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 independent organizations, “A,” “B” and “C,” have sent representatives to a three-way negotiation. The representatives have learned that there are benefits to working together. If all three groups reach an agreement, benefits totaling 121 points will be split three ways (to be determined by the participants). If only two of the organizations reach an agreement, the total benefits to be split will be less than 121 (varying, depending on which two organizations join together) and the third party will be left with nothing.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The concept of BATNA can be examined, since each participant has the information he or she needs to calculate the expected value of various deals.

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

• When played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is effective.

• The exercise can also be used to raise questions about the basis for arbitrating multi-party disputes.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

For more information on the lessons of this game, see Howard Raiffa “The Art and Science of Negotiation” (Harvard University Press).

MECHANICS:

Time Requirements:

• This exercise is designed for three participants. Preparation should take 5-10 minutes. Negotiations require 15-20 minutes; more time is useful.

Facility Needs:

• Room with seating for multiple groups of 3. An overhead transparency projector is useful since some of the materials include transparencies.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

• Overhead transparency masters

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

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

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

The Parking Facility Venture

Social Services

Rushing River Cleanup

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The parties to this negotiation are Richard Smith, the owner of a small start-up software firm, and Niles Anderson, a marketing manager at a large internet software company. Richard has registered the internet domain name “towncenter.com”, although — unbeknownst to Niles — he has discontinued his plans to use that name. Niles’ company has invested a significant among of money in marketing and advertising for a new online marketplace called “TownCenter.com”, but failed to secure the corresponding domain name. Niles and Richard now are meeting to discuss the possible sale of “towncenter.com.”

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

• selection and use of criteria

• impact of making the first offer

• impact of each party’s BATNA

• the pros and cons of information disclosure

Teacher’s pack includes:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Niles Anderson

• Richard Smith.

• 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:

Ann Taylor, head of the Learning Box Division at Trademore Company is having problems with a senior manager, Terry Hall. She has asked one of her staff members to represent the division in a discussion about Terry Hall with a staff member of the Research and Development (R&D) division. Bill Blass, head of R&D is currently in search of an additional Specialist IV and is concerned about the time it will take to fill the position. The Human Resource Development Office (HRD) has heard about the scheduled meeting of the two departments and has proposed that an HRD staff person also attend.

MECHANICS:

Preparation for this simulation takes about 20 minutes, which includes enough time to read the material and discuss strategy. The negotiating time can run from 30 to 45 minutes. During the debriefing (approximately 30 minutes), participants should discuss actual and expected outcomes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Comparing outcomes when two or more groups play the game allows participants to discuss the importance of strategy in negotiations.

• The HRD intervenor may or may not choose to play a mediating role, or advocate the interests of the employee. Attempts to mix these two roles however, are likely to fail.

• During debriefing, the impact of negotiating style and decision making processes should be explored.

• The attitudes of the participants toward the fact that one of the department heads is a woman can be used to promote discussion on the connection between gender and negotiating styles.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Information for:

• Representative for Ann Taylor

• Representative for Bill Blass

• HRD Staff Person

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Authority; BATNA; Closure; Communication; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Information exchange; Interest dovetailing; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of “success”; Mediation, negotiating entry; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Preparation; Reality testing; Relationship; Selective perceptions; Separating the people from the problem; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Kate and Bill Trask are in the midst of divorce proceedings. Kate supported Bill through architectural school, but he has supported her for the last several years as she has stayed at home with the children, one of which is retarded. At issue are the family home, a difference of opinion in how to care for the retarded child, alimony, and child support. The pair’s attorneys have agreed to meet to discuss an out of court settlement.

MECHANICS:

Ideally this case is run as a one-on-one negotiation. However, making one or both sides a two person team can be interesting. Give participants approximately a quarter of an hour to prepare after distributing the instructions. The remainder of the hour should be spent negotiating. At least that amount of time should be spent on de-briefing.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This is a good case for exploring the alternate claims concerning financial support.

• One of the parties in this negotiation has hidden several relevant facts, that would doubtless come out at trial. How this is handled in the negotiation provides an excellent opportunity to discuss the ethics of disclosure in a pre-trial settlement.

SUBJECTS:

Divorce, family, disclosure, support.

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:

Chicago-based Tucker Graphics specializes in graphics work for print advertisements. Nihon Ichiban Technology, based in central Japan, is a leading manufacturer of high-technology scanning and printing equipment. Tucker and Nihon Ichiban entered into a contract whereby Nihon Ichiban would develop customized digital printing equipment for Tucker.

Over time, problems developed over Nihon Ichiban’s service and Tucker’s adherence to the contract. In light of a lawsuit commenced by Tucker, both parties have agreed to try to settle their dispute out of court. The settlement conference may be conducted as a mediation or as an arbitration.

Teaching points include:

• the procedural and substantive differences between mediation and arbitration

• the impact of cultural differences on disputes

Teacher’s pack includes:

• General Information

• Confidential Instructions for Tucker Graphics’ CEO and Nihon Ichiban’s President

• Instructions for Mediator

• Instructions for Arbitrator

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:

Eight days ago, Tulian rebels attacked a police station in the Tulian President’s hometown of Toji. In retaliation, Tulian troops attacked a rebel camp 20 miles inside neighboring Ibad. The troops were withdrawn, but yesterday rebel forces backed by Ibadi troops invaded southern Tulia and advanced on Toji with the announced intention of pressing on to the Capital to overthrow the President. The President has requested Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) intervention, and the O.A.U. has called for a cease-fire and sent a delegation to a neighboring neutral country to meet with representatives of Tulia and Ibad.

MECHANICS:

Either party and/or the mediator can be represented by 1 to 3 participants. The materials include charts for Interests and Currently Perceived Choice analyses. These can take 15-60 minutes or more to prepare. The meeting itself should probably run at least an hour. Videotaping and/or close observation are essential for maximally effective feedback to the mediator.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

General Information:

• Chronology

• General Background

• Map

• Positions and Interests Worksheet

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions to the:

• Ibadi Negotiators — with a Currently Perceived Worksheet for Tulia

• Tulian Negotiators — with a Currently Perceived Choice Worksheets for Tulia and Ibad

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Illustrative Completed Worksheets

• Draft Teaching Instructions

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Caucusing; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Confidentiality; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Force; Issue control; Linkage; Mediation; Meeting design; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Public opinion; Reality testing; Risk aversion; Self-help; Threats; Time constraints

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is an good, straightforward mediation exercise in an international context. Detailed review of precise language, ordering of issues, use of caucuses, and framing of issues can be enormously rewarding. Close observation and/or videotaping is invaluable, although student-student review is also useful.

“Face-saving” and legitimacy are important factors in fashioning agreement that can be explored at length in review.

Considerable political and creative skill is needed to fashion a mutually beneficial option and present it in a politically acceptable package. “Issue control” is thus highlighted as a separate concept from the substance of any proposal.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This case is a two-part negotiation involving four parties: a U.S. Attorney, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, a white-collar criminal defense attorney, and a white-collar criminal defendant. The first part of the case involves client interviews: the defense attorney interviews defendant Allen Dunlop, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney interviews the U.S. Attorney to determine their interests and how to represent them. The second part of the case involves a negotiation between the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the defense attorney about the fate of the defendant. An optional third part of the case may be used, in which the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the defense attorney brief their clients on the outcomes.

The case is a negotiation of a plea bargain agreement for a defendant accused of securities fraud. Specifically, the defendant is accused of violating Federal Securities Laws by employing manipulative and deceptive business practices to make his company’s stock (“Moonbeam, Inc.”) look more attractive to investors. The main issues to be decided in plea bargain negotiations are: what if any prison time will the defendant serve and in what type of facility, how much of a fine will he have to pay and to whom shall he pay the fine, and whether or not the defendant will have to accept a bar on serving as an officer or director of a public corporation in the future, and for how long will such a bar be effective. In addition to resolving these issues, both sides must deal with the tension between their own interests, the interests of the other side, and the interests of their clients.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case involves attorney-client interaction. The participants playing the role of Assistant U.S. Attorney and defense attorney have to give their clients a thorough interview and gain their clients’ trust in order to successfully determine their interests. On the other side, the U.S. Attorney and the defendant must decide how much information to give their attorneys so that they negotiate the best outcome.

• This case also involves principal-agent tension. The Assistant U.S. Attorney and defense attorney must reconcile the tension between their clients’ interests, their own interests, and the best interest of society.

• The case illustrates relationship building. A successful outcome will account for the fact that the U.S. Attorney, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defense attorney will have to work together again frequently in the future.

• The case provides many opportunities for value creation. Participants should find several options and combinations of agreements that can benefit both sides of the negotiation.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Participant materials include:

• Confidential Instructions for Defendant Allen Dunlop
• Confidential Instructions for Dunlop’s Attorney
• Confidential Instructions for Assistant U.S. Attorney Janet Lee
• Confidential Instructions for U.S. Attorney Mitch Rubin

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above
• 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:

An Israeli water company has announced plans to drill new well on the West Bank which would pump 18 million cubic meters of water each year. According to plans, about 70% of the water would be consumed by residents of Jerusalem and Jewish settlements, whilst only about 30% would be allocated to Palestinian communities. The project is controversial because it threatens to deplete an existing well used by Arab communities in the area. The simulation is loosely based on an actual proposal to drill a deep water well near Bethlehem.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case illustrates the importance of knowing your aspirations and BATNA in a negotiation.

• Focus on interests; not positions.

• Separate people from the problem and avoid escalation traps.

• Because this is a multi-party, multi-issue simulation, coalitions may form. Negotiation strategies based on coalitions can be explored.

• This exercise illustrates ways to balance multiple sources of power.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

For information on the use of this simulation with Israeli and Palestinian students, see Program on Negotiation Working Paper 88-3, also available through the Clearinghouse.

MECHANICS:

Time Requirements:

Reading and preparation – 30 mins

Negotiation – 120 mins

Debrief – 45 mins

Total 205 mins

Facility needs:

Room with seating for 7. Flip chart or white board recommended

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for:

• The Civil Administration, Coordinator of Activities in the Territories

• Water Commission, Deputy Commissioner for the Gush Etzion Region

• Mekorot, Project Manager

• Mayor of Bethlehem

• Bethlehem Water Authority, Chairman of the Board of Directors

• Landowners and Farmers Committee, Representative

• Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Aspirations; BATNA; Caucusing; Coalitions; Creativity; Credibility; Cross cultural negotiations; Group process; Integrative bargaining; Interest analysis; Mediation; Middle East negotiations; Multi-party negotiations; Options, generation; Packaging; Power imbalance; Preparation; Relationships; Science-intensive policy disputes; Separating the people from the problem; Water negotiations

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Managing the Ground Water beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A recent series of storms flooded a set of newly renovated buildings owned by developer Bob Bonsetta. At first, Bonsetta was very happy with the completed renovations, especially the new basement units. The flood damage changed that. Bonsetta is suing the architect, Frank Farrell, for losses and repair costs, on the ground that the catastrophe should have been foreseen.

The general contractor who conceivably could share the blame with Farrell has declared bankruptcy. Farrell believes that the contractor is responsible for not checking up on the flood potential of the property, especially the newly added basement units. He also claims that the contractor’s shoddy work is indicated by discoloration in the unflooded bathrooms. The two parties have agreed to a mediation in hopes of avoiding an expensive trial.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case tests a mediator’s skill at information gathering and reality-testing.

• Public opinion of both parties is vital for their future business dealings.

• The contractor’s bankruptcy adds an interesting twist to the mediation, since the third party is removed from financial responsibility.

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:

Mary Weathers is a second-year associate in the tax department at Barr & Madison, a large Seattle law firm at which Bill Evans is a partner. Although Mary has not worked with Bill, Bill has attempted to converse with Mary on a number of occasions and has invited her to dinner when they were both working late. Bill believes these interactions to be friendly gestures by a partner to a hardworking young associate. Mary, however, is uncomfortable with what she feels is unwanted attention from a male superior, who (unbeknownst to him) has a reputation as a womanizer. After several conversations and invitations, Mary preempts any further offers from Bill by mentioning that she has a boyfriend.

Because of a downturn in the local economy, Barr & Madison is forced to dismiss several young associates, one of whom is Mary. Mary is concerned that the dismissal might be related to her interactions with Bill, who happens to serve on the hiring committee. At the same time, Bill learns that an anonymous letter is about to be published in a local law journal implicitly accusing him of sexual harassment. Bill and Mary meet to discuss these and other concerns.

TEACHER’S PACKAGE INCLUDES:

Participant materials and teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Sam Solder is a 55-year-old welder previously employed by Airtight Welding. Recently, he was discharged under Airtight’s “no tolerance” rule against the use of drugs in the workplace. Sam requested this grievance mediation under Airtight’s labor agreement with the National Welder’s Union because he believes he was discharged without just cause. If this mediation is not successful, Sam may request that his challenge to the discharge be arbitrated under the collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, he may file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

PROCESS THEMES:

• Partisan perceptions based on one’s frame of reference and a lack of access to all of the relevant data

• The influence of one’s BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) on mediation

• Principal/ agent tensions arising from the sometimes differing interests of the principal and the agent.

• The effectiveness of various mediation strategies on a grievance dispute

MATERIALS INCLUDE:

• Confidential Instructions for Sam Solder

• Confidential Instructions for the Representative of the National Welders Union

• Confidential Instructions for Counsel for Airtight Welding

• Confidential Instructions for the Mediator

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

G. Hutter, the representative of the Westville Homelessness Task Force, hopes to turn the old social service center into a shelter for Westville’s homeless. J. Wood represents Neighbors Together, a local neighborhood organization. Wood is worried about the shelter’s impact on the community: what will this do to property values? A. Goldsmith, a member of the Westville City Planning staff, has been asked by the Mayor to act as a mediator, to help Hutter and Wood come up with an agreement they can live with–before the City Council plunges ahead and decides on its own.

MAJOR LESSONS:

There are three issues to be negotiated. Participants have the opportunity to make use of their different interests, to trade across issues, and to achieve joint gains. However, not all agreements are optimal and there exists considerable scope for the parties to achieve far below what they could possibly receive.

In all, thirteen arguments are possible. Comparing agreements allows discussion of the following points:

• Differences between joint gains and compromises

• Tensions between creating and claiming value

• The centrality of trading, exploiting differences in relative priorities

• Issues of power and representation of affected parties

• Roles of third party helpers and questions about neutrality

• Mediating strategies when mediators have multiple goals

• Perceptions and realities of “even-handedness” and neutrality

• Sources of mediators’ bias

• Sources of mediators’ influence

• Activist vs. neutral mediator rols

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This exercise was written specifically to explore non-neutral mediation strategies, but can be used to examine distributive and integrative negotiation strategies. Because the mediator’s performance is scored, this game allows us an evaluation of the neutral’s intervention strategies under conditions that call into question the mediator’s neutrality.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Background Information: A Shelter for Westville?

Role Specific Confidential Information for:

• A. Goldsmith, Planning Director

• G. Hutter, Homelessness Task Force Representative

• J. Wood, Representative of Neighbors Together

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

• 2 key debriefing charts

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Community dispute mediation; mediation; mediator bias

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Homelessness in Niceville

Negotiated Development in Redstone

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:

Williams Medical Center is a 1,000-bed, university-affiliated, non-profit facility located in a large metropolitan area. It is currently reeling from its second large malpractice suit this year. Adverse drug effects were the source of both incidents, and this time the press coverage was brutal. In an effort to restore the hospital’s reputation, the Board of Trustees has publicly committed the Center to develop a comprehensive drug prescription policy.

The Board asked the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (P&TC) to submit policy recommendations for the next Board meeting. Each member has been given a strong opening position from which they must back down if they are to create a drug policy that will convince the press and the public that the Center is still in the forefront of its field.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• It is important for each participant to understand his/her BATNA. This will provide a way to evaluate options or packages developed during the bargaining process.

• In this exercise it is particularly important to separate the personalities of players from the problems that confront them. Participants must prevent their prescribed personalities from clashing with those of the other Committee members.

• This case introduces the possibility for contingent agreements. Contingent agreements provide a way for two directly opposing parties to find common ground.

• This exercise exposes participants to a two-tiered negotiation situation. Players must explore the interests of those working as allies behind the table as well as those working across the table.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Summary of Issues and Options

Role Specific Confidential Instructions for:

• Bradley Moore

• Patricia De Vecchio

• Robert Macomber

• Stewart Fein

• Susan Sanchez

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

• Outline for Teaching Note

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; health care negotiation; managing conflict inside the organization; inside-outside negotiation

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

St. Francis Hospital and the Managed Medical Model

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This is a five-person, non-scoreable negotiation simulation focused on mediating values-based legal disputes, specifically disputes involving potentially conflicting interests around issues of homosexuality and religious faith. Based on a real case, this simulation focuses on a dispute between a public school and parents over classroom discussions and materials depicting same-sex couples and their families. It also explores the role of attorneys representing their clients in negotiated agreements around values-based disputes.

In Williams vs. Northville, Jim and Jan Williams are the parents of two elementary school children in the Northville Public School System. A dispute arose between the Williamses and the school system about materials in the school’s diversity curriculum that presented homosexual relationships and families headed by same-sex couples. J. Williams asked the school principal, S. Smith, for advance notification anytime homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or families headed by same-sex couples would be raised in class and that the Williams children be excused from class during these discussions. Principal Smith denied Williams’ request, explaining that no parental notification was required to discuss homosexual families in class in this way.

The Williamses filed a lawsuit against the school district in state court asserting a parental right to have their sons excused from the parts of the curriculum that were contrary to their religious beliefs. The judge in the state trial court resolved the legal situation raised by the Williamses in favor of the school district, holding that parents do not have the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children. This simulation begins at the point where the Williamses have filed an appeal to the lower court’s decision. Prior to oral argument in the case, the administrator of the appellate court mediation program has urged the parties to attempt to mediate the dispute.

MATERIALS INCLUDED:

• Participant Materials include:

• General Instructions for all Parties

Confidential Instructions for:

• J. Williams, parent (negotiating on behalf of his/her spouse)

• S. Smith, Northville Elementary School principal

• L. Gibbs, attorney to J. Williams (MassResistance)

• M. Gonzalez, attorney to S. Smith (City of Northville)

• C. Nichols, court-appointed 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 key teaching objective 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 values. Key teaching points include the importance in values-based disputes of avoiding threats to individual identity, stressing the human element, focusing on ongoing relationships, focusing on overarching values, and focusing on individual interests as well as values.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Williams v. Northville 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 Springfield OutFest.

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:

The General Services Administration of Winterville (GSA) owns the Truman Federal Building in downtown Winterville. The building is large and requires extensive janitorial services.

The Stonybrook Employment Center (Stonybrook) is a local employment agency which offers employment opportunities for mentally disturbed individuals, those with physical disabilities or those who are recovering from substance abuse.

GSA decided to switch from using a commercial janitorial service to Stonybrook as part of supporting its community outreach program. Recent contract re-negotiations started smoothly, but have now hit a rough patch. Recent events have led to a number of disagreements about whether Stonybrook meets its obligations under the contract. GSA has threatened to withhold payment to Stonybrook and the conflict has reached a boiling point.

The annual contract between the GSA and Stonybrook is due to be renewed or cancelled in one month. Representatives from Stonybrook, the GSA, and NISH (a nonprofit agency that assists community programs like Stonybrook in setting up contracts with government agencies) are meeting to resolve the various issues that have come up, and to negotiate the contract renewal.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Packet of Worksheets

Role Specific Confidential Instructions for:

• The Truman Federal Building Manager

• The GSA Contracting Officer for the Truman Federal Building

• The Executive Director of Stonybrook

• The Regional Director of Services for NISH

Teaching Package:

• All of the above

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiations; government procedure negotiations;

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

None.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Environmental Protection Agency is using a negotiated rule-making process to promulgate a rule governing emissions from woodstoves, the nation’s largest unregulated source of particulate matter and carbon monoxide. If a committee composed of interested parties can reach consensus on a proposed rule, the Agency will use it as the basis for a final rule. The committee includes representatives from: 1) the Agency, seeking a fair and effective rule and expedited rulemaking; 2) the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), seeking to show progress in reducing emissions; 3) state governments, seeking tight, cost-effective, and prompt approaches to complying with ambient air quality standards; and 4) the Wood Heating Alliance (WHA), the industry trade association, seeking a feasible, nationally uniform rule to avoid facing different state rules. The deadline for completing negotiations is imminent. Assisted by a facilitator, the parties are meeting to reach consensus on compliance date; and a reliable testing procedure.

MECHANICS:

This exercise was created for six participants, five if the trade association is not represented by counsel. Public and confidential information should be distributed two days before negotiations take place: all participants need at least an hour to read and prepare for the negotiation; client (WHA) and counsel should meet in advance, as well. The group negotiation will require 1 1/2 to three hours, followed by 1 1/4 to 2 1/2 hours debriefing.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The primary sources of conflict in devising government regulations can be understood in terms of a divisible prisoner’s dilemma game. It depicts the three problems participants confront here: coordinating behavior to identify joint gains; dividing the gains and costs of securing them ; ensuring compliance.

• The conditions under which government and business might choose to negotiate a rule, rather than use traditional administrative processes, can be identified by discussing the factors that make this negotiation particularly easy or difficult.

• The differences between positions, issues, and interests in bargaining are illustrated nicely. That promotes discussing the role of both shared and conflicting interests in creating joint gains and the value of integrative bargaining to capture the gains.

• Scientific and economic data are incomplete and inconclusive, motivating discussion of how decisions should be made and agreements structured given limited information.

• When the exercise is conducted among several groups simultaneously, comparing outcomes is instructive. Some groups may not reach agreement. This motivates discussing the characteristics of an effective facilitator, the impact of differences in participant preparation, the role of personality plays, and the influence of pressures from constituents.

• One of the interested parties being represented by counsel illustrates not only the dynamic relationship between lawyer and client but also the potential impact of representation on negotiating tactics.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Public Information: History and Procedure

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for:

• Agency (EPA) Committee Member

• Environmental (NRDC) Committee Member

• Facilitator (includes agreement form for signatures)

• Industry Committee Member — Counsel to WHA (optional role)

• Industry (WHA) Representative (may replace counsel as a member of the committee)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the Above

• Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Attorney/ Client relations; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Creating and claiming value; Fairness; Game theory; Integrative bargaining; Interest analysis; Interests dovetailing; Joint gains; Lawyering; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of “success”; Mediation; Packaging; Pareto optimization; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation; Threats; 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:

This exercise simulates a series of negotiations between the management of a Canadian food company and the union representatives. As with many actual labor relations, face-to-face negotiations are infrequent, and most of the negotiation plays itself out in the behavior of the parties rather than in words. For each business cycle, union representatives have the option of strict or flexible contract interpretation, while management representatives have the option of strict or flexible contract enforcement. In a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” format, the benefits resulting from each party’s choice depend on the other party’s choice. Similar to Win-As-Much-As-You-Can or to the more complex Oil Pricing and Pepulator Pricing exercises, this exercise highlights issues around communication, cooperation, trust, reputation, assumptions, reactions, and strategy.

Teacher’s Pack includes:

• Instructions for Colonel Lodger’s Inc., Local 180, CFWU
• Instructions for Colonel Lodger’s Inc., Management
• Record of Points (tally sheet)

No teaching note currently available

from $0.00

NOTE: A DVD demonstrating MIT Professor Lawrence Susskind running and debriefing this exercise, with a focus on one group’s facilitated negotiation, is available HERE. The World Trade Center Redevelopment Negotiation simulation may be run with or without the DVD.

SCENARIO:

Developed by the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, this simulation is inspired by the real negotiations leading to the redevelopment of the Word Trade Center site in New York City, after the two World Trade Center buildings were destroyed in a terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Participants are assigned to one of six possible roles, given confidential instructions, and directed to negotiate with a group of five other people. The simulation is designed to illustrate the potential sources of value creation in negotiation, and the inherent tension between generating such value and distributing it to particular parties. It is also intended to show how highly charged, emotional issues can often intertwine with more traditional public policy questions. It is possible in debriefing the exercise to identify various barriers to agreement and obstacles to value creation. This simulation is probably best used after participants have had some exposure to basic two-party negotiation analysis and to at least the rudiments of multi-party negotiation theory.

The instructions for each role are relatively short and can be read quickly. There are six roles: the City, the State (which owns the site in question), the Developer, the Families, the Insurer and the Facilitator. The participants must address four issues: the site plan, the timing of construction, the total money allocated for the project, and who gets the credit for the project.

TEACHING OBJECTIVES:

• The primary objective of this exercise is to highlight the special difficulties of multiparty negotiation in the public arena, including the use of facilitation/ mediation in such situations.

• A second objective is to introduce participants to the dynamics of consensus building, particularly when there are emotionally charged issues at stake.

• A third objective is to bring the negotiation context of the World Trade Center redevelopment to participants’ attention, though this simulation is not intended to be a factual case study. While the six roles in the simulation are inspired by roles that various parties played in the actual negotiations, none of the roles are intended to represent particular real people, and simulation participants are not expected to attempt to portray particular individuals or to re-enact elements of the actual historical negotiations.

Participant materials include:

• General instructions for all parties

• Confidential instructions for

• The State

• The City

• The Developer

• The Insurer

• The Families

• The Facilitator

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

$80.00

Culture-along with many other variables-often affects international negotiations. Culture and Negotiation offers a unique contribution by focusing on the distinctive impact of culture, both in creating unexpected opportunities for dispute settlement and in imposing obstacle to agreement. Part I presents expert views on the nature and limits of culture’s influence on negotiation. Part II comprises the core of the book, and contains a wealth of case studies and analysis of international disputes regarding water resources. Each case asks the following key questions: What are the different cultural components that made a difference in the outcome? How did culture play a role in the negotiation process? What are some specific illustrations of culture’s contributing role, both to the dispute and to the ways in which it was handled? Part III includes implications for practitioners and policymakers, along with new directions for future studies.

“It’s much too late but this is the book we should have had in Paris during the five-year effort to get a political settlement of the Vietnam War. . . . Thought provoking.” – Indochina Chronology

“An important contribution to a better understanding of international relations . . . with reflective discussions as well as thorough case studies.” – Indian Express

When to Negotiate, When to Fight“>When to Negotiate, When to Fight” width=”96″ height=”96″ style=”float: left; margin: 0 10px 0 0;” />

from $0.00

In Bargaining with the Devil, Robert Mnookin offers practical advice for the most challenging conflicts — when you are facing an adversary you don’t trust, who may harm you, or who you may even feel is evil. He provides tools for confronting devils of all kinds — in business, politics, and family life. Bargaining with the Devil guides the reader on how to make wise decisions about whether to negotiate or fight. Mnookin explains what it means to make a “wise decision” and identifies the emotional, strategic and political traps to avoid.

Drawing from a range of real-life stories, Mnookin offers his guidance in disputes of all sorts where the temptation is to demonize:

The CEO of a small high-tech company learns that his joint-venture partner, a big foreign corporation, has been secretly cheating him under a license agreement; IBM discovers that Fujitsu, its largest competitor, has copied its software; the San Francisco Symphony is town apart by poisoned labor-management relations; divorcing spouses, each feeling wounded and betrayed, disagree about custody and joint support; three siblings are in conflict about what to do with a jointly inherited vacation property.

Mnookin also examines decisions made in conflicts with evil regimes, where lives and liberty were at stake. He analyzes Winston Churchill’s fateful choice in May 1940 — Britain’s darkest hour — to reject negotiations with Adolf Hitler and to carry on the fight. He compares Nelson Mandela’s decision to initiate negotiations with the South African apartheid government that had imprisoned him for life with the imprisoned Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s decision not to negotiate with the KGB for his freedom. And Mnookin evaluates the Hungarian Jew Rudolf Kasztner’s still controversial decision to negotiate with Adolf Eichmann in the hope of saving lives.