from $0.00

SCENARIO:

James Carter, husband of Rosie Carter and father of Ron and George Carter, recently died after a four year battle with an undisclosed illness. Having plenty of warning, Mr. Carter (also head of the successful family cosmetic business) carefully planned for the disposition of his assets upon his death. The majority of issues surrounding the settlement of his estate have been resolved, however, a few minor issues remain unresolved and have led to dispute between his two sons. The first dispute concerns Mr. Carter’s lakeside retreat. Secondarily, there are concerns over the distribution of some of Mr. Carter’s personal effects. The personal effects include: a stamp collection, a diamond ring, a pocket watch, a membership in the Metropolitan Club and the award-winning, family dog, Bonzo.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise presents the opportunity to use a careful analysis of the interests of the parties to craft an agreement to solve a dispute.

• This exercise illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, Ron and George will be locked in a contest of wills. Hard bargaining may well emerge, resulting in a situation in which one party’s gain means a corresponding loss to the other party.

• 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.

MECHANICS:

This exercise is best one-on-one. Allow approximately 30 minutes for preparation and 30-45 minutes for negotiation. Debriefing should last at least 30 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• For all parties:
  • General Information

   

• Role specific:Confidential Instructions for:
  • Ron Carter
  • George Carter

   

• Teacher’s Package:
  • All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Emotions; Fairness; Interest, dovetailing; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Options, generating

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Six months ago, Liza Brown filed a grievance with Systech’s Human Resource manager. She claims that every time she had to go into the back room of the print shop either to pick up or drop off documents she felt extremely uncomfortable because of the suggestive, and even pornographic, calendars hanging in the back room. Liza says that the printer also began to make suggestive comments and even brushed up against her unnecessarily. At that point Liza complained to the print shop manager who told her to keep out of the back room if it bothered her. The results of the grievance procedure that Liza filed were a reprimand in the printer’s file and orders for Liza to avoid the print shop. Liza believes that she has been denied a promotion since her grievance procedure because this situation gave her a reputation as a trouble-maker. Since Liza is unhappy with the results of the grievance procedure she asked to enter a formal mediation with an outside mediator, which is allowed in Systech’s policy manual.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes 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.

• Participants can discuss how partisan perceptions affected their acceptance of differing interpretations of the case, and how they tried to educate the other members of their group as to their perceptions.

• Fairness and power imbalance questions are triggered by the issues of sexual harassment in the exercise. These two problems can be specifically addressed, or they can be broadened to serve as a base for a discussion of difference issues in negotiating.

• Some of the managers have to decide how much information they wish to reveal. Where do their loyalties lie?

MECHANICS:

At least 7 players are required. This exercise takes 45-60 minutes to run it is suggested that the participants will need 20 minutes to prepare and 30-60 for debriefing.

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; Coalitions; Consensus building; Grievance procedures; Meaning of “success”; Systems of negotiation

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Redwood Hills is a growing, rural community which is suffering from a shortage of public meeting facilities. The Town Council would like the Martha Gold Senior Center to allow access to their facility. The Senior Center Board has called a meeting with current and potential user groups to see whether an agreement is possible on issues including access, fees, financial issues, responsibility for maintenance and repairs, and the Center’s name. If agreement is reached, the Board will adopt the agreement as policy and the County will renew the 10-year property tax abatement arrangement.

This exercise provides an opportunity to examine closely the role of the facilitator and various facilitation techniques as well as the dynamics of multi-party negotiations.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The value of ground rules in helping to establish the facilitator’s role in the process and in managing disruptive communication patterns.

• The critical role of the facilitator in structuring the negotiation process to encourage interest-based negotiations.

• Techniques in which the facilitator can address issues regarding the legitimacy of negotiating parties. Some parties will presume more “authority” in a negotiation than others. In actuality, all parties present at the table have equal legitimacy in the sense that their consent is valued. By reminding parties to consider their BATNAs, the facilitator can create legitimacy for all parties around the table as well as creating motivation for reaching agreement.

• The value of visual aids and graphic displays of information. Graphics representation can be a pivotal tool for clarifying the resources under discussion. Included in this discussion can be an acknowledgment of the varied learning styles of individual negotiators and the facilitator’s role in ensuring a common base knowledge.

• The impact of varying assumptions about technical information on options considered and the ultimate agreement.

• The potential difficulty of negotiating symbolic issues. A party may or may not be willing to trade economic compensation for an issue of symbolic value.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role Specific:

• Confidential information for:

• Senior Center Director W.B. Cutt

• COHA Oregon Representative M. Furia

• Coalition of Civic Organizations Representative D. Kline

• Town Council Member S. Sherman

• AAA Director N. Vie

• Facilitator

Teacher’s package (26 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teaching notes

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

ChemCo, Inc is a manufacturing firm located in Shelton, a small working-class town. ChemCo employs 3000 of Shelton’s population of 20,000. ChemCo is currently negotiating with the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to devise an acceptable strategy to monitor air emissions from its generator. If ChemCo is forced to cut jobs as a result of stringent environmental regulations, there will be a devastating impact on Shelton. On the other hand, the Agency feels that ChemCo is the primary contributor to air pollution within the area and needs to be monitored effectively. Representatives from the DEP and ChemCo must negotiate a mutually agreeable standard for monitoring air emissions.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise illustrates how negotiations can be used to resolve conflicts among scientists when scientific data are in dispute.

• When the same negotiation is conducted by multiple groups, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The recommendations offered by each group may differ widely and in some cases there may be no agreement reached in the time allowed.

• The scientific data available in the case (and in the world) are incomplete and inconclusive on the points at issue. The exercise motivates discussion of how decisions should be made given limited information.

• The exercise provides a context in which the formation of coalitions of “joint interest” groups can dramatically affect the negotiated outcome.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game can be run simultaneously with multiple groups of 6.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

• Group Confidential Instructions for ChemCo representatives

• Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo CEO

• Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Environmental Engineer

• Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Public Relations manager

• Group Confidential Instructions for DEP representatives

• Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Air Quality Chief

• Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Environmental Engineer

• Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Public Affairs Manager

KEYWORDS:

Regulatory negotiation, agency discretion; environmental dispute resolution; science-intensive policy disputes; public relations

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dioxin: Waste to Energy Game

Dirty Stuff

Teflex

The Carson Extension

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:

Four weeks ago, 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. The residents of Chestnut Drive were surprised and angered by this development, but, after some inquiry, concluded that there was little that could be done. Now, however, the construction process has once again brought their tempers to a boil. The neighbors’ complaints include: the excessive noise from blasting, dangerously speeding trucks, the lack of a fence around the project area, foul language and habits among the construction workers, and damage to windows and at least one foundation allegedly caused by the blasting. They have elected a six-member negotiating committee consisting of a retired executive, a lawyer, a cab driver, a dentist, a small businessman, and a carpenter. The lawyer has set up a meeting of the community group with the Bunyon Brothers General Counsel. This exercise revolves around the neighbors commit- tee’s preparation meeting.

NOTE: This exercise is an intra-team negotiation and is one of the two sides that makes up the exercise Chestnut Village (the other side is the exercise The Bunyon Brothers).

MECHANICS:

After individual preparation, groups of (roughly) six neighbors meet for about 90-105 minutes preparing to negotiate with Mr. Murphy of the Bunyon Brothers Company. A message is delivered to the lawyer 10 minutes into the session informing him that a newspaper reporter would like a statement. The group must choose whether or not to spend time on this, and if so, how much. A break after 45 minutes for a presentation on meeting design and group process is often effective. By that point, participants are familiar with the problem and interested in any insights that might be helpful in their remaining preparation time. At the end of the preparation period, groups traditionally have 20-minute negotiating sessions with Mr. Murphy or a management team from the Bunyon Brothers Company, often played by the instructor(s) demonstrating various negotiation styles. The negotiating sessions can be run serially, with one group picking up where the last left off, or consecutively, in either case with the rest of the class observing and thinking how they would proceed differently. An alternative to the instructor demonstration is to have groups of prepared neighbors negotiate with representatives of the Bunyon Brothers Company who have prepared Case No. 10004.0, The Bunyon Brothers.

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 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 six people work together to prepare for a negotiation? Set an agenda? Set strict time limits? Use a flipchart 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 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 the question of relationship and reputation. Both sides have important long-term interests.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Cab Driver

• Carpenter

• Retired Executive

• Shopkeeper

• Dentist

• Lawyer

• Telephone Message to Lawyer

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; public vs. private; Compliance; Constituents; Crisis decision- making; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Education, as a means; Emotions; Force; Group-think; Group process; Media; Meeting design; Preparation; Public opinion; Threats; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:
Chiptech, a large company that markets a variety of electronic products for business and personal use, is in the midst of its annual budget process. Terry Austin, Chiptech’s head of Human Resources, has approached CFO Chris Brown about a budget increase that is far above the limit set in a memo by Brown. Austin claims that the increase is necessary to implement the HR reorganization plan that was recently approved by the president of the company. This is their meeting.

NOTE: This simulation is based on “Multimode” by Lawrence Susskind.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The degree to which issues other than the percentage increase or cut should come into play is a useful focus for a discussion of good outcomes.

• Both of the parties want the best for Chiptech, but they have different perspectives on how to do this. Austin wants to improve the HR element, and Brown wants to improve the financial element. This can lead to interesting discussion. Can each party understand where the other is coming from? Does this help them come to a solution, or just keep things civil?

• CFO Chris Brown has the final say on Austin’s budget proposal. How does this color the negotiation?

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• One copy of each set of confidential instructions

• No teaching notes currently available

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Plaintiff Elizabeth Clarke contends that she has suffered from severe ulcerative colitis for four and a half years, resulting in her total disability. Defendant insurance company paid disability benefits for two years, and then terminated payments on the ground that she was not totally disabled under the terms of her policy. The causes and effects of ulcerative colitis are debatable, and there is disagreement between the medical experts involved in the case.

Two years ago, Clarke sued the insurance company in California state court, alleging contract and tort claims and requesting claiming disability benefits and punitive damages based on alleged malicious intent. Discovery is almost over, and the judge has indicated that she would like the case to be settled out of court. Now, the lawyers for the two parties are meeting to discuss settlement.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Both sides have very strong and very weak elements to their cases. How does the way in which these elements are handled affect the negotiation?
• A great deal of relevant criteria is available for analysis and presentation. How does the use of criteria affect the creation and distribution of value in the negotiation?
• What constitutes success in this negotiation? Avoiding trial? Making the other side apologize? Getting (or avoiding paying) a lot of money? A combination of these?

Teacher’s package includes:

• Participant materials for both sides

• No teaching note 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:

The union and management bargaining teams for American Phone Company are preparing for upcoming negotiations. The last round of negotiations in 1986 was disastrous; there was a strike and relationships were damaged. The leadership on both sides would like things to go better this time around and has said that they want to work toward a more cooperative relationship. Trust between the two groups has eroded over the years, however, any attempts to employ a mutual gains approach here is not necessarily met with enthusiasm by their constituencies. The negotiations revolve around three issues likely to be on the table in 1989: wages, employment security and medical benefits.

MECHANICS:

Individuals should be given at least 30 minutes to read general and confidential material. Internal group negotiations and preparations should take 60-90 minutes. External negotiations between management and the union can take 60-90 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• There are often legitimate differences within bargaining teams. These internal conflicts ought to be worked out before serious bargaining begins as unresolved internal conflict can create problems when it comes time to ratify carefully crafted draft agreements. This exercise creates the opportunity for participants to practice techniques and strategies of managing internal team conflict.

• In most collective bargaining situations, each side begins by staking out its position. Both usually do this before they even hear what the concerns are of the other side. This often leads to the process of trading concessions which results in minimally acceptable outcomes. To achieve maximum joint gains it is necessary to focus instead on listening to the interests of the other side before staking out opening positions. The best techniques for probing interests can be studied.

• Using statements developed during the session on probing interests, the best ways of inventing options for mutual gain and the power of creative options can be explored.

• The significance of relationships can be studied in the context of negotiation strategies. The impact of existing and future relationships on implementation can be explored.

• Issues of representation can be examined, since each of the players represents a group or institutional constituency. Each representative has a mandate which aids or constrains his or her ability to negotiate.

• This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties.

• The game raises questions of relationship, precedent and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Inventing Options for Mutual Gain — Instructions

For Union Members (L. Rigley, A. Jones, and M. Bemis):

• Union Fact Sheet

For Management Members (K. Lewis, R. Gentry, and J. Evans):

• Management Fact Sheet

Confidential Instructions for Internal Team Negotiations:

• Union Representatives

• M. Bemis, President of the Local

• A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union

• L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

Management Representatives:

• J. Evans, Manager of Large Business Services

• R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department

• K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

Confidential Instructions for Identifying Interests:

Union Representatives:

• M. Bemis, President of the Local

• A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union

• L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

Management Representatives:

• J. Evans, Manager of Large Business Services

• R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department

• K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Caucusing; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Interest, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Options, generating; Packaging; Recurring negotiations

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The union and management bargaining teams for Speedy Express Airlines are preparing for upcoming negotiations. The last round of negotiations was disastrous; there was a strike and relationships were damaged. The leadership on both sides would like things to go better this time around and to work toward a more cooperative relationship. Trust between the two groups has eroded over the years, however, and any attempt by the leaders to employ a mutual gains approach likely will not be met with enthusiasm by their constituencies. The three issues on the table for this negotiation are wages, employment security, and medical benefits.

This role simulation has three rounds: an intra-team preparation round, an opening negotiation round, and a final negotiation round. Participants may be given different roles in the different rounds.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• There are often legitimate differences within bargaining teams. These internal conflicts should be worked out before inter-team bargaining begins, as unresolved internal conflict can create problems when it comes time to ratify agreements. This exercise allows participants to practice techniques and strategies for managing internal team conflict.

• In most collective bargaining situations, each side begins by staking out its positions — usually before they hear what the other side’s concerns are. This often leads to a concession-trading process, which is not conducive to value creation. Listening to the other side’s interests before staking out opening positions can help achieve maximum joint gains.

• Each representative has a mandate that aids or constrains his/her ability to negotiate. How do representation issues affect the negotiation?

• How do threats or promises influence the behavior of other parties?

• How do the issues of relationship, precedent, and reputation affect the negotiation? Conversely, how does the negotiation process affect issues of relationship, precedent, and reputation?

Teacher’s Package includes:

• Participant materials.

• No teaching note available for this case.

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:

J.B. Daniels is the Vice President of Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs at Colortek, a large manufacturer of film and photographic equipment located in the Northwest. In the four years that J.B. Daniels has been with Colortek, he/she has done much to increase the environmental awareness at the company. Recently, Daniels’ second-in-command got the ball rolling on a “Green Marketing” campaign but has since left Colortek. Daniels has a strong interest in filling this position as soon as possible so that his/her department does not lose control of the “Green Marketing” project. Chris Dawson, a former Assistant Press Secretary to the Governor, has interviewed with J.B. Daniels twice thus far and has easily been the strongest candidate for the job. Dawson, however, is due to start business school in eight months. Daniels and Dawson are about to meet for the third time to discuss the final details of the position and money. There is a lot of overlap in terms of salary.

MECHANICS:

This is a one-on-one exercise. Participants should be given 15-30 to prepare and 30 minutes to negotiate. Debriefing should take at least 30 minutes, 60-90 minutes is sufficient.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• 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 BATNA’s.

• 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 exercise presents the more difficult challenge of finding an objective basis with which to judge the applicability of alternative objective criteria.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Creative Options Sheet

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• J.B. Daniels

• Chris Dawson

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Communication; Creativity; Fairness; Information exchange; Joint gains; Offers, first; Options, generating; Relationship

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Over the last several years, Forstar Aircraft has renewed its overall commitment to quality, speed and cost-effectiveness in order to maintain its status as a financial and technological leader in the industry. As the industry has become more competitive and management has sought to improve quality, there have been signs that major changes may be on the way. Many American companies have started to move over to “parallel operations”, which means that the performance and design of an engine part is evaluated as it is developed, rather than after its production. For Forstar, this would mean that Design and Manufacturing would need to work more interactively. Such a change would be no small matter for Forstar, as relations between these departments have been strained.

The Vice President of Design Engineering and the Vice President of Manufacturing Production have convened a team of managers to develop a plan for how the two departments might work together to improve quality. They have sent a special interest consultant to the meeting and have asked the Design, Manufacturing, Sourcing, and Quality departments each to send one section manager to a negotiation regarding implementation of a cooperative “Common Measures” program.

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

• The exercise provides opportunities for individuals to reflect on the way in which we become locked into unconstructive policies or career-threatening stances — as well as prompting exploration of alternatives.

• Deciding how much information to disclose depends heavily on risk-trust, and perhaps the nature of the interest. If the interest is one that will put others at risk, or is driven by professional ambition rather than team goals, it will be risky to share with others on the team.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all participants:

• General Instructions

Role-specific:

• Confidential Instructions for H. Ansel, Manufacturing Production Section Manager

• Confidential Instructions for L. Berenson, Continuous Quality Improvement Section Manager

• Confidential Instructions for T. Donahue, Sourcing Section Manager

• Confidential Instructions for Special Consultant D. Holloway

Teacher’s Package (31 pages total):

• All of the above

• Brief chart of key issues

• No comprehensive teaching note currently available

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Two police officers on routine patrol were stopped at 2:35 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, Martin McGorty, was recently acquitted. However, the knife that the woman claims McGorty used cannot be found, and the woman has announced that she will not testify against McGorty in court for fear of ridicule if he is not convicted.

This negotiation involves four parties: a District Attorney, an Assistant District Attorney, the criminal defendant Martin McGorty, and McGorty’s Public Defender. The DA was the original prosecutor in McGorty’s previous trial but was disqualified for prejudice after a public remark about castration. The DA is running for higher office, and his campaign has regularly emphasized stiffer sentencing for sex crimes. The Assistant DA, a young attorney aspiring to the DA’s office, is handling the current McGorty case. The Public Defender representing McGorty here also represented him in his previous trial. Part One of the negotiation involves client interviews: the Assistant DA interviews the DA, and the Public Defender interviews defendant McGorty, in order to determine their clients’ interests and to decide how to represent them. Part Two is a plea-bargain negotiation between the Assistant DA and the Public Defender about the fate of the defendant. An optional third part may be used, in which the Assistant DA and the Public Defender brief their clients on the outcome. It should be noted that this case involves highly sensitive issues and that one-quarter of the participants are asked to assume the role of an alleged rapist. The sensitivity of the issues often makes for a provocative and memorable learning experience. At the same time, some participants may find the scenario upsetting. The Teaching Note contains suggestions for how to handle the emotional sensitivity of this case.

SUBJECTS:

Criminal law; government parties; legal ethics; legal representation; plea bargaining; psychological issues; rape; unpopular causes

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Principal-agent tension: How does an attorney reconcile the tension between his/her own interests, the client’s interests, and societal interests? How do an attorney’s personal feelings influence the outcome of negotiation?

• Importance of relationship building: How does the quality of attorney-client communication and the strength of the attorney-client relationship influence the outcome? How does the ongoing relationship between the Assistant DA and the Public Defender negotiate affect their ongoing relationship?

• Ethical and policy issues: How should the legal system weigh probability of future harm against procedural rights?

Teacher’s Package includes:

• Participant materials

• Teaching Note

Minimum Participants: 4

Preparation Time: 80 min.

Negotiation Time: 90 min. (45 min. for Part One and 45 min. for Part Two)

Debriefing Time: 40 to 60 min.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• State v. Huntley

• People v. Malvenue

• Probation Games

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This simulation takes place in the European Union in the near future. The EU has prohibited the disposal of personal computers in landfills. It has also required that individual countries develop ‘producer-responsibility’ policies for electronic waste management. Several European and North American countries have already implemented such policies.

The development of a producer responsibility policy is a high priority for Sweland, a country that wants to join the fictional European Trade Area. The deadline for the formal application to join the ETA is only three months away, and Sweland must come up with a sustainable electronic waste policy by then.

Sweland has several major regional and national stakeholder groups that might be affected by a change in electronic waste policy. Sweland’s Environment Ministry has called a “Round Table” meeting of ten such stakeholder representatives.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This policy is going to be scrutinized by the other countries that Sweland is trying to impress. How does that change the decisions?

• How useful are caucuses in this type of negotiation?

• What lessons does this exercise suggest about policy development?

• What lessons does this exercise suggest about the interaction of economic and environmental interests?

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the current status of these issues within the European Union. The debrief of this simulation may include a discussion of the reality.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all Parties:

• General instructions

• Country overview of Sweland

• Brief on waste management of Sweland

• Brief on jurisdictional issues of Sweland

• Brief on financial position of Sweland

• Brief on waste collection of Sweland

• Brief on waste disposal of Sweland

• Draft relevant law of Sweland

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• the Chief Administrator to the Ministry for the Environment (Chair)

• the Director of Finance

• the Director of Commercial Affairs

• the Minister of Industry of Western Province

• the Minister of Commerce Northern Province

• the Minister of Trade Southern Province

• the Executive Director of the Electronics Industry Council

• the Director for the Environment and Product Quality of Big Corp

• the Computer Retailers Association

• the Earth Consumer Movement NGO

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; national policy dialogue; industrial policy; sustainable development

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

Managing Ground-water beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

National Energy Policy Game

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 law student has an appointment with the only professor who has given the student an A+. The student has two objectives for the meeting–getting a recommendation and a research assistant-ship with the professor. The professor is currently writing a book on copyright law and computer software, a subject of great interest to the student, who in fact borrowed the professor’s manuscript, and has kept it longer than agreed. The professor does not know why the appointment was made, but remembers the student as being intelligent and personable, and thinks that perhaps it is the same student who borrowed the missing manuscript. A search for this draft manuscript was initiated sometime ago. Since that time, the professor has had to rewrite many portions from scratch.

MECHANICS:

The two parties meet for approximately 5-15 minutes. Either party can be given additional role instructions about the kind of person to play. Videotaping is helpful for review. The exercise can be run twice, with the parties switching roles in the second round.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise focuses on interpersonal skills and psychological awareness. How do different individuals approach each role? What does that suggest about their psychological interests? Are they effective? Why or why not?

• There is also a clear opportunity and considerable incentive for misrepresentation by the student. How do different people handle this, and what consequences does misrepresentation have in their verbal and nonverbal behavior?

• This exercise presents a challenge worthy of a skilled negotiator: to tell the truth in a way that strengthens the relationship and allows the other issues to be dealt with positively, each on merits.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Professor

• Student

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Apologies; Communication; Credibility; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Information exchange; Interpersonal skills; Issue control; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Personality; Power imbalance; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk aversion; Separating the people from the problem

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:

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. All permits were properly, if quietly, obtained, and the quality of construction is high. Some resistance from the neighborhood was, of course, expected, but tempers now seem to be unusually high and a credible threat has developed of neighbors blocking the site access. The Company’s General Counsel has scheduled a meeting with the lawyer representing the neighborhood “negotiating committee.” Two representatives of the largest bank in town will also attend the meeting to attempt to facilitate a resolution of the problem.

NOTE: This exercise is similar to the exercise Chestnut Village, however, in this case local bankers act as mediators.

MECHANICS:

Participants representing each side should prepare for 45-90 minutes. A break for a presentation on intra-group process can be useful. After the completion of these preparation sessions, negotiations begin with one representative from the neighborhood, one attorney for the construction company, and two representatives from the local bank in each negotiation. Between an hour and a hour and one-half should be allocated to the negotiation session. In debriefing the negotiations, instructors may discuss the effectiveness of the preparation sessions, the techniques used by the mediators, how the parties moved toward commitment and how the negotiations might have proceeded had they been bilateral without mediators present.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case focuses on three 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 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 or conduct 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 teams work together in the ultimate meeting? How do they get commitment?

• The third major theme is mediation and facilitation. What process should be used by the bank’s representatives to facilitate a resolution of the problem? Should they meet with each side separately, or all together? To what extent would caucuses be useful? How should a team of mediators divide up responsibilities? What techniques are particularly effective for third-party mediators? How can these techniques be used by negotiators in mediating their own disputes? Another important theme is the problem of dealing with a representative of a constituency who does not have firm authority. The neighbor negotiators cannot really commit their neighbors. How should the Bunyon Brothers and the Bank deal with that? Can either party really agree to what the other wants?

• The case also raises questions of relationship, precedent, and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• General Counsel

• Neighborhood Lawyer

• Representatives of the Bank

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Education, as a means; Emotions; Force; Group process; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Reality testing; Threats; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Three coalitions representing building contractors, building trade unions, and users of contract services are about to begin contract negotiations. Prior to the full negotiation session, each coalition will meet to discuss internal differences. Each of the three coalitions has three members representing a different internal group. They will focus on wage increases, health benefits, and double-breasting (contractors using non-union workers through subsidiary contractors). These have been outlined in the Proposed Framework for the New Building Trades Contract distributed by the staff of the Builders Association (a member of the building contractor’s coalition). In addition, a number of other issues will need to be worked out. These derive mostly from prior relationships and skewed perceptions. A threat of a strike exists, which would disadvantage all three groups. Their objective is to reach an agreement that all parties can accept.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The differences in the way the players value issues open the door for trading. The parties will have to decide what they are willing to trade and what their BATNA’s are. This game provides the opportunity not only for trading across issues, but also within issues.

• The two-tier negotiation suggests a double meaning of “success.” Parties must make both substantive and procedural decisions. If the coalitions do not embark upon the main negotiation with a united front; the meaning of “success” could easily become very individualistic.

• The process of creating and claiming value in this game is quite explicit. Although there are only three main issues, the parties may add more or less importance to each by “reading in” certain assumptions about past or future relations.

• This is a good exercise for people in actual contract negotiations, especially those facing multi-trade bargaining problems.

• The important role that external parties can play is illustrated by the use of the media in this case. Parties must strategically manage external relationships in order to have the desired effect on the negotiation.

• This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties. These must be handled carefully to have the intended effect.

MECHANICS:

This game works best with nine players (one per role). A game manager is needed to answer questions and collect written versions of each coalition’s negotiation objectives following preliminary one-hour (at minimum) meetings. The ensuing negotiations should run about two hours. More time is preferable. Debriefings take approximately one and one-half hours.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Proposed Framework for the New Building Trades Contract

Role-Specific:

Confidential Advice to the:

• Builders Association

• Technical Association

• Basic Contractors

• Woodworkers Union

• Welders Union

• Electronics Union

• Amalgamated Refineries

• Metropolitan Power Corporation

• Regional Hospital Association

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teacher’s notes

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; Apologies; Assumptions; BATNA; Bi-level negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Collaborative problem-solving; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Cost-benefit analysis; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Group process; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint game; Labor Issues; Labor Relations; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Negotiating entry; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Preparation; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Recurring negotiations; Reservation price; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem; Threats; Time constraints; Trading, issues; Trust

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Collective Bargaining at Central Division

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Andy Appros was a well-qualified and efficient employee of Costless, a consumer outlet chain, who quickly advanced within the company hierarchy. After three years at Costless, Appros was fired under allegations of embezzlement. Appros claims that this firing was based solely on his supervisor’s racial prejudice, and he is now suing the company for discrimination. Both sides wish to avoid trial and the possible accompanying publicity, so they have each hired a negotiator to settle the dispute. Each side possesses undisclosed information which may bear on the outcome of the settlement, and it is up to the clients to determine how much of this information to divulge to their respective negotiators.

MECHANICS:

The case is designed for four to five people: one person who will play Appros, one who will play the Vice President of Costless, and one negotiator on each side. There is also an optional role for Costless’ accountant, who is familiar with the undisclosed information of each side. Preparation should take about 60 minutes for each participant, client interviews should last 30-40 minutes and the actual negotiation should take between 60-90 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• How does internal conflict over these issues manifest itself in verbal and nonverbal behavior? What differential effects do different negotiation techniques have on the level of conflict — can partisan perceptions be strengthened by some approaches, greater understanding promoted by others? Which is desirable on an individual or societal level?

• This case provides an excellent opportunity to plan, practice, and test skills in “separating the people from the problem,” and dealing with each on their own merits.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Andy Appros

• Chris Clarion

• Negotiator for Andy Appros

• Negotiator for Chris Clarion and Vice President of Costless

• (Optional) William Walters, Accountant for Costless

• Questionnaire for Andy Appros

• Questionnaire for Chris Clarion

Teacher’s Package (25 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teacher’s Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Negotiator-Client relationship; Disclosure; Illegal conduct; BATNA; Interests; Options, generating; Preparation

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Professor Famous teaches a course on the Theory and Practice of Problem-Solving. On the first day of class, an announcement is always made as to the “No-extension” policy. The Professor explains that the policy is intended to help students avoid the unpleasant consequences of procrastination that he suffered as a young lawyer. This year, when a student did not hand in an optional rough draft, due three weeks before the final, Famous attempted to reach the student by telephone to no avail. The student finally handed in the paper two weeks late, explaining plans to write the paper in the last week before the deadline went awry when the student’s father died suddenly and unexpectedly.

MECHANICS:

This one-on-one negotiation takes 10-20 minutes. Either party can be given additional psychological role instructions. The negotiation can be repeated with the roles reversed. Videotaping is helpful for review.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise pits Carol Gilligan’s two “voices” in direct conflict. This situation is exactly the kind contemplated by the professor’s policy, yet we have immense sympathy as well for the student’s position, both substantively and emotionally. Is it possible to “separate the people from the problem” here, and if so how?

• The professor must also be concerned about whether the intended lesson will be understood by the student, or whether the experience will merely be souring. In the latter case, the professor may want to consider possible impacts on the professor’s reputation, either as a person or as a teacher. What weight should that be given?

• What are the student’s interests? Getting an extension? Learning the professor’s lesson? Doing the “right” thing? What, in fact, is perceived as the “right” thing? Like many of these exercises, this is based on a real case, and there seem to be no easy answers.

• The case is a good vehicle for revealing various psychological assumptions and nonverbal behaviors, thereby generally increasing psychological awareness.

TEACHER’S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for the:

• Professor

• Student

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Interpersonal skills; Issue control; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Power imbalance; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Psychological games; Separating the people from the problem

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Riverside Lumber is a pulp manufacturer in a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Riverside regularly dumps effluent into a nearby river. The Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC) claims that the effluent is toxic and jeopardizes the local salmon catch. Relations between the two parties have deteriorated. DEC has filed suit against Riverside in an attempt to close the plant. The trial date is three days away, and the parties are meeting to see if a last minute settlement is possible. Several issues will surface in the negotiation: Should Riverside be forced to purchase a special scrubber to neutralize the toxic effects of its effluent? Should Riverside be forced to close temporarily or permanently? Can DEC provide Riverside financial incentives to encourage cooperation?

OPTIONAL VIDEO:

• A discussion of the game, “DEC v. Riverside” — David Lax
  

• An analysis of players’ scores from an actual run of the “DEC v. Riverside” role simulation, which is included in the video’s teaching notes. (85 minutes)

MECHANICS:

The game can be played with one or two negotiators per side. No game manager is needed. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read. For thorough preparation, more time is suggested. Negotiations require at least 90 minutes; more time is preferable. Allow 60-90 minutes for review.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Even though the two parties are likely to settle, the agreements they reach are typically far from optimal. Pareto-optimal scores can be displayed in this game. The players can then explore how and why superior agreements were not found. The concept of the pareto frontier can be developed.

• The concept of Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is illustrated, since each side is given the information it needs to calculate the expected value of going to court. This can be compared to the value of possible negotiated agreements.

• Unless the parties cooperate (i.e., seek to respond to each other’s most important interests), possible joint gains will be lost. The comparative advantages of cooperative versus competitive negotiation strategies can be illustrated. The tension between the urge to cooperate to claim value and the urge to compete to claim individual advantage is nicely illustrated. This allows for an extensive discussion of strategies for eliciting cooperation without making oneself vulnerable.

• The role of both shared and conflicting interests in creating joint gains is also illustrated. (Trading less important interests for more important interests is critical to achieving a pareto-optimal agreement).

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Riverside Lumber

• DEC

Teacher’s Package (55 pages total):

• All of the above

• Pareto curve

• Teacher’s Note

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; Litigation analysis; Managing uncertainty; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Negotiator’s Dilemma; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Power imbalance; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Time constraints

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Leslie Milkem, executor of the estate of the late Deke Slims, must deal with the cache of 244,000 silver dollars found hidden in Slims’ basement. Although Milkem has been trying to avoid publicity (which might depress the coin market), one weekly circular has published the numismatic find and two major coin dealers have already expressed an interest in purchasing the hoard. Milkem has agreed to meet with each of them, although Milkem has concerns about the reputation of one of them. Neither dealer knows of the other’s interest in the coins.

MECHANICS:

There are three parties involved in this negotiation, but the structure of the interaction depends on the estate executor. The executor may set up separate meetings with each of the coin dealers, arrange a conference of all three, ignore one or both of the dealers, or some combination. Only the executor knows the identity of the other parties. The exercise should be given at least an hour, and can be negotiated in the background over several days or a week.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The theme of objective criteria is highlighted by the need to set standards under pressure.

• Due to the complexity of the effects of the hoard on the market, some financial analysis should be done to develop a wise and creative solution.

• The opportunity for mutual blackmail motivates discussion of both threats and alternative negotiating dynamics.

• The varying perceptions of each party’s reputation and ethics emphasize awareness of partisan perceptions and the power and importance of questioning assumptions.

• The issue of “controlling” a negotiation arises in this case because of Milkem’s power over meeting arrangements.

• This exercise also provides an opportunity to review BATNA, the meaning of “success,” and fairness.

• Risk aversion is an important factor in designing good settlement options in this case.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for:

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the Above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. cooperation; Confidentiality; Creativity; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Ethics; Information exchange; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Pressure tactics; Quantitative analysis; Risk aversion; Threats; Yesable propositions