal with the tension between demonstrating a commitment to take each party seriously while scrupulously avoiding the appearance of taking sides. To see excerpts from the small claims mediation analyzed in this article, click here.

Finally, in his concluding piece, Larry Susskind looks at conversation and discourse analysis from the perspective of a mediation theorist and practitioner. Communications scholars and negotiation scholars have much to offer each other, he argues, making a strong case for how insights from each arena enrich our understanding of both.

Also in the April issue, Jane K. Miller, Kevin P. Farmer, Daniel J. Miller, and Linda M. Peters look at labor negotiations and the use of interest-based bargaining in the rail and airline industries. They report that those who negotiate on behalf of labor unions tend to be much more skeptical of interest-based approaches than those who negotiate for management.

In another article, Archie Zariski takes an exhaustive look at the literature on mediation theory from the last several decades, in the process developing a comprehensive and flexible “theory matrix” for mediators.

Finally, Stephen Goldberg and Margaret Shaw return to the pages of Negotiation Journal to report what they learned about mediators and mediation practice after interviewing thirty-one of the fields “founders,” who began mediating in the 1970s and 1980s, when the field was young. These mediation pioneers describe what drew them to the field, how it has grown and  become institutionalized within the American legal system, and how they think it will continue to develop and change. 

Upcoming Issues:

Please check back for upcoming issue previews.

Online Resources

Visit the Wiley-Blackwell Negotiation Journal homepage to:

• Subscribe
• View the tables of contents of recent editions
• Read the Instructions to Contributors, and more

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

Mr. Henry Soles, the wealthy owner of a 1927 custom-made Bentley convertible has hired an agent to sell his car. A corporation has made an offer. The only other likely buyer is Amelia Austin. Mrs. Austin has asked her personal secretary to make an offer for the Bentley. There is no current market price for this unique automobile, although there is some data on various Rolls Royce and other Bentley models. The two representatives are meeting to negotiate the purchase.

MECHANICS:

After preparation for as little as 5 minutes, this one-on-one negotiation should take 20-40 minutes depending on the skillfulness of the participants. Average review time is 20-40 minutes, or 60-75 minutes if two participants are asked to negotiate the case in front of class.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

• Soles’s Representative

• Amelia Austin’s Agent

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This simple case was designed to explore positional bargaining in a classic situation where objective criteria are scarce. Techniques such as anchoring, asymptotic concessions, final offers, pleading lack of authority, low-balling, and so on, can usually be identified among participants’ negotiation tactics.

• The case also highlights the importance of the fear of being taken, and the role objective criteria can play in handling that fear.

• The sparseness of the criteria, however, encourage their use as justifications for rigid positions rather than partial data about what might seem fair. This allows a discussion of how the difference manifests in practice and what its consequences are.

• The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is clearly raised.

• The differences between agent and principal interests, authority, and strategy are easily explored.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Appleton Vs. Baker

• Parker-Gibson

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Interests, quantifying; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Reservation price

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

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:

• 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:

• Bakra Beverage

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

67 Fish Pond Lane in Cambridge, MA was purchased five years ago for $95,000 by two lawyers. Since then, its value has at least doubled. The owners, expecting to stay for some time, kept the house in excellent condition and added several unique features, including an elegant high-tech aviary for exotic birds. The owners recently moved to California, however, and the house has been on the market for a month. Two graduating business school students are interested in purchasing the house. One or both of them plan to meet with one or both of the owners while the latter are in town for a few days to see if a sale can be arranged.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is a little more natural as a one-on-one negotiation with absent partners, but two-on-two negotiations also work and provide some interesting team dynamics. All instructions are neutral as to sex and marital status.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Map

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

• Buyer(s)

• Seller(s)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching note

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise usually generates difficult negotiations. In this familiar context the stakes seem large, and while there are many objective criteria on point, they are neither fully consistent nor determinative. The tendency to haggle is strong, and a variety of bargaining tactics can be used. Review can explore which tactics were effective under what circumstances, and why.
• Many important concerns and legitimate criteria in the case are intangible and/or difficult to measure. This raises the question of how arguments can persuasively be turned into numbers.
• The exercise is a good one for focusing closely on what specific events cause parties to change their offers, and what brings them to the point of closing the deal.
• A discussion of deadlines, their effects and how to create them, is usually appropriate.
• Comparison of results also raises questions about what techniques, attitudes and tactics produce more competition and/or animosity? How does amicability correlate with pareto optimality of results?
• A variety of questions are raised concerning the concept of BATNA. How does a party’s perception of its BATNA affect conduct in the negotiation? How should it? How can BATNAs be improved? When is it ethical to try to change the other side’s BATNA for the worse? When not? What are some ways of doing that?
• This exercise also facilitates a rich post-mortem consideration of how the parties might have prepared better.

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Commitment; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The complaints clerk in a department store sees a customer coming with a blender recognizable as one of the store’s special super-sale items. The store cannot return these items to the manufacturer. The clerk has a small weekly budget to absorb the cost of such items, if returned, and the department head has instructed that it be used sparingly. The budget for this week is overspent. The customer, having used the blender for over a week, believes it is either defective or an inadequate appliance, and has therefore decided to return it.

MECHANICS:

This negotiation works well as one-on-one, but can be extended to two-on-one, by including another participant on either side. It takes no more than five minutes to run; debriefing can last up to half an hour with several replays. The exercise can be run as is, or one or both parties can be given additional psychological instructions about their character (making it more of a role play for that party, instead of a negotiation).

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes often resulting.
• Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party as relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem-solving.
• The persuasive effect of threats, cajoling, anger, helplessness, crying and other techniques can be explored.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for the Clerk

• Confidential Instructions for the Consumer

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Alplaus Supply Company

• Book Contract, The

• Death in the Family

• Software Return

SUBJECTS:

Consumer; Interpersonal; Psychological; Small claims

PROCESS THEMES:

Apologies; BATNA; Communication; Credibility; Emotions, role of; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Power imbalance; Threats; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

Also known as Chlorine Game

SCENARIO:

In light of recent evidence indicating that organochlorine compounds may pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has decided to gather a Working Group composed of representatives from eight countries, as well as four representatives from various relevant non-governmental organizations to produce a draft of an international treaty which would call for a phase out some of the most harmful organochlorines. Such a process entails resolution, at some level, of the scientific issues surrounding the potential dangers of widespread chlorine usage. Some argue that scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of chlorine is inconclusive, while environmental activists cite the issue as urgent. The issues that must be addressed are (i) how quickly and at what cost should organochlorines be phased out; (ii), which parties should bear the cost of the phase out; (iii) how should the Working Group be administrated and (iv) what impact should NGO’s have on the Working Group.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Underscores the relevance of general lessons about the “basic” skills of negotiations as they apply to multi-party, multi-issue negotiation: i.e. active listening, improving one’s BATNA, focusing on interests instead of positions, inventing options of mutual gain, etc.
• Enhances understanding about political dynamics and substantive outcomes likely to merge during an actual negotiation of a global treaty on organochlorines. Provides a means for exploring the technical, political and economic issues likely to be at stake in such a treaty negotiation.
• Imparts an understanding of the dynamics of international environmental treaty negotiations as they are currently conducted.
• Identifies who the critical actors in international environmental treaty negotiation are, what kinds of interests they bring to the table, why these interests are often seen to be in conflict, and how they might potentially be reconciled through a process of joint problem-solving.
• Emphasizes the importance of understanding the interests of internal constituencies and designing negotiation strategies which manage the link between internal and external negotiations. This game also teaches the importance of creating external coalitions without letting internal coalitions crumble.
• Demonstrates the value of organizing informal dialogue as a precursor to the formal convention-protocol treaty-making process.

MECHANICS:

This is a highly intensive exercise with considerable logistical requirements. A room with seating for 13 (or 25 depending on the number of participants) is required. Parties should be able to hear each other and the use of microphones is sometimes necessary. At least one break-out room is suggested. Given the long duration of this exercise, refreshments are also advised. This lengthy, complex case requires several hours of preparation time as well as several hours of negotiation time. Teaching staff are advised to be particularly well versed in these materials before commencing this game. Estimated Time Requirement8 hours spread over 2 days. The game can be played in an alternative short version which takes about 4 hours.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information
• Draft Convention on the Limitation of Chlorine in the Global Environment
• Memo to Director of the Departmnet of Multinational Trade Issues re UNEP Working Group on Global Management of Organochlorines

Role specific individual instructions for:

• International Council of Scientific Associations (ICSA) Negotiator
• International Union for the Conservation of the Environment (IUCE) Negotiator (including Proposal to License Substitute Products and Processes to Address the Global Chlorine Problem)
• Representative from GreenStrategies
• Chair of United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
• Representative from Czech Republic
• Representative from People’s Republic of China
• Representative from Germany (including Chlorine Reduction Proposal from the Federal Republic of Germany)
• Representative from the United States
• Representative from Brazil
• Representative from India
• Representative from Japan
• Representative from Norway (including Proposed Treaty Text for Licensing Agreement from Government of Norway)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
• Teaching Notes

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Multiparty negotiation; multi-lateral treaty making; environmental dispute resolution; mediating science-intensive policy disputes

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Durnia and Ebegon, two developing nations, have not yet settled their common border. This issue has become critical due to recent oil and mineral development opportunities that have arisen in areas of uncertain ownership. Unfortunately, the two departing colonialist powers left behind substantially overlapping claims, and the history of the region has been marked by tribal conflict. Relations have been deteriorating, and, with the good offices of the U.N., the two countries have sent teams to negotiate a border.

Each team is composed of representatives from its country’s Ministries of Foreign Relations, War, and Finance–each of which has a different perspective of the national interest. During the middle of the negotiations, war breaks out. Each side receives a telegram blaming the war on the other side, but the military situation is so fluid that each side is also instructed to seek a cease-fire, a withdrawal of troops, and a resolution of the border, on the best possible terms. Any cease-fire must take into account the fact that where the troops end up will very likely determine the de facto border, unless other arrangements are carefully made.

MECHANICS:

Each team should prepare thoroughly, including meeting ahead of time to negotiate priorities and to discuss strategy. The principal negotiation between the two country delegations takes place in two hours.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• U.N. Report on Background of Dispute – includes maps

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for Durnian Diplomats

• Confidential Instructions for Ebegonian Diplomats.

• Initial War Telegram & War Map for Durnian Diplomats

• Initial War Telegram & War Map for Ebegonian Diplomats

• Subsequent War Telegram for Durnian Diplomats

• Subsequent War Telegram for Ebegonian Diplomats

Teacher’s Package (24 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teacher’s Instructions

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This simulation provides a good vehicle for experimenting with different negotiating strategies. There are a fair number of interests with varying intensities, some shared, some dove-tailing, and other others conflicting. Options for joint gain are plentiful. There are a number of objective criteria as well, in the form of natural features and historical boundaries with varying degrees of legitimacy. Hence, there is no obvious “most fair” solution, and skillful semi-positional bargainers can do quite well.

• The outbreak of the war can have various effects, depending on the relationship and communication patterns established by the negotiators up to that point.

• Information exchange is helpful in ameliorating the military crisis and developing intelligent solutions that maximize joint gains. On the other hand, much advantage can be gained by not revealing certain important pieces of information — raising questions of deception and misrepresentation.

• The simulation provides a good study of the effects of shifting degrees of risk. The war version places the parties under pressure that may result in a power imbalance.

• Comparisons between internal and international negotiations are illustrative.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Arms Control in Cobia
• Kaotian Crisis
• Tulia and Ibad

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Creativity; Ethics; Fairness; Force; Group Process; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of “success”; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Objective Criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Personality; Political constraints, dealing with; Power imbalance; Preparation; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Reality testing; Risk aversion; Systems of negotiations; Threats

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

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

MAJOR LESSONS:

• To insure relationships that promote quality within the organization, both long-term and short-term interests must be balanced very thoroughly.

• This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful internal negotiations on successful external negotiations. Thorough preparation is absolutely critical in this negotiation.

• Don’t jeopardize long-term relationships by pushing too hard for short-term gains.

• Effective cross-cultural negotiation depends upon making sure what you are saying is what is being heard and that you are hearing what is said. Clear communication is critical.

SIMILAR SITUATIONS:

• Common Measures

• BMP Policy

• Multisumma

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The country of Zalada achieved independence in 1962. It maintains friendly relations with Colonia, its former ruler.

Last week, two Zaladan drivers employed by the Colonian embassy were arrested, jailed, and reportedly beaten. They were traveling in an official embassy car at the time of their arrest; all other details of their arrest and detention were vague.

Over the past week, the incident has escalated. Some news reports have characterized the drivers’ behavior as an insult to Zalada, while others have characterized the arrests as an insult to Colonia. Politicians on both sides have called for measures as severe as economic sanctions and the breaking of diplomatic relations.

The drivers remain in jail. The First Secretary of the Colonian Embassy has requested and been granted an appointment to meet with the Zaladan Deputy Minister of Justice for Security Affairs.

TEACHER’S PACK INCLUDES:

• General Instructions

• Confidential Instructions for the First Secretary of the Colonian Embassy and the Zaladan Deputy Minister of Justice for Security Affairs

No Teaching Note Currently Available

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Version A: Axis Electronics is a huge Silicon Valley-based computer firm with its Microcomputer Development division of sixty employees located just outside Boston. Richard Van Heusen, Executive Vice President of Microcomputer Development, hired Denise Webster, a life-long New Englander with high academic credentials in microcomputers, to work as a manager in the division; she is the first female manager in that division, and the only professional woman with whom Richard has dealt in twenty years of business. An extremely challenging work assignment (solo development of a mouse/drawing pad prototype), followed by a series of social advances by Richard, leads Denise to work at home and miss work without explanation. Richard, stating that the project is in jeopardy and that Denise is not committed to Axis, demotes her from her position as project head and gives her notice of termination. Denise’s attorney meets with Axis’ in-house counsel to discuss the situation and attempt to resolve it before commencing any formal legal activity. Neither party knows much about the other’s interest. Resolution of the situation is possible without litigation; while there are salary and profit figures to be handled, and agreement should not occur unless the specific problems of possible sexual harassment and gender discrimination between Richard and Denise are discussed and settled, and a company policy and grievance process for future situations is discussed as well.

Version B: Same as Version A, except that Axis Electronics is a 500-employee computer firm located in Massachusetts; Denise is not specified to be a lifelong New Englander, and has experience with personal computers as well as microcomputers. In this version, it may be possible to gloss over the current situation, but it will not be possible to reach an agreement which involves rehiring Denise but does not set up a company policy and grievance process for handling future situations involving possible sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

MECHANICS:

The exercise works best with one attorney per side. The parties’ instructions require 20-30 minutes to read and analyze. Negotiation can take 40-50 minutes; review can last anywhere from 40-90 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS (Both Versions):

For all parties:

• Review Questionnaire

Role Specific:

• Axis Electronics Attorney
• Denise Webster’s Attorney

Teacher’s Package (26 pages total):

• All of the above material
• Teaching Note
• List of Suggested Readings

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The partisan perceptions on each side can contribute to difficulty in understanding the other party’s “take” on the situation and its causes. Attempts to educate can take place at two levels: educating the other negotiator, and educating the client. Participants can discuss how partisan perceptions affected their acceptance of differing interpretations of the case at hand, and the methods they used to try to educate their negotiating partner. The group can discuss possible ways to educate clients, in the initial interviews and in the post-negotiation discussion and presentation of an agreement for approval (this will be helpful for the client memos each side is required to write after the exercise and review).
• Fairness and power imbalance questions are triggered by the issues of sexual harassment and gender discrimination present in the exercise. These two problems can be specifically addressed, or they can be broadened to serve as a base of discussion of difference issues in negotiating. Participants can explore the possibilities of miscommunication, societal causes, how the presence of a possible stereotype or difference affects negotiating strategy, and how to balance a desire for social change with the client’s interests in this case.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Casino
• Case of the Puerile Printer
• Weathers and Evans

PROCESS THEMES:

Attorney/Client relations; BATNA; Disclosure; Issues of difference; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Interests, internal ordering; Lawyering; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Power imbalance

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Department of Human Services is the state agency charged with, among other things, the selection of foster parents in whose homes children will eventually be placed. The need for foster parents is high and is growing. The DHS interviews Baker and Irwin, a gay couple, finds them to be very qualified, and places two foster children with them. The World publishes and article on the foster placement, and an uproar ensues. DHS announces a new policy which limits social workers’ discretion in approving foster parents and states that homosexuality is a detrimental factor in determining eligibility. The two children are removed from Baker & Irwin’s home and are placed with another family. The attorney from the Lesbian and Gay Advocates and Defenders meets with an attorney from DHS to discuss possible out of court settlements to the lawsuit brought by Baker and Irwin. The parties have competing interests, both with each other and internally. LGAD is anxious to have high publicity, but Baker and Irwin would prefer to be out of the spotlight. DHS has a potential conflict between the interests of the department and those of the governor, who is running for President and wants only positive publicity. Resolution of the situation is possible, but will require that each party address the competing concerns at both levels.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is designed to work with one attorney per side. The parties’ instructions require 20-30 minutes to read and analyze. Negotiation takes about 1 hour, and review can run anywhere from 40-90 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

• DHS Attorney
• LGAD Attorney

Teacher’s package (18 pages total):

• All of the above material
• Teaching notes

MAJOR LESSONS:

• When the interests of constituents and clients are in competition, negotiators are in a difficult position. This difficulty is compounded when the negotiator’s own values or interests in an issue are strong. Participants can discuss how these multiple interests affected their approaches to the negotiation and eventual settlement.
• Different perceptions and different interests may lead to different conclusions about the desirability of negotiated settlements over litigation. Participants can explore the potential impacts of each method on the interests of their parties, and can discuss how to balance these interests.
• Negotiators who must present settlements to the public may feel different levels of flexibility than those who negotiate in public. Participants can discuss how the impending press conference altered their behavior during the negotiation and how it impacted the final drafting of a settlement.

PROCESS THEMES:

Difference Issues; Fairness; Interests; Legitimacy; Options, generating; Power imbalance

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

Jamie Jackson, the Vice President for Programming at a large software company, is meeting with Allison Shore, one of the programming managers. Allison’s team has been working on a “virtual casino” computer game. Jamie is concerned about negative internal reviews of the Casino prototype, and about the way in which Allison has been managing her programmers. Allison, on the other hand, is insulted by some recent unfriendly treatment from her colleagues and the negative reaction to Casino. She is also convinced that she is paid less than her male counterparts. Though the main objective of this meeting is to determine the fate of the Casino program, the various side issues should make the meeting interesting.

This case is particularly well-suited for use in connection with the book “Difficult Conversations,” also available through the Clearinghouse.

MECHANICS:

The parties’ instructions require at least 15 minutes to read and analyze. Negotiation can take 30 minutes; review can last anywhere from 30-60 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party as relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem solving.
• The skills involved in separating the people from the problem are especially apropos in this negotiation as emotions between formerly friendly people may run high.
• If the participants choose to try to resolve workplace environment difficulties, they must face the difficulties of ordering the behavior of those around them.

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Disclosure; Issues of difference; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Interests, internal ordering; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Power imbalance

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

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

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

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

MECHANICS:

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

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Map

Role Specific:

• General instructions for the Neighbor Representatives

Confidential Instructions for:

• Cab Driver (Version A Only)

• Carpenter

• Dentist

• Lawyer

• Retired Executive

• Shopkeeper

General Instructions for Construction Company

Confidential Instructions for:

• General Counsel (Version A only)

• Senior Vice President (Version A Only)

• Senior Vice President/ General Counsel (Version B Only)

• Vice President of Construction Management

• Vice President of Marketing & Development

Teacher’s Package (34 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

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

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

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

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

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

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

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:

• All of the above

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

from $0.00

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

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

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

MECHANICS:

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

TEACHER’S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• John Eazer’s Attorney

• Susan Garfield’s Attorney

• Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)

• Sample Preparation Memo

Teacher’s Package (30 pages total):

• All of the Above

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

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

PROCESS THEMES:

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

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Recent publicity in a prominent national newspaper about the town of Niceville’s expanding homeless population, has caused the Ledbetter Foundation to address the issue of homelessness with a one-time grant of $500,000. The simulation explores the role a facilitator can play in this type of community problem-solving effort. The stakeholders represent five different attitudes towards homelessness which are sometimes contrary, yet lend themselves to coalition building. It is up to the foundation representative to reconcile the parties’ philosophical differences to develop a satisfactory “package”. 

MAJOR LESSONS:

• It is important to distinguish stated positions from underlying interests. In order to reach a successful conclusion each party must prioritize its desired outcomes and be willing to forgo some to achieve others.
• The facilitator must be able to keep the discussion focused on the “issues” and not allow disagreements among the parties to bog down the group.
• The group should take advantage of private discussions or caucuses. Though no two groups will agree on everything, coalition building will be helpful in building consensus.
• All interests should be fully represented in the discussions for as long as possible; however, the game requires only four of the five players (excluding the foundation representative) to reach agreement. It is up to the stakeholder to decide how flexible they will be in light of the fact that they run the risk of being excluded. The group as a whole must determine the advantages and disadvantages of excluding a stakeholder.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General instructions
• Map of Niceville
• Background information on relevant stakeholders present at the meeting
• Suggested proposals for grant money
• Newspaper article on homelessness in Niceville
• Worksheet for negotiation preparation

Role Specific:

• Homeless shelter operator
• Director of the Governor’s Task Force on Homelessness
• Representative from the Homeless Union
• Chair of the Niceville Homeowners Association
• Chair of the Community Service League

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Notes on logistics, debrief questions and bibliography for further reading.

KEYWORDS:

Community foundation; facilitation; philanthropy; social service; homelessness; multiparty negotiation, consensus building

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

Blueville Health Foundation; Wintertime in Winterville; Franklin Family Foundation; Westbrook Regional School District