from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Rudfurd’s Home Repairs was contacted by John Smithfield to perform an estimate on porch repairs. Upon the arrival of the company workers, it was determined that a hole would have to be placed in the top of the ceiling of the porch in order to assess the extent of the wood rot. The Smithfields had no problem with this, as long as the hole could be repaired. A communication breakdown occurred between the Smithfields and Rudfurd surrounding the repair of the hole and Mr. Smithfield has filed a claim in small claims court.

MECHANICS:

This mediation exercise takes about 10-15 minutes for reading and preparation. It is a one-on-one simulation and takes approximately 20-45 minutes for the actual mediation. Videotaping can be helpful for self-evaluation and group review. “A Brief Outline of the Mediation Process,” in Other Materials, is useful as background reading for the mediator. “An Actual Small Claims Mediated Agreement,” is useful as follow-up reading, especially if mediators have been asked to draft any agreement reached. (Hand this out after the mediators have finished their own try at drafting).

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case is useful as a teaching tool for small claims mediators. Mediators can test their skills in dealing with parties who feel that court is a waste of time and the procedural process invalidates the notion of fairness.

• Participants should be able to generate creative options after assessing the interests of the participants involved. It is appropriate to use objective criteria and to also consider Smithfield’s BATNA.

• In considering the meeting design, the mediator can should assess the value of caucuses, as well as test his or her skill in making the parties view and understand the other party’s interests.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Information for:

• Smithfield

• Rudfurd

• Basic Fact Sheet for Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Credibility; Drafting; Fairness; Information exchange; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Mediation; Meeting design; Message analyst; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Reality testing

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Allied, Benevolent, and Caring Services are three nonprofit social service providers competing for state social service funding. The state funding agency has decided to increase its annual budget but will provide additional funds only to a consortium of two or more providers. Each provider must decide whether to cooperate with the other providers in order to pursue state funds, and if so, how these funds should be divided among the cooperating providers.

NOTE: The underlying mathematical structure of this exercise is similar to that of the exercises The Parking Facility Venture, Rushing River Cleanup and the Three-Party Coalition Exercise.

MECHANICS:

This game is designed for three participants, one per role. Game instructions require 5 minutes to read; additional preparation time is desirable. Negotiations require 15 to 20 minutes; more time is useful. A second version of the case includes a mediator as a fourth party.

Before or after the negotiation, participants should be asked to read “Coalition Analysis,” Chapter 17 in The Art and Science of Negotiation by Howard Raiffa (Harvard University Press, 1982). The mathematical structure of the exercise is thoroughly and clearly discussed there.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The dynamics of coalition formation in an unstable situation are illustrated. When many groups of three are playing, outcomes can be explored illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of different negotiating tactics.

• The power of seemingly “weak” players can be enhanced through the creation of blocking coalitions.

• Howard Raiffa’s concept of “offers that cannot readily be refused” is illustrated in this game.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

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

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 retail software store sees a customer approaching, carrying a software package (without the box) that the store sold at a special price last week. The software cannot be returned to the manufacturer under these circumstances. The clerk has already exceeded their weekly returns budget. The customer has been unable to get the package to work.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The scenario makes it very easy to slip into an unprofitable negative mode of negotiation, based almost entirely on reaction. Unsatisfactory outcomes almost always result.

• Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party as relevant can usually engage in mutually beneficial joint problem-solving.

• The persuasive effects of threats, cajoling, anger, helplessness, looking pathetic, and other techniques can be explored.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This simulation focuses on a dispute between two private organizations and a city over speech rights that will or won’t be granted as part of a permit for a festival on city property. It also explores the role of attorneys representing their clients in negotiated agreements around values-based disputes.

In Springfield OutFest, Springfield Pride is a local advocacy organization that supports the city of Springfield’s sizeable lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Springfield Pride’s largest event of the year, by far, is the OutFest, an annual street festival permitted by the city of Springfield to celebrate National Coming Out Day, to and support and affirm LGBT identity. In addition to drawing large, supportive crowds, the festival also attracts members of the public who oppose the message of the festival and LGBT lifestyles in general. One group in particular, Salvation Now!, is a nationwide network of grassroots religious and social campaigners who seek to bring their religious message directly to those they consider to be living sinful lifestyles. The local Salvation Now! organizers have been a regular and increasingly visible presence at the OutFest over the past several years, including last year. Salvation Now! members arrived at the OutFest, megaphones at the ready, and began broadcasting a message that many at the festival found offensive and hateful. Springfield Pride had organized a human buffer of numerous volunteers, who were prepared to to shield the crowd from the protesters. The volunteers carried massive signs to block the signs of the protesters and blew whistles to drown out their megaphones. As tensions mounted, the police arrested several Salvation Now! members for refusing to follow police instructions and disrupting the peace. Although these criminal charges were eventually dropped, the confrontation dampened the festival atmosphere and attracted quite a bit of unfavorable media attention to the city of Springfield and the OutFest.

The simulation begins one year later. Springfield Pride has just submitted its permit application for this year’s upcoming OutFest. Fearing either an escalation of last year’s confrontation or legal liability and court challenges, the city has requested a meeting with all parties to try to agree on some parameters and rules before this year’s festival.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

There are six roles to be assigned:

• Springfield Pride (D. Jones, Chair of the OutFest Organizing Committee and R. Altman, Attorney for Springfield Pride)
• Salvation Now! (B. Riley, Executive Director, Salvation Now! and G. Chiles, Attorney for Salvation Now!)
• City of Springfield (C. Porter, Attorney and Head of the City Permitting Department)
• Mediator

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• All of the above
• Jennifer Gerarda Brown, Peacemaking in the Culture War Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty, 95 Iowa Law Review 747 (2010).
• Teaching notes

TEACHING POINTS:

The most important objective of this exercise is to demonstrate that assisted negotiation (i.e., mediation) can be used to resolve values-based disputes, not just interest-based disputes. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties and their attorneys can craft a settlement that does not require them to compromise their fundamental beliefs or values. Key teaching points include:

• Avoiding threats to individual identity
• Stressing the human element
• Overarching values
• Understanding the interests of the parties
• Focusing on both short-term and longer-term solutions
• Learning when is no agreement the best agreement

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Springfield Outfest is one of a 3-part series of simulations focused on the mediation of values-based disputes. The other two simulations in the series are Ellis v. MacroB and Williams v. Northville.

If you wish to purchase all three simulations at a discount we have a bundle option available click here. You can also download a PDF version of “Teaching about the Mediation of Values-Based and Identity-Based Disputes”.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A hospital in a large urban center is struggling to improve patient care, meet financial obligations, and resolve inter-professional differences. A new Medical Management Model, under which physicians assume responsibility and accountability for the operation of all medical services, has been developed by the Chief of Medicine. The CEO and Chief Financial Officer have both supported the model, as well as the new Management Information System on which it rests. Other members of the hospital community–most notably the Vice President for Nursing and the most senior Attending Physician–are either opposed to its adoption or determined to obtain some compensating benefits if they go along with it. The CEO has called a meeting of these five major players to see if they can reach agreement on four issues facing the Executive and the Board of Directors. If the CEO cannot obtain agreement on a package, the Board will make decisions on these issues; none of the managers would be happy with that outcome.

MECHANICS:

Time Requirements:

This five-party exercise requires approximately 3 1/2 hours to play and debrief; additional preparation time is useful. Negotiations require a minimum of 90 minutes. General instructions are distributed at some point prior to the start of the exercise. At least 20 minutes should be given for reading the general instructions, 20 minutes for the confidential instructions and 20 minutes for same-role group discussion — giving players time for preparation and strategy. Allow 90-105 minutes for negotiating and 45-60 minutes for debriefing.

Facility needs:

Room with seating and writing materials for 5. At least one private breakout room is highly recommended.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Interests vs. positions – Many difficult negotiations start with parties offering their positions. It is important to identify the underlying interest behind these positions. Focusing on interests encourages the parties to listen carefully to each other so as to discover what each considers important. This encourages joint problem-solving rather than adversarial posturing.

• Different values and priorities facilitate agreement building: When parties value issues differently, the possibility of reaching an agreement is high if the parties are able to identify these differences during the negotiation. Awareness of different preferences and values can enable negotiators to work together and structure agreements which create maximum value for all parties.

• Trading across options to create a package: Packaging involves putting together a proposal that provides solutions to a set of problems. In many negotiations, no agreement can be made by dealing with each issue separately. However, agreement can be reached by parties trading across all the issues.

• Coalitions: The building of coalitions is an important consideration in multi-party negotiation. It is important for parties to ask themselves, “who might share my interest? If we unite as a coalition, might be able to block agreements that do not meet our interests? How stable is our coalition and who are my preferred coalition partners?” Coalitions are likely to be fragile and unstable. Members of coalitions should for ways to strengthen the coalition. This will frequently involve paying close attention to coalition members’ interests and priorities.

• The Mediator or Manager: Managers frequently function as mediators. The skillful use of mediation techniques can benefit not only the manager personally, but also the participants as a whole, in terms of maximizing value.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Fact Sheet from Executive Summary prepared by hospital consultants

Role specifics:

Confidential Instructions for

• Dr. M. Mason, M.D., Chief of Medicine

• C. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer

• N. MacNamara, Senior Vice President of Nursing

• G. Bennett, CEO

• Dr. A. Parker, M.D., Senior Attending Physician

Teacher’s Package (58 pages):

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

KEYWORDS:

Health care negotiations; multi-party negotiations; managed conflict inside the organization

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Williams Medical Center

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Marlene Mayberry and Jacques Parker are young adults planning their marriage. After dating for 3 years, they have prepared a list of 10 assets that they have decided to include in a prenuptial agreement. The items include a joint checking account, a car, an apartment, furniture, an art gallery, Jacques’ artwork, a portrait of Marlene, California real estate, a $1 million inheritance, and a pet dog. Jacques and Marlene are given confidential instructions that outline specific point values and resistance points for these items. They will each be awarded “Tangible Points” for the assets they claim for themselves in the prenuptial agreement. There are numerous opportunities for value-creating trades among the 10 assets.

At the same time, Jacques and Marlene are instructed to consider the importance of the relationship throughout the negotiation. After the division of all the items has been decided upon, they independently fill out questionnaires that ask them to evaluate each other on five attributes to determine the amount of “Process Points” they are awarded. The five attributes are respect, trustworthiness, understanding of the other’s needs, openness to future negotiations, and general fondness. These attributes serve as proxies for assessing the future of the relationship based on their experiences during the negotiation. Marlene and Jacques aim to maximize their individual total scores, which are the sums of their Tangible Points and their Process Points. A total point minimum, or Marriage Minimum, is included for each player to gauge the overall success of the negotiation.

The primary teaching points for this simulation include the importance of balancing substantive and process/relationship concerns and the power of trading on differing interests in order to create value in negotiation.

Participants Materials include:

• General instructions for both parties

Materials for Jacques Parker:

• Confidential Instructions

• Score Sheet for tangible items claimed

• Process Evaluation of Marlene

Materials for Marlene Mayberry:

• Confidential instructions

• Score Sheet for tangible items claimed

• Process Evaluation of Jacques

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Two police officers on routine patrol were stopped at 2:30 a.m. by a woman screaming that she had been raped by a man in a nearby car. When approached, the man fled, but was soon apprehended. The woman’s story bears a remarkable similarity to that of another woman for whose alleged brutal rape the man, Huntley, was recently acquitted. However, the knife the victim describes cannot be found, and the woman has announced that she will not testify against Huntley in court for fear of ridicule if he is not convicted. The prosecutor is running for higher office, and has regularly emphasized stiffer sentencing for sex crimes as a campaign theme. This prosecutor was disqualified from Huntley’s last trial for prejudice, after a remark about castration. The public defender is the same attorney who defended Huntley at his last trial. Both sides have some obvious problems with their cases, and a variety of other conflicting and complementary interests in scheduling and attitudes toward alternative treatment programs. They are meeting to discuss a possible plea bargain.

MECHANICS:

The case benefits from careful preparation. Most participants will take some time to become familiar with the basics of the criminal justice system and the mechanics of sentencing. Negotiation time runs between 30 and 60 minutes. Review can vary from an hour to two. The case was designed as a one-on-one negotiation.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case presents the classic lawyer’s conflict of personal values and professional role in salient, traditional context. It is based on a real case and is almost brutally realistic. Given the tremendous discretion available, it is highly relevant to ask how personal feeling could not influence the outcome, and how you would measure whether or to what extent it had. From a larger view, one can ask whether, in fact, the system does not expect and rely on the exercise of just such personal discretion, and if so, how we feel about that. What regulatory mechanisms are there? How should the system weigh the probability of future harm against procedural rights? Under what circumstances, if any, are non-absolute answers to this question not destructive of the moral foundations of the system?

• Cooperative, competitive, and principled approaches are each likely to lead to quite different outcomes, raising questions about which is better, for whom, and why.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Police Officer’s Investigation Report

• Overview of the Plea Bargaining Process

• Rehabilitation Programs for Sex Offenders in Maine

• Assorted Crime and Sentencing Statistics

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Prosecutor

• Public Defender

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Attorney/Client relations; Commitment; Compliance; Credibility; Delay tactics; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Issue control; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Power imbalance; Precedents; Public opinion; Recurring negotiations; Relationship; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Time constraints

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:

Although a Professor has a “no-extension” policy, he has granted two extensions: one to a student who had a death in the family, and the other to a student unexpectedly admitted into the hospital. A third student is about to meet with the Professor also hoping for an extension. Passing the course is crucial for the student, but the excuse for lateness is not as serious as the precedents.

MECHANICS:

There is little factual preparation needed, but some strategic thinking is a good idea. The negotiation should last 5-15 minutes. Videotaping is useful for reviewing nonverbal communication.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise can be used for a number of purposes. It was designed to explore psychological awareness and illustrate emotional reactions and nonverbal communication.

• The problem tests skills in separating the people from the problem.

• It also presents a temptation for misrepresentation that can generate appropriate discussion.

• The salience of the issue for many participants tends to bring out their “natural” negotiating style for observation, analysis, and increased awareness.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Student

• Professor

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Communication; Credibility; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Personality; Power imbalance; Precedents; Psychological games; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Trust; Yesable propositions

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:

Two surgeons mistakenly amputate the wrong (healthy) leg of a patient. They were found liable in a previous trial and ordered to pay $1 million in damages.

The controlling law in this case mandates a rule of strict contributory negligence. This means that whoever is found to be more responsible for the accident will have to pay the entire $1 million judgment. This exercise represents the current suit between the two surgeons to determine who will have to pay the judgment.

Each participant in this exercise plays either a surgeon or an attorney; and each surgeon-attorney pair is matched with a second surgeon-attorney pair in the lawsuit. The outcome of the lawsuit will be determined by comparing hands of playing cards. At each stage of the litigation, the surgeons must decide (with the advice of their attorneys) whether to proceed with the litigation or attempt to settle.

Teacher’s Pack includes:

• Confidential Instructions for the Client

• Confidential Instructions for the Lawyer

• No Teaching Note currently available

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Summitville Service Agreement is a two-team, four-party, co-mediated, multi-issue simulation involving a property tax dispute between the small Canadian town of Summitville and the Antler Cove band living on a reservation just outside town limits.

The context of the dispute is that the Band has recently gained the right to tax non-Indian properties on its reserve land, and therefore the town can no longer tax those properties. Consequently, tax revenues are no longer available to the town to fund municipal services, and the Band and town must negotiate how those services will be provided to reserve land and at what cost to the Band. The key issue is a difference in perception regarding taxation authority. The town views this negotiation as simply defining a fee-for-service arrangement, where the Band should reimburse the town for municipal services that the town provides to Band property. In contrast, the Band perceives that the town is trying to infringe upon its sovereignty by requiring payment for town administration expenses when the Band is running its own government.

While the substantive issues related to crafting an acceptable service agreement are real and difficult, participants may discover through the mediation process that the broader relationship between the town and the Band must also be addressed.

MECHANICS:

Time require (5 hours total):

• 45 minutes for preparation

• 3.5 hours for simulation

• 45 minutes for debrief

Group Size:

• 6 participants (4 parties and 2 co-mediators)

Materials required:

• General Instructions, including map and letters to the editor

Confidential Instructions for:

• Mayor of Summitville B. Bolton (Town Representative)

• Town Administrator T. Steeves (Town Representative)

• Chief of Antler Cove Band A. John (Band Representative)

• Band Administrator S. Robert (Band Representative)

• Two co-mediators

• Game logistics

• Flip charts and Markers

TEACHING POINTS:

• Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) on key issues
  

• Managing hierarchies within and across organizations

• The mediators’ role in framing the issues

• Activity and style of the mediators

• Maintaining control of the process and enforcing ground rules

• Challenges and advantages of co-mediation

from $0.00

SCENARIO:
This is a two-party negotiation between the attorney for an injured party (Adam Sidwell) and general counsel for a toy equipment manufacturer (Kiddie Craze, Inc., or KCI), regarding the possible settlement of a personal injury lawsuit. 42-year-old Sidwell was rendered a paraplegic after diving headfirst onto KCI’s Super Slipster toy, a long plastic slide that becomes extremely slippery when wet. If the attorneys do not reach a settlement, the case will proceed to a jury trial.

TEACHING POINTS:

• The tension between value creation and value distribution, along with basic distributive negotiation concepts such as reservation value, aspiration value, anchoring, best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), and zone of possible agreement (ZOPA).
• The importance of preparation. Each party is given a fairly large amount of information, much of it quantitative. These materials can be used to create objective criteria that could be useful during the negotiation.
• The effects of information asymmetries and information disclosure and/or non-disclosure on the negotiation process.
• The benefits and challenges inherent in negotiating as a representative rather than as a principal.
• The dynamics particular to negotiating in the shadow of the law (i.e., when the alternative to reaching agreement is clearly litigation).

PARTICIPANT MATERIALS INCLUDE:

General Instructions for both parties

Confidential Instructions for:

• Kiddie Craze, Inc.’s general counsel
• Adam Sidwell’s attorney

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching note
• Sample Seven-Element Preparation Sheet (handout)

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Three members of a newly-formed five-person work team at a factory are meeting with their supervisor and the union steward. Recently the team has taken on more responsibility for daily decisions about assignments, ordering supplies, and scheduling. This change has resulted in increased conflict as well as increased teamwork.

The meeting is scheduled for only forty minutes, and it includes a number of agenda items submitted by each of the participants. Each participant is responsible for presenting the item that s/he put on the agenda, for preparing to address the other agenda items, and for identifying desirable (or at least acceptable) outcomes for each of the agenda items.

Teaching points include agenda control, time management techniques, effect of time pressure on substantive outcome, balancing long- and short- term interests, impact of absent parties, and relationship maintenance skills.

Teacher’s Pack includes:

Confidential instructions for:

• Team Advisor

• Team Leader

• Union Steward

• High seniority Manufacturing Technician

• Low seniority Manufacturing Technician

• No Teaching Note currently available.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Advanced Sensor Technologies (AST) is a leading manufacturer of chemical sensors. Technology Equipment Partners (TEP) manufactures the type of equipment AST uses to produce its sensors. AST and TEP are meeting to set the terms of a potential joint development and purchasing agreement. Three senior executives from each company will negotiate. They will try to reach agreement on four issues: tool price, order schedule, payment schedule, and intellectual property.

TEACHING POINTS:

The game is designed to facilitate a discussion of the mutual gains (or joint gains) approach to technology negotiations. However, the debriefing session can be tailored to meet the level of negotiation expertise of the players. Possible debriefing topics include:

• The basic tenets of the mutual gains approach : prepare, create value, distribute value, and follow through
• Which technology issues affected the negotiations, and how? For example, you can focus the players on issues such as technological uncertainty, the impact of different levels of technology awareness on negotiation process and outcome, and how the technology context affect the extent to which negotiators can and should prepare, establish alternatives to negotiated agreements, define the rules of the game, elicit objective standards, and focus on agreement compliance.

Participant materials include:

• General instructions for all participants

Confidential instructions for:

• AST’s Vice-President of Engineering

• AST’s Vice-President of Operations

• AST’s Vice-President of Procurement

• TEP’s Vice-President of Engineering

• TEP’s Vice-President of Business Development

• TEP’s Vice-President of Sales

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:

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 teacher about 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

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Data Voice markets telecommunications (“telecom”) services to residential and business customers. This year, a small firm called Consulting Integration needs to renew and adjust its telecom services contract with Data Voice.

This will be Consulting Integration’s second three-year telecom services contract with Data Voice. Technical specialist Robin Rigley represents Consulting Integration in the service contract negotiations, and regional sales manager Kelsey Kidd represents Data Voice.

Robin and Kelsey have to negotiate a difficult issue: the number of integrated voice/data/video workstation setups. With a large part of its business devoted to onsite client consulting, Consulting Integration does not currently require the integrated workstation packages that Data Voice offers. However, when Consulting Integration’s website improvements begin to expand its offsite consulting services, the need for integrated workstation packages may grow.

Before Data Voice expanded its telecom platforms, Data Voice lost many clients who preferred to maintain telecom service agreements with a single carrier. In response, Data Voice began to offer data and video telecom services, bundling them in package agreements like those of their competitors. Because of the additional networking hardware required to offer these services, Data Voice has had to expand its technical, operational, and customer service divisions threefold. Thus, Data Voice can no longer afford to continue contracts restricted to voice-only packages. As the regional sales manager, Kelsey Kidd is responsible for giving each client a “fair” number of voice-only packages. These “fair” numbers are based on the total number of workstations the client fits out, and on Kelsey’s judgment of each client’s need for voice-only setups.

Robin and Kelsey are about to meet to discuss their telecom services contract adjustment and renewal.

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

• Creating value in negotiation through trading on different priorities

• Pareto optimization/ maximization

• Tension between creating and claiming (or distributing) value

• Effect of aspiration and reservation values on negotiated outcomes

• Importance of responding and adjusting to new information in negotiation

TEACHING MATERIALS INCLUDE:

General Instructions:

• For both parties

Confidential Instructions for:

• Kelsey Kidd, Regional Sales Manager for Data Voice, Ltd.

• Robin Rigley, Technical Specialist for Consulting Integration, Inc.

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Telemachus Technology is a non-scoreable, three-party negotiation exercise set in a high technology business context. The simulation involves an African-American female compute consultant, her white male manager, and her white male assigned mentor. The three are meeting to discuss the consultant’s role in an upcoming presentation to a large corporate client.

This exercise requires the participants to negotiate a solution to a business problem within the context of an ill-defined mentorship program and complex working relationships involving supervisors and direct reports. It raises a range of issues around workplace diversity (including identity and communication), integrative negotiation, and negotiation within a line of supervision.

Teacher’s Pack includes:

• General Instructions

Confidential Instructions for:

• Shataya Davis (Mentee)

• Bill Meese (Mentor)

• Jack Youngblood (Manager)

• Teaching Note

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:

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

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 light fixtures that were ordered for the new airport terminal projects have gone through a series of delays, and are now not coming at all. The Airport Authority’s engineer just learned about this, but the contractor asserts that he sent a memo concerning the problem weeks ago. There is some disagreement over this issue. The terminal project needs the light fixtures in order to be completed on schedule. The two parties are meeting to discuss the problem.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Good preparation of the case requires accurate assessment of BATNAs, deciding what information to keep confidential, and anticipating the other party’s demands.

• The two parties have to work in order to get the terminal ready in time, despite hurt feelings concerning the problem.
  

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Pat Thibideau had worked at Kane Restaurant Supply for fifteen years before being terminated at age 66. Thibideau sued Kane under the Federal Age Discrimination Act, alleging that the termination was pursuant to Kane’s illegal mandatory retirement policy.

The case has been in court for approximately one year, and substantial discovery has been completed. At Kane’s suggestion, the parties and their counsel are now meeting to discuss settlement.

Teaching points include:

• The value of exploring the interests underlying state positions

• The value of generating creative options for resolution

• The tensions inherent in principal-agent relationships

• The power of apology

Teacher’s Pack Includes:

• General Instructions

Confidential Instructions for

• Thibideau

• Thibideau’s Counsel

• Kane

• Kane’s Counsel

• No teaching note currently available

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:

Theotis Wiley is a promising young basketball player with a checkered past. Erive is a small shoe manufacturing company about to launch a new line of basketball shoes. Erive’s Vice-President of Business Development has asked to meet with Theotis’ agent regarding the possibility of an endorsement deal. Neither party knows much about the other party’s interests or alternatives. NOTE: This simulation was adapted from, and is structurally similar to, the Sally Soprano simulation.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• In this case, both parties have relatively weak BATNAs (“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”). The case affords a good opportunity to discuss the relationship between BATNA and reservation value (sometimes called a “bottom line”), and the effect of one’s BATNA — and of other party’s BATNA — on the negotiation process and outcome.

• The available data allow a number of arguments about how much money a “fair” endorsement deal would involve. Participants can practice using objective criteria both as a sword and as a shield, and grapple with the challenge of judging the applicability of multiple objective criteria.

• The case allows for the creation of various options separate from the contract value issue, which can maximize joint gains for both parties. While the case can be negotiated in a very distributive manner, by focusing only on the salary issue, there is ample room for integrative bargaining.

• Each party in the case is privy to relevant information of which the other party is unaware, which allows for interesting learning points around information disclosure. On the one hand, substantive information exchange can facilitate value creation. On the other hand, by revealing too much information, on runs the risk of being exploited by the other side.

• Because the case is structured as a negotiation between representatives rather than principals, it can generate useful discussion regarding the principal-agent tension and other agency issues.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Theotis Wiley’s Agent

• Erive’s Vice-President of Business Development
• Appendix for both parties

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note