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:

Imports Inc, a large multi-national corporation, has recently purchased Smith’s Rollers plant. The new owners want to expand the plant and are considering a site in Milltown on the Humboldt River. Milltown is located in Arcadia — a fictitious western European country. In manufacturing the rollers, the chemical by-product ‘Laminia’ is generated. Although community leaders are enthusiastic about the project and the potential creation of new jobs and economic expansion, there is much concern regarding the long-term effects of the chemical releases. The elected regional Governors of Humboldt have invited seven parties, together with a mediator, to participate in an informal discussion that will cover both environmental and economic issues. There will be two preliminary meetings prior to the main meeting. The first preliminary meeting will include leaders from the Dairy Cooperative, Environmental Action League, and Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency. The second preliminary meeting will involve the Mayor of Milltown, the Director of Economic Development in Humboldt, and the Coordinator of the Business Association will meet to review their mutual concerns. When these six parties come together, the Lawyer from Imports, Inc., in addition to a professional mediator will also be present.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The preliminary meetings create a bi-level negotiating process. Participants have an opportunity to compare the differences and similarities of their particular dispute resolution styles when negotiating with parties having some similar ideas and then with parties articulating seemingly opposing interests. In addition, analysis can be made of how agreements may be reached in the face of differing interests and views.

• Although three main issues are discussed at the meetings, each player has additional concerns as well. This underscores the possibilities of creative settlements, as well as aids players in deciding what coalitions will be most useful.

• The use of linkage should be explored both in terms of threats and in terms of incentives or promises.

• The blending of economic and environmental issues provides and opportunity to discuss the costs and benefits of tradeoffs, as well as advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one’s concerns.

• During debriefing, discussion regarding the mediator’s method of handling dispute should be highlighted. At this point confidential information provided to the mediator by the Governors should be revealed. Analysis of this information and how the neutral party used it to either attempt agreement or decide that a consensus was unreachable provides an opportunity to focus on the role of a mediator in a public policy dispute.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Estimated Time Requirement:

30 minutes- read instructions

45 minutes – private meetings for each of the 2 coalitions

15 minutes – mediator can use this time to meet with the coalitions if she or he has not been present in the private meetings

60-120 minutes – coalitions negotiate

60 minutes – debrief

Total: 2.5-3.5 hours

Needed for the exercise:

2 small rooms with seats for 4; 1 large room with seats for 8; Flip charts, markers and writing materials for all parties and in particular the mediator

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Background and Instructions

• Milltown Journal Editorial

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for

• Coordinator of the Humboldt Business Association

• Representative of the Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency

• Director of Economic Development

• Lawyer for Imports, Inc.

• Head of the Environmental Action League

• Head of the Dairy Cooperative

• Mayor of Milltown

• Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Notes on the background readings, logistics, debriefing, summary of major lessons and potential exam questions

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Environmental dispute resolution; mediation; mediating science-intensive policy disputes; contingent agreement; multi-party negotiating; consensus building; brainstorming; packaging; Agenda control; Authority; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions, blocking; Commitment; Communication, public v. private; Compliance; Consensus building; constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creating and Claiming value; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Distributional disputes; Joint gain; Group process; Information exchange; Interest, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic v. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Options generating; Partisan perceptions; Personality; Precedents; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Trading, issues; Undisclosed principles; Yesable propositions

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

Chemco Inc

The Carson Extension (mediated version)

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Econ Inc. is a laser manufacturer with 150 employees. Twenty-five-year-old Mary Marks was previously employed at Econ as a first-shift laser operator. Mary is currently married to her second husband and has had two consensual affairs with coworkers. Mary’s supervisor was John Jump, a 49-year-old foreman, who is married and cares for an extremely ill spouse on the evenings.

John and Mary entered into what was initially a consensual affair. John claims that the affair ended when he began another relationship; Mary claims that it ended when she resisted John’s more amorous advances. Following their relationship, Mary’s work performance worsened, and she quit. She later claimed that she was forced to quit because of the sexually hostile environment caused by John. A mediation will be held as provided in Econ’s personnel policy (or in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, in version B).

NOTE: John & Mary involves a mediation between the personnel director and corporate counsel of a laser manufacturer and an employee and her attorney over the employee’s departure amidst allegations of sexual harassment. In Version A, mediation is required under the company’s sexual harassment policy. In Version B, mediation is also required, but a grievance arbitration is an alternative under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

Time required:

• 20-40 min. individual preparation (preferable outside of class)

• 10-15 min. team preparation (outside or in class)

• 60 min. mediation

• 45-60 min. debriefing

Group size:

• 5 (two parties, their respective counsel, and the mediator) or 6 if John Jump, Mary’s former supervisor, is present

MATERIALS INCLUDED (Version A):

• Confidential Instructions for Econ’s Personnel Director
• Confidential Instructions for Econ’s Corporate Counsel
• Confidential Instructions for Mary Marks
• Confidential Instructions for Mary Marks’ Attorney
• (Optional) Confidential Instructions for John Jump, Mary’s former supervisor
• Confidential instructions for the Mediator

Version A Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching Notes

NOTE: Version A was revised in 2008 to provide separate instructions for each of the parties and their counsel. This revision makes for a more robust exercise as it creates some information asymmetries and highlights potential tensions between the principals and their agents. The original Version A (in which the parties and their counsel have identical instructions) is available on special request.

MATERIALS INCLUDED (Version B):

• Confidential Instructions for Econ’s Personnel Director and Plant Manager
• Confidential Instructions for Mary Marks and her Union Representative
• (Optional) Confidential Instructions for John Jump, Mary’s former supervisor
• Confidential Instructions for the Mediator

Version B Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching notes

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A multi-issue negotiation in which the HR representative is one of the parties. The company is concerned about a decision to retain or fire a newly transferred manager because of an alleged drinking incident.

This exercise is one of six modules in the “Collaborative Negotiation for Human Resource Professionals” curriculum package. For details, please see Collaborative Negotiation for Human Resource Professionals under “Curricula.”

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This case is a “community restorative circle” scenario, which is a structure somewhere in between a typical two-party mediation and a complex multi-party mediation. The restorative justice model is an alternative to the usual adjudicative process for dealing with small crimes where the offender has admitted their guilt. The victim of the crime and the offender are brought face to face, but there are also community members present, plus facilitators who act as support for the parties, plus mediators (“Keepers”). All parties must sign off on any agreement. In total, the case can involve eight people or six (take away the two “facilitator” roles).

This is a juvenile delinquency, first-time offender case. A teenager was caught for low-monetary-value shoplifting and admits his guilt. Both he and the store owner have chosen to try a restorative circle to come up with a process of resolving the matter, while the juvenile court process is put on hold. The roles are based on the real-world model of Concord Restorative Circle, a volunteer, non-profit organization in Concord, Massachusetts.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• How mediators should adapt their approach when faced with a community-based mediation setting, and how mediators can apply some of the same principles here as in two-party mediation contexts. If mediation is the focus of the teaching, then it is best to have two already-trained mediators play the role of the mediators here.
• Along these lines, the case may be used to introduce mediators who have only two-party or court-annexed mediation experience to a multi-party mediation context, but one that is still relatively simple and revolves around only two parties.
• For the people who play facilitators (a role somewhere in-between advocate, counselor, and reality-checker for their particular party), the case illustrates how using the Harvard Negotiation Project’s “7-elements” model of negotiation plays out in a multi-party context.
• For everyone involved, the case illustrates principles of restorative justice in practice.

Participant Materials Include:

• Police Report

• General Instructions

Confidential Instructions for:

• Shaheen Laheejan, grocery store owner
• Chris Jensen, 16-year-old offender
• Robin Jensen, Chris’s parent
• Sam Jones, community member
• Two “Keepers” (co-mediators)
• “Facilitator” for Shaheen Laheejan (optional role for 8-party version)
• “Facilitator” for Chris Jensen (optional role for 8-party version)

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching notes

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 case is modeled on the Cambodian seizure of the Mayaguez in 1975. The American-registry merchant container ship Youraguez has been seized five miles off the coast of an uninhabited island claimed by both Kaotia and Dominia. Kaotia has seized and released 23 other vessels in these waters in the last five years; only one American. The situation is complicated, however, by the bitter civil war in Dominia. Kaotia, which favors Eastern Dominia, has publicly accused the U.S. at the U.N. of basing CIA operatives in remote Kaotian mountain sites, but has presented no proof. Western Dominia, supported by the U.S., is unexpectedly facing military collapse and catastrophe. The U.S. is using all available means to evacuate personnel and equipment before the end; the Youraguez undoubtedly contains military equipment from the evacuation. The crew is en route to the mainland, with no allied forces close enough to reach the scene (except jet fighters). An update further complicates the situation and the potential consequences of action.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is usually conducted with American and Kaotian teams of 5 or more players each. Typically each team has 1 hour to analyze the situation and formulate an approach, including any message they want to communicate to the other side. At the end of the hour, the instructor simultaneously passes these messages and delivers the factual update that moves the time frame forward 12 hours. Usually the exercise continues with a 45-minute period to formulate a second “move,” including any further message, followed by a final 30-minute period with one or more final messages. Alternatively, the free movement of messages (still delivered by the instructor, however) can commence immediately after the first hour. Additional time can easily be accommodated ; the exercise could be run over several weekly classes, if necessary, but it might lose its sense of immediacy.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case highlights how easy, but counterproductive, it can be to react without careful analysis to a seeming provocation.

• Also illustrated is the importance of formulating an objective and analyzing whether it can be achieved by self-help or whether it requires a decision or change of attitude by the other side. If self-help is unrealistic, then an effective action plan should be developed and judged in terms of its effect on the other side’s perceptions.

• The large teams inevitably make group process a major issue in debriefing the case. How should a group organize itself to avoid group-think and stil achieve quality analysis efficiently?

• Effective analysis can produce dramatically superior results in this case for either party. When more than one set of teams play, comparisons are illuminating.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For Kaotian team:

• Memo to file of the Kaotian Central Security Committee
• Update to Kaotian Central Security Committee
• Confidential instructions for Kaotian team members:

Confidential Instructions for the Kaotian team members:

• Representative of Kaotian Ministry of Internal Security
• Representative of Kaotian Foreign Ministry
• Representative of Kaotian Military
• Representative of Kaotian Communist Party
• Representative of Kaotian Intelligence Agency

For U.S. team:

• Meme to file of the U.S. National Security Committee
• Update to U.S. National Security Committee

Confidential Instructions for U.S. team members:

• Representative of U.S. State Department, Legal Advisor’s Office
• Representative of U.S. State Department, Politico-Military Affairs
• Representative of U.S. Chief of Staff
• Representative of U.S. Defense Department
• Representative of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching notes

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Communication; Communication, public v. private; Compliance; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Education, as a means; Force; Group process; Group-think; Interest analysis; Issue control; Linkage; Meaning of “success”; Media; Meeting design; Message analysis; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Self-help; Threats; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

Two productive employees of the Kelly Corporation are about to meet with their boss to discuss a raise. The employer and each of the employees have different ideas concerning pay increases.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is structured as a single negotiation between both employees and the boss. As little as five minutes can a be allowed for planning; the meeting itself can last from 5-15 minutes. Videotaping can be useful for review of assertiveness and nonverbal communication.

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

• The problem of power imbalance, typical in employee relations, are highlighted. This is probably a good case for principled negotiation, but useful criteria may be hard to come by.

• In speaking to the boss together, the employees have to address the issue of whether to take a competitive, cooperative, or monolithic approach, and how to maintain it in the face of various employer tactics.

• The employer has to confront the issue of how to distinguish between the two employees, without embittering the less well rewarded. Ethical choices loom as potentially important.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Employer
• Employees (same or both)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; BATNA; Closure; Communication; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Personality; Power imbalance; Precedents; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk perception

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Lake Wasota is one of the largest and most beautiful lakes in the country. Over the last twenty years, it has been the site of a bitter dispute over fishing rights. The dispute revolves around the Chippewa Indians (who were granted an unlimited right to fish by a treaty) and commercial fishermen. The conflict was exacerbated by the commercial fishermen’s use of new trap net technology, which has increased their catch substantially. To make matters worse, sports fishers began to fish in the lake in record numbers. Although the competition between the commercial fishermen and the Indians concerns millfish, sports fishermen are involved because trap netting also catches blue trout. The state interceded in the dispute by initiating a series of licensing regulations. The Indians, together with the U.S. Government, then sued the State of Wasota. The court, with assistance of a Special Master, brought the parties together to negotiate a temporary settlement in the shadow of an imminent court ruling on fishing rights in the lake. The parties, including the Wendana Bay Indian Tribe, the Momata Falls Indian Band, the U.S. Government, the State Natural Resources Authority, the Commercial Fishermen’s Association, and the Recreation and Conservation Association are now gathering to review the original agreement and determine whether it should be ratified for another ten years. The parties must reach a decision before the original agreement expires. Although the court hopes for a total consensus, it will accept an agreement reached between the four principal parties. If such an agreement is not reached, the court will make the final decision.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Litigation may limit the kinds of issues one can consider in a case, and the kinds of trades the parties can devise.

• When an impasse seems inevitable, adding new issues or dividing issues into component party may open up bargaining room.

• Inventing options before committing to them is critical to achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfettered “brainstorming” often yields creative and surprising solutions.

• “Packaging” options often helps to promote agreement. Focusing on options one at a time may lead to deadlocks on each item.

• The legitimacy of arguments (and agreements) is enhanced if supported by objective and respected sources of data.

• It almost always pays to maintain cordial working relations with adversaries, even in the face of substantial disagreement. Energy should be focused on solving the problem, not on “beating” the other side.

• Especially in public sector disputes, the broader the consensus (the more parties on board), the more secure the final agreement. A court ruling on only a narrow aspect of the dispute may not put to rest the larger dispute.

MECHANICS:

The game works well with either 6 players (one per role) or 12 players (2 per role). The complexity of the game necessitates a game manager who periodically tallies the votes and is available to answer questions. Comparative analysis can be conducted when multiple sets of the game are played simultaneously. In addition, inter-party caucusing may occur.

Estimated Time Requirements:

40 mins: read materials

150 mins: negotiation

60 mins: debrief

Total: 250 mins

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Maps

• Glossary of Terms

• Summary of 1985 Agreement

• Memoranda from the Special Master

Role specific:

Summary Report of the Joint Science Committee to

• The Tribes and Government

• State Authority and Associations

Confidential Instructions for the

• Wendana Bay Indian Tribe

• Momota Falls Indian Band

• U.S. Government

• State Natural Resources Authority

• Commercial Fishers Association

• Recreation & Conservation Association

• Supplementary Instructions for each of the above.

Teacher’s package (126 pages total):

• All of the above

• Game Manager Instructions

• Debriefing Information

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

BATNA; Bluffing; Brainstorming; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Environmental dispute resolution; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic v. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Negotiation with indigenous peoples; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Packaging; Pareto optimization; Partisan perceptions; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Regulation; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Lattitude.com is a simple two-party, single-issue, primarily distributive negotiation regarding the potential sale of an internet domain name. It is designed to be negotiated entirely via e-mail, and may either be used in an online course or as a supplement to a face-to-face course.

The domain name owner has no use for the domain name, and would like to sell it for anything over the $200 registration fee. The potential buyer is greatly interested in the name, and is willing to pay up to $10,000 to acquire it. With such a wide zone of possible agreement and little information about an objectively “fair” price, this simulation is a good vehicle for discussing the dynamics of distributive bargaining as well as the effect of the communication on the medium on both process and outcome.

Participant’s materials include:

• Confidential instructions for the potential seller
• Confidential instructions for the potential buyer

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above
• (Teacher’s note forthcoming)

NOTE: The time required refers to actual online negotiating time, but that this simulation is typically conducted over several days of asynchronous e-mail communication.

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.)

PLEASE NOTE: This role simulation was updated in 2005 with higher dollar figures, to make it seem more realistic and worthwhile. The older version with the original dollar figures is available upon request.

SCENARIO:

Burns & Burns, a law firm, is splitting into two new firms, the smaller of which wants to sell 300 volumes from its library that form a set on a specialized topic. So far they have not received any particularly attractive offer. The small law firm of Jones and Solomon is now interested. Purchasing these books as a used set could save Jones & Solomon money over assembling a new library. Two young lawyers are meeting to discuss whether a deal is possible.

MECHANICS:

The exercise can be run in a one-on-one or two-on-two configuration. Negotiation time can range from 20-45 minutes; 30 is usual. Preparation time can be as little as 30 minutes, but it is helpful to allow time for a little outside research on the law book industry. Review can range from 30-90 minutes, and is enhanced by participant demonstrations. These can be new negotiations between people who have just done the negotiation, but not with each other, negotiations between participants who have held off negotiating until this time, or continuing negotiations between participants who have been unable to settle. Both during the basic negotiations and any demonstrations, one or both negotiators can be given additional instructions on the style of negotiation to employ.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This is an excellent case for exploring the uses of objective criteria. A variety of criteria can be gathered from the case and outside research, and others, with a little thought, can be inferred.

• This case is also a convenient vehicle for exploring different systems of negotiation and how they fare against each other.

• The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is easily illustrated here.

• The case suggests how seldom one encounters a true single-issue negotiation. A little reflection suggests the presence of significant opportunities to expand the pie. In particular, the possibility of establishing an ongoing relationship that might lead to client referrals merits careful consideration.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• List of Some Possible Objective Criteria

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for the:

• Sellers — Burns & Burns

• Buyers — Jones & Solomon

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Relationship; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

The electric company, GENCO, has seen its capacity reserve margin drop from 40% to a mere 20% above peak load over the past 10 years. This decrease brings the company uncomfortably close to the minimum level necessary to maintain adequate service reliability. The imbalance between the availability of and demand for electricity has spawned various solutions which include conservation/demand-side management, gas- and oil-fired generation and coal-fired plants, provided either by the utility or an independent power producer. A mediator (Professor Calme), and a party representative from GENCO (the electric company), NOPE (a consumer group), the Public Utility Commission, CLEAN (an environmental group) and IPP (an independent power producer) will attempt to reach a consensus on a project proposal.

MECHANICS:

This exercise is best played with six players (one per role). Preparation should take at least 30 minutes and the negotiation should last 60 minutes. Debriefing should take at least 60 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The prospects for achieving joint gains is illuminated in this exercise. When parties value issues differently, they can create trades which benefit both parties and facilitate an acceptable agreement.

• This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions. Adding a neutral allows for discussions of how parties use mediators/facilitators.

• Many aspects of mediation in a multi-party, public policy dispute can be brought into focus, including: maintaining open communication, focusing the discussion on interests rather than positions, packaging options, and the development of a single-text procedure.

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

• Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one’s concerns are illustrated in this game.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• President of GENCO

• Spokesperson of NOPE

• Director of Electric Power Planning

• State Public Utility Commission

• Senior Attorney at CLEAN

• President IPP

• Professor Calme (Mediator)

Teacher’s Package (26 pages total):

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Delay tactics; Group process; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Risk aversion; Systems of Negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

In “Leaves Before the Fall,” lawyers for an employer and a former employee attempt to negotiate a settlement surrounding the employee’s termination due to excessive absenteeism. The employee’s absences resulted from a difficult pregnancy and the subsequent poor health of her newborn child. Much of her leave was guaranteed under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She now seeks compensation from her former employer.

The primary characteristic of the Leaves Before the Fall simulation is that the facts set out in each representative’s “confidential instructions” are the same – identical in every respect. Will the participant assume disagreements and disconfirming (contradicting) information – the confirmation bias trap – and engage in positional negotiation? Will they attempt to exaggerate, conceal, and/or lie about the facts? Or will the participants take on a problem-solving mantle and ask open-ended questions, actively listen and search for creative options?

This two-party negotiation simulation was created by James K.L. Lawrence, a partner at the law firm of Frost Brown Todd LLP and an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law with a long historical connection to PON.

MECHANICS:

1-2 hourse – preparation (preferably outside of class)

10 min. – introductory questions

30-45 min. – negotiation

30-60 min. – debriefing

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Attorney for Sharon Stone

• Attorney for Microtech

Teacher’s Package:

• Each of the above

• Teaching note

PROCESS THEMES:

Bluffing, Communication, Competitive/ Cooperative negotiation, Disconfirming Information, Information Exchange, Partisan Perceptions, Risk Perception

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 months ago, Chris Little bought a used car from a good friend, Tom Jenks. After a week, Chris began to develop headaches while driving the car. A mechanic stated that it was due to a faulty exhaust system which would have to be replaced before the car could pass inspection. When Chris told Tom how upsetting this was, Tom initially agreed to take the car back and refund the purchase price. The next day, however, he called back to say that he had changed his mind. Later that day, Chris filed suit in Small Claims Court to recover this money. Both parties have agreed to try mediation before seeing a judge.

MECHANICS:

The organization of the exercise is left to the mediator, who may arrange separate meetings with each side, joint conferences, or both. Between 60 and 90 minutes should be allowed for the mediation. Detailed observation and/or videotaping is desirable. “A Brief Outline of the Mediation Process,” Case No. 15003.0 in Other Materials, is useful background reading for the mediator. “An Actual Small Claims Mediated Agreement,” Case No. 15004.0 in Other Materials, is useful as follow-up reading for all parties, especially if mediators have been asked to draft any agreement reached. (Hand this out after the mediators have finished their own try at drafting).

MAJOR LESSONS:

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

• 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 even student-student review is useful.

• “Saving face” and legitimacy are both important to any agreement in this case.

• The skills of separating the people from the problem are especially apropos here.

• The case raises the question of how one goes about rebuilding a fractured relationship. Does the pre-existing relationship make the mediation easier or harder, or does it depend, and if so, on what?

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• The Defendant, Tom Jenks

• The Plaintiff, Chris Little

• Instructions for Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Caucusing; Communication; Drafting; Emotions; Fairness; Information exchange; Interpersonal skills; Mediation; Meeting design; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Reality testing

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This is a six-party, seven-person (including the mediator), multi-issue mediation simulation game involving a dispute over developing an instream flow action plan. It introduces and explores the uses of a mutual gains approach to negotiation, mediation, and coalitions in a science-intensive dispute with high uncertainty. This game can be played with either 13 (2 per negotiating role + 1 mediator) or 7 (1 per negotiating role + 1 mediator) players.

A river management action team has been assembled to develop a scientifically sound instream flow action plan for the Long River. The team is made up of the governor’s special assistant and representatives from the State Department of Fish and Game, a nearby Tribe, the Regional Water Supplier, an irrigators’ group, and a coalition of environmental and recreational interests. Unless at least five of the stakeholders on this team can agree on an instream flow action plan, it is very likely that federal regulators and the courts will have to step in and impose restrictions of various kinds. A neutral mediator is assisting the negotiating team.

The parties must deal with several issues: (1) Instream flow goals: what kinds of values and uses should the parties try to protect and enhance? (2) Strategies for increasing instream flow: how will the parties try to meet their instream flow goals? (3) Future development: how should land use planning for future development be integrated into water resource management? (4) Enforcement: how will the parties implement and monitor their agreement?

Participant Materials include:

• General Instructions for all participants

Confidential instructions for:

• Governor’s Special Assistant

• State Department of Fish & Game Representative

• Tribe’s Representative

• Regional Water Supplier Representative

• Irrigator’s Group Representative

• Environment-Recreation Coalition Representative

• Mediator

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

SUGGESTED LESSONS:

• Pay attention to process.

• Commit to use neutral services. It is easier to hold parties to their agreements if the group as a whole has engaged the services of a neutral mediator/ facilitator and adopted explicit ground rules.

• Consensus building can only work when stakeholders self-identify and “own” the design of the collaborative process. Expand the number of parties involved and find ways to include “unofficials.”

• Share information about interests.

• Look at packages of options.

• Understand that any agreement will only be useful for a limited period and you will only get things partially right. It is almost always better to pursue an adaptive management approach in seeking to resolve water disputes or set water management policy, than to try and lay out a long-term comprehensive solution.

• Ask parties to sign the written agreement they have helped to craft.

• To ensure its implementation, don’t neglect to link an informally negotiated agreement to whatever formal actions are needed by those in positions of authority.

• Commit to capacity building (and organizational development) over time.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

NUTECH, Inc. is a hypothetical company that manufactures electrical and injection-molded plastic parts for the automotive and aerospace industries. The Plastics Division and Electronic Division each are responsible for advanced engineering, prototypes, and final manufacturing. The Sales & Service Operations Division generates orders and handles customer complaints and other service issues for both manufacturing divisions.

The CEO of NUTECH has asked the HR Managers and senior line managers for each of the three divisions to conduct a summit session on (a) a plan to improve communication between the service and manufacturing divisions; and (b) a plan to support the outsourcing of recruitment.

This simulation is designed to be run in four phases: separate preparatory meetings of all participants playing the same roles; a “fishbowl” in which six volunteers (each playing one of the six roles) illustrates an unconstructive approach to the summit meeting; “company meetings” with separate groups of HR Managers and Division Managers; and “company meetings” with the full group of all HR Managers and Division Managers.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The different phases of the negotiation allow the advantages of preparation and caucusing to be explored at length.

• The complexity of the case provides room for a wider range of solutions, thus highlighting the power of creative option generation.

• The collective representative aspect of the negotiation highlights issues of representative authority and constituent management.

• The number of parties raises a range of issues about intra- and inter-party multilateral negotiation.

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

The fictional countries of Pablo and Burford face a water crisis brought on by extreme water quality and quantity problems. The dismal water situation is largely a result of unsustainable agricultural activities in the borderlands separating the two countries.

Two years ago, the Presidents of Pablo and Burford instructed the responsible national authorities to prepare a sustainable agricultural and water protection plan. Since then, the Burford Environmental Department and the Pablo Agriculture Department having been working to organize a joint summit to negotiate the framework of such a plan. In the midst of summit planning, a new controversy regarding agrochemical pollution of borderland groundwaters emerges. The summit now has been scheduled for six months earlier than originally planned.

The summit will be co-chaired by representatives of the Burford Environmental Department and the Pablo Agriculture Department. The other participants include the Governor of the Burford border state of Grady and representatives from a number of national and international NGOs with interests in groundwater policy. The agenda includes nine decision items, and the participants are expected to reach agreement by at least a two-thirds vote on all nine items.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Importance of agenda control

• Power of option creation

• Repercussions of voting procedures on the content and sustainability of the outcome

• Importance of reaching agreement on terms and scientific facts before negotiating

• Impact of BATNA on the negotiation

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions and Information for All Parties

• Issues to Resolve

• Pablo-Burford map

• Appendices A-E (Country Information, Hydrology, Location of Borderland Aquifers, Glossary, and Evaluating Zine)

• Additional Reading References

Role-specific:

• Confidential instructions for representatives of:

• BED (Burford’s federal environmental regulatory agency)

• BIO (an international consortium of 72 biotech companies)

• CONSUME (a small anti-hunger NGO in Pablo)

• EARTH (an international consortium of environmental NGOs)

• FARM (Burford Farm Association)

• Chet Freeman (Governor of the Burford border state of Grady)

• PAD (Pablo Agricultural Development)

• SUSTAIN (a nonprofit of sustainable agriculture organization from the Burford border state of North Rhine.

• TRADE (a Pablo agribusiness trade alliance)

• UNION (National Farmer’s Union of Pablo)

Teacher’s Package (110 pages total):

• All of the above

• Game Manager Position Summary Sheet

• Detailed teaching notes

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Multi-party negotiation; science-intensive policy disputes; transboundary environmental disputes; water quality and quantity negotiations; cross-cultural negotiations; facilitation

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

Tovisaria Power Sector Simulation

IPMS Series

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Negotiations between the Metropolitan Association of Police Officers (MAPO) and the Administration of Mayor Holmes of Metropolis are soon to begin. Discontent among MAPO is demanding an increase in the police budget, which is essential for the police to provide adequate police protection in the community. Rising crime statistics have placed Metropolis as the 10th most dangerous city in the nation. The leader of the Metropolis Association of Police Officers (MAPO) has threatened “some kind of protest activity” by the policemen if the budget is not increased substantially. Proposition 6, which will limit municipal budget increases for any department to a maximum of 6% over the previous year’s allocation, is on the ballot for elections taking place in two months. However, the mayoral budget can be enacted before that time. The Mayor (who is seeking another term) is anxious to have the whole affair behind him, and has arranged a meeting between his representatives and MAPO. In addition to overall budget increases, specific issues likely to be addressed include: starting salaries, maximum salaries, vacation days, sick leave, holidays, life insurance, pension benefits, health insurance, weapons upgrading, and drug testing proposal.

MECHANICS:

This negotiation is intended to be a team effort, though the size of the teams may vary from two to four persons. Extensive budget and salary information on other cities requires thorough preparation and analysis before teams can plan effectively for the negotiation.

Outside research can also be useful.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This simulation provides an ideal setting for concentrating on objective criteria. Standards can be derived from careful analysis of the data provided and other data collected through outside research. The general information for this case contains five appendices with comparative statistical data.

• The complexity of the case provides enormous room for crafting more or less Pareto-efficient solutions. The power of creative options is highlighted.

• The potential tension between preserving a good working relationship and pressing hard for what might be seen as substantive concessions is a central concern in the case (on both sides), and a good subject for discussion. This tension is exacerbated by the temptation on both sides to try to use the media to enhance that side’s bargaining power by courting public opinion.

• As in any collective, representative negotiation, the questions of how much authority the negotiators have, whether they can really speak for their constituents, and how the chances of a revolution at home can be minimized, are ever-present and important.

• The number of parties raises the range of issues about both intra- and inter- party multilateral negotiation. What is a good meeting design? How do you prepare? How do you organize the teams?

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role Specific:

• Confidential Instructions for the:

• Administration Representatives

• MAPO Representatives

Teacher’s Package (36 pages total)

• All of the above

• Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Commitments; Communication, public vs. private; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Force; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Linkage; Meaning of “success”; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Quantitative analysis; Systems of negotiation; Threats

from $0.00

The March at Drumcree Role Play is a simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Religion and Nationalism in Northern Ireland.

SCENARIO:

This role play is set in the mixed Protestant/ Catholic town of Portadown, Northern Ireland. The conflict centers around the issue of Protestant celebrations of the Protestant defeat of the last Catholic King of England in 1690. These celebrations, in the form of marches through the neighborhoods of Portadown, have been occurring for nearly two hundred years; however, due to changing demographics, some of these neighborhoods are nor inhabited primarily by Catholics, who view the marches as a symbol of Protestant domination. As this role play begins, a government commission has ordered representatives of the Orange Order, the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, the RUC, the Protestant Church of Ireland, and the Catholic Church to try to resolve the dispute, with the help of a mediator from the European Union. Specifically at issue are the following questions: whether the march will take place, and if so, the route that it will take; what behavior rules the marchers and residents will follow; and what kind of long-term arrangements can be made to settle such disputes in the future.

GOALS OF A WORKABLE ROLE PLAY:

The Workable Peace March at Drumcree Role Play aims to:

• Provide accurate history and background information on the Northern Ireland conflict, and specifically the conflict over the issue of Protestant marches, and provide opportunities for students to engage with this history in a direct and realistic context

• Stimulate and motivate student learning through active participation, as well as reading, writing, class discussion and other forms of analysis and expression.

• Build students’ negotiation and conflict management skills by asking them to take on the roles of participants seeking to resolve a conflict through negotiation, with support and feedback as they prepare, conduct and debrief the role play.

• Challenge students to find the links between the conflicts presented in the role play and the conflict resolution steps presented in the Workable Peace Framework, and the links to other conflicts in history and in their own lives.

Teacher’s Package includes:

• History and General Instructions

• Confidential Instructions for four parties and a mediator

• Framework for a Workable Peace

• Teaching Notes

If you would like additional information about the Workable Peace framework and teaching materials, including information about teacher training and support, please contact Workable Peace Co-Directors David Fairman or Stacie Smith at:

The Consensus Building Institute, Inc. 238 Maint Street, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617-492-1414 Fax: 617-492-1919 web: http://www.cbuilding.org Email: stacie@cbuilding.org

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Marsh County Case comprises four simultaneous — and potentially interactive — meetings among city and county officials regarding issues such as zoning permits, industrial facility and school siting, bilingual education, business community support of local schools, disciplinary action against local juveniles, and budget requests. The local officials involved all happen to be up for re-election this year. Originally designed as a training tool for locally elected officials, this case involves actual political issues obtained from newspaper articles in Florida and Georgia.

Potential teaching points include:

• The value of the interest-based negotiation process and its possible impact on the substantive result

• The value of strategic planning within a community

• The need for sensitive handling of ethical or moral dilemmas within a community planning context

Designed for 14 – 36 participants, the case includes the following roles:

• County Commission (3 – 7 participants)

• City Council (3 – 7)

• Board of Education (3 – 7)

• Chamber of Commerce Board (3 – 7)

• Industrial Prospect (1)

• Dir. of Development Authority (1)

• Sheriff of Marsh County (1 – optional)

• Neighborhood Rep, Fielding Care issue (1 – optional)

• Church Rep, Fielding Care issue (1 – optional)

• Neighborhood Rep, L&N issue (1 – optional)

• Environmental Rep, L&N issue (1 – optional)

• J. Thrash, Developer for L&N issue (1 – optional)

Teacher’s Pack (92 pages total) includes:

• Participant Materials

• Teaching Note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Arthur Hangtough has been employed by Enterprise Manufacturing Corporation (EMC) for 15 years. He currently holds the position of Vice President for Personnel and Labor Relations. The new company president has threatened to discharge Hangtough, who has no employment contract; Hangtough claims he would fight a discharge.

The president is concerned about Hangtough because of the possibility of his involvement in a conflicting commercial venture, failure to meet ostensible performance objectives, and recent sexual harassment charges filed against Hangtough. Hangtough claims that he is being attacked unfairly because he insists on avoiding any legal hedging at work. He also alleges that he is being discriminated against because of his age.

Unbeknownst to EMC, Hangtough wants to leave EMC immediately to accept a better job offer. Unbeknownst to Hangtough, EMC wants Hangtough to leave immediately in order to hire a promising new employee. In this context, two attorneys for EMC and two attorneys for Hangtough are meeting to discuss the issue of Hangtough’s potential termination.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Both parties want to have the termination issue settled immediately, without revealing their reasons to the other side. This raises interesting questions about the effect of time pressures on the negotiation.

• Each party has information about which the other party is unaware. How does one decide when, how, and what to disclose?

• Both parties have very different narratives about Arthur’s employment history, and different viewpoints about what should be done going forward. Is it possible to reconcile these narratives? Is it necessary? Does the outcome somehow reflect one or both narratives.

• Each party has a potential legal “threat” against the other: EMC has a potential sexual harassment claim against Hangtough, and Hangtough has a potential age discrimination claim against EMC. What effect did the existence of these potential claims have on the negotiation dynamics — whether or not they were voiced explicitly?

Teacher’s Package includes:

• Participant materials only

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

MC Metals, a subsidiary of a London-based multi-national corporation, is a large metal production company. The metal production process creates a waste residue, which MC Metals recycles or burns to create energy for its operations. Through a series of accidents in the recycling process, two workers were killed and some workers and fire fighting crew members were injured.

After the explosion, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (‘OSHA’) investigated the incident and found that MC Metals was not only at fault but that it had violated numerous safety regulations. MC Metals, which has a reputation for being highly concerned with safety, is contesting all charges.

MC Metals has requested an Informal Settlement Conference with an OSHA representative. Due to the publicity surrounding the case, MC Metals has agreed to have a member of the Town Fire Department, a union representative, and a local resident/expert present at the meeting.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The importance (and difficulty) of clarifying interests

• Coping with the loss of trust

• Dealing with anger and self-righteousness

• Dealing with differences in perception

• The importance of public perceptions

• Understanding sources of bargaining power

• The power of subjective criteria

• Potential benefits of using neutral parties

• Potential benefits of contingent agreements/ triggers

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• OSHA compliance and safety officer

• OSHA Area Director

• MC Metals Workers Union representative

• Town fire chief

• MC Metals Safety manager

• Woodville resident

Teacher’s package

• All of the above

• Teaching Notes on logistics, debriefing and key teaching points

KEYWORDS:

Multiparty negotiations; environmental health and safety dispute; environmental conflict resolution

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Bog Berries Inc. vs. Federal Environmental Agency

Chemco Inc.