from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The City of Lamebridge in the State of Ames is well known for its two major universities, political activism, and controversial city ordinances – such as the one banning “fast-food restaurants” from certain commercially zoned areas. This ordinance was enacted in response to tremendous pressure from a community organization called “Save Our Square” (SOS), whose mission is to preserve the character and sanctity of certain parts of Lamebridge, and especially the world-renowned Harkness Square.

For some time, McMillin’s Corporation, which operates the largest fast-food chain in the world, has sought permission from the Lamebridge Zoning Commission to build a McMillin’s fast-food restaurant in Harkness Square. The zoning commission has repeatedly refused McMillin’s requests, largely because of pressure from SOS. McMillin’s has now threatened to sue the zoning commission for a regulatory taking.

As a last-ditch effort to avoid litigation, and at the urging of the Lamebridge City Council, representatives of McMillin’s and SOS have agreed to meet to try to strike a deal. The major issues to be negotiated are:

• Aesthetic considerations including the type and color of bricks used to construct the restaurant and the size of the location of McMillin’s trademark “platinum M”;

• Traffic congestion and parking problems;

• Safety concerns, such as the possibility of attracting loiterers;

• Predatory pricing, which could drive local restaurants out of business; and

• Worker’s rights, including compensation and age minimums

Participants materials include:

• General instructions

Confidential instructions for:

• Spokesperson(s) for Save Our Square (SOS)

• Spokesperson(s) for McMillin’s Corporation

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above

• (Teaching note forthcoming)

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:

MedDevice, a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company that manufactures high technology medical equipment, and Lee Medical Supply, a small Thailand-based company that distributes medical equipment in Southeast Asia, seek to conclude a joint venture. The venture, to be named MedLee, Ltd., will take the form of a Bangkok sales office that distributes MedDevice brand medical equipment. The CEOs have met and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They have now instructed their subordinates (Pat Armstrong, the Director of International Strategic Market Research at MedDevice, and T.S. Lee, the Vice President and son of the owner of Lee Medical Supply) to conduct preliminary negotiations on four issues they consider central to the joint venture: decision making, staffing, profit distribution, and a conflict resolution mechanism. MedDevice and Lee Medical Supply differ greatly in their corporate cultures, which are shaped by their national cultures and the demands of their respective industries. MedDevice, a publicly traded company in a highly regulated industry, is rule-oriented, efficient, structured, data driven, and merit-based. Lee Medical Supply, a family-owned and operated company, places a high value on relationships and family loyalty, and favors informal consensus arrangements over rules. The respective negotiators must develop a way for companies with such divergent cultures to work together.

SUBJECTS:

Joint ventures; cross-cultural negotiations; agent-principal tensions

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Handling the challenges involved in preparing for and conducting cross-cultural negotiations.

• Recognizing and dealing with divergent assumptions and perspectives.

• Bridging cultural differences and communicating effectively across cultures.
  

• Handling agent-principal tensions.

Minimum Participants: 2

Preparation Time: 30 min. – 1 hour

Negotiation Time: 90 min. – 2 hours

Debriefing Time: 30 min. – 1 hour

Teacher’s Package (30 pages total) includes:

• Participant materials

• Teaching Note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Federal Republic of Meridia, located in Central America, is negotiating to sell off-shore oil leasing rights along its Eastern coast. the capitol of Meridia, Quintaro, is on the Western coast. Its population is 500,000. Meridia’s Western coast already has a number of off-shore drilling facilities, but this would be the first in the East. The Government has high hopes about the effect these newly discovered oil fields will have on that region. The city of Guaca, which dominates that region, was just involved in a six-year civil war. Meridia has many offers by contenders. Petrocentram, from Venezuela, is one of those three.

Negotiations between Meridia and Petrocam have been going on for about a month. A “final” negotiation session is about to begin. If a decision is not reached today, Meridia will begin negotiations with other companies.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining. Depending on the skill of the other negotiator, both approaches can do well. Both parties should be risk averse, however, and wary of an adversarial approach that might get out of hand.

• 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 presents a good opportunity to point out that any such analysis should be based on a consideration of the parties’ relative BATNA’s.

• Since the case does have a strong competitive element, there is ample opportunity to explore techniques for indirectly and directly extracting information from the other side. Likewise, techniques of protecting oneself from “giving up” the possibility for gains that were unforeseen can be explored and discussed.

from $0.00

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 Vermont farmer somewhat interested in the possibility of expanding activities has considered going into maple syrup production, wood cutting, or increasing the farmer’s cow herd. The farmer’s neighbor is a person from Boston who only comes up on occasional weekends and holidays and is currently interested in selling or leasing at least part of the property. In preliminary discussions, the two have differed significantly on their assessments of the land owned by the Bostonian, but have agreed to meet and discuss the situation further.

MECHANICS:

This exercise is usually conducted one-on-one for about 45-60 minutes. With a bit more time, participants can be asked to spend some time drafting a written agreement. Communication with unresponsive parties can be explored in review by modeling a typically smart, but cautious Vermont farmer of few words. Review should take from 60-90 minutes. Asking each participant silently to jot down the points of their agreement usually highlights the imprecision and ambiguity of most oral negotiations.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This negotiation focuses squarely on interests, options, and objective criteria. Positional bargaining is virtually certain to leave large potential joint gains unrealized. On the other hand, there is the challenge of engaging in joint brainstorming without unintentionally committing oneself.

• While a variety of options seem likely to be of mutual benefit, most require additional information for full analysis and decision-making. This raises nice questions of how to structure contingent decisions under uncertainty, and how to build in appropriate incentives for objective information-gathering.

• Poorly thought out agreements often ignore important unknowns and details of implementation. Clear thinking suggests setting realistic expectations about what can be accomplished in the meeting. Agreements will tend to vary dramatically in their scope.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Owner

• Farmer

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Creativity; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Pareto optimization

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:

Mouse Company, the world’s largest entertainment conglomerate, and the French government have signed an agreement for Mouse to create a “EuroMouse” development a short distance from Paris. Major debate and great tension have developed between Mouse and the four municipalities within whose jurisdiction the development will occur. To improve relations and to work out some form of agreement, representatives from the national government, Mouse, and the mayors of the four municipalities have agreed to meet.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The primary goal of this exercise is to give participants an expanded understanding of the variety of elements that arise in mult-party, multi-issue negotiations, particularly when held in an international or multicultural setting.

• Participants should recognize the increased need for preparation and sensitivity in terms of understanding the viewpoint/ values of counterparts from other cultures.

• The exercise is structured so that each party will have certain expectations of the other parties which may or may not be correct. These expectations will include general impressions of what it is like to negotiate with the French or with the Americans, as well as more specific pre-conceptions about the other parties.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Programmer Lance Goodman is developing a new internet meta-search engine called MultiSearch. He would like to turn over the support and marketing of MultiSearch to a professional firm, so that he can devote more time to other projects. Sue Edwards, Vice President of Business Development for respected software firm Jack Carnie Inc., is looking for a new internet product to add to the firm’s portfolio. The two are meeting to discuss the possibility of Jack Carnie Inc. acquiring and marketing MultiSearch. Each party (unbeknownst to the other) has a strong incentive to reach a deal.

Teaching points include: reaching agreement within a large ZOPA; methods for dealing with differing interests around nonmonetary options such as timing; potential value of contingent agreements.

Teacher’s Package includes:

Confidential instructions for:

• Lance Goodman and Sue Edwards

• 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:

Six weeks ago, the Presidents of four of the world’s largest aircraft engine companies drafted a joint memorandum announcing an “agreement in principle” on a 30-year joint partnership in the design, manufacture, and sales of a new generation engine, the A-2000. The memorandum requested that the company negotiators convene to negotiate details of the agreement.

The U.S. company, Airborne, has been the world leader in engine technology and will be the lead partner in the venture, with primary responsibility for coordinating with the other three partners. Each of the partners has agreed to pay Airborne a fee in exchange for which Airborne will provide the majority of the technical information needed to build the A-2000. Today, three negotiators from Airborne will meet with one representative from each of the other companies: SERSI (France), Novo (Italy), and Kiatsu (Japan), to try to reach a universally acceptable agreement.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful external negotiations on successful internal negotiations. Thorough preparation is required.

• Don’t jeopardize long-term relationships for short-term gains.

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

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

It is February, 1993 and the United States has just experienced a serious energy emergency. High oil prices and cutbacks in international supplies of oil and gas have forced the President to tap America’s Strategic Petroleum reserves. The inflation rate has jumped sharply to nine percent and the trade deficit is sky-rocketing. Various world events have helped to create this energy emergency. Among them are the bombing of the Gwar oil fields in Saudi Arabia (decreasing Saudi oil production by 35%) and a miscalculation on the part of both American and European refiners of the consequences of limiting supplies and reducing raw product inventories.

The President has joined other world leaders in calling for concerted international action, but no consensus has emerged on what that action should be. It is within this context that the President has convened a broadly-based bipartisan Commission on America’s Energy Future. The President has asked the 16-member commission to develop detailed proposals for reducing America’s vulnerability to the kinds of pressures and events that caused the recent emergency. The President has given the Commission six months to produce a report and urged them to strive for consensus so that the US might speak with a unified voice. The Commission will meet three times during those six months.

MECHANICS:

There needs to be a room with a table for the 16 Commission members and additional seating for lobby groups and media observers. Some means of recording proposals and tracking progress should be available e.g. a flip chart or white board.

There should be a nearby room to accommodate and seat all the lobby group and media commentator participants. There should be at least 9 small tables for each of the lobby groups to meet.

A game manager(s) should be in charge of keeping time, collecting and delivering mail, and maintaining the flow of the simulation. All parties must stay on track – the simulation takes a lot of time and is divided into many parts.

Estimated Time Requirement:

This exercise takes 7 1/2 hours to run if played in one day or 6 3/4 hours if play is to be spread out over several weeks. There is a 15 minute videotape that needs to be played at the onset.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Consensus Rules: Agreeing upon the decision-rule(s) that will be used to determine consensus is one of the most difficult and important decisions in any negotiation.

• Packaging: In multi-issue, multi-party negotiations, “packaging” issues, as opposed to dealing with them sequentially, improves the chances of reaching consensus.

• Informal vs. formal: Informality and caucusing among interest groups or “opposing” parties breaks down barriers to joint problem-solving.

• Impact of deadlines: Reaching an agreement is easier when the parties are not “under the gun.” In a crisis atmosphere it is harder to explore each others’ interests and come to a consensus.

• Determining success: In multi-issue, multi-party negotiations it is often difficult to determine whether the negotiations were successful, especially when consensus was reached on only a subset of all the issues on the table.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

A 15 minute video titled Energy Game is available to order with this simulation and should be played for the participants at the beginning of the simluation.

At least 27 players are required, 16 for the Commission, nine for the lobby groups, and two as media commentators. It is recommended for there to be at least two people in each lobby group. It is also best when there is more than one game manager to help with the logistics. Therefore an ideal number for this game is 34+ participants.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Background and Instructions

• Letter from the President (given to the members of the Commission only)

• Simulation Schedule

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

Members of the Commission

Democratic Congressman, Democratic Senator, Director of National Consumer Federation, Electric Utility CEO, Governor of an Energy Consuming State, Governor of an Energy Producing State, Investment Banker, Media Commentators, President of National Caucus for People of Color, President of National Environmental Coalition, President of National Labor Union, Representative of National Security council, Republican Congressman, Republican Senator, Retired CEO of Major Oil Company, Secretary of Energy, University President and Nobel Prize Winner

Lobby Groups

• Automakers Lobby, Coal Lobby, National Consumer Coalition, Farm Lobby, Alternative Energy Coalition, Oil and Gas Lobby, Nuclear Lobby, Environmental Coalition, Members of the Large Energy Consumers Lobby

Teacher’s Package (102 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teaching note, including logistics, general and specific background readings, most commonly asked questions, debriefing information, summary of lessons, suggested exam questions, and master policy/role matrix

• Optional Videotape

KEYWORDS:

Consensus building on national policy; energy policy; multi-party negotiations.

THEMES:

Agenda control; Anchoring; Caucusing; Coalitions; Consensus building; Constituents; Linkage; Meaning of “success”; Packaging; Systems of negotiation

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Nazi Party of America has paid a non-refundable $5,000 deposit to the Convention Center in the Town of Hokey (population 100,000-55,000 Jewish). The American Civil Liberties League (ACLL) is representing the Nazi Party in petitioning the Board of Selectmen to permit a parade that will travel through the center of town and pass many Jewish homes with residents who still vividly remember the Holocaust. The Town of Hokey is in an uproar, and the issuance of the permit has become a national political issue. There is little doubt that if the permit is not issued the whole convention will move to another heavily Jewish community. The Attorneys for the Town and the ACLL are scheduled to meet to discuss the possibility of reaching some agreement. The meeting of the Board of Selectmen meet to vote on the issuance of the permit is imminent.

MECHANICS:

This case can be configured either one-on-one or two-on-two. Negotiation time may range from 10-60 minutes, review from 15-60 minutes, both depending on the goals and the amount of preparation. (No precedents are given in the case, but obviously many exist that can be researched.) Videotaping highlights nonverbal communication.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case puts Carol Gilligan’s two “voices” of rights and caring directly at odds in a value-laden political context with high salience for many people. This sets up discussion of a series of issues, including: Whether and how the two concerns can be reconciled? What constitutes “objective” criteria in a case like this–is some fundamental value consensus needed for the concept to have meaning and/or functionality?

• 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?

• The case also raises a variety of issues related to politicization, and to conflicts of interests between local and national interest groups and between short- and long-range goals.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• Town Attorneys

• American Civil Liberties League Attorneys

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Authority; BATNA; Communication; Constituents; Credibility; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Media; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Separating the people from the problem; Threats

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

The grandchild of the founder of the city of Redstone has proposed building an up-scale condominium project. This has been encouraged by the Redevelopment Authority. Rumor has it that the plans include 120 units, street level commercial businesses, and a parking garage. The City Council is opposed to the project. A Neighborhood Association, including supporters of the “slow-growth” platform on which the Council was elected, is very upset and has articulated its opposition to the plan. In addition, the down-zoning laws in Redstone allow the developer of the proposed project an “as of right” density of only 50 units. However, the developer can negotiate for a higher density by offering to exceed the 10% affordable housing requirement set by the city. The City Council has urged that a representative from the Neighborhood Association and the developer meet to try to reach an accord. If no agreement is reached, the dispute will go to the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority (which are at odds).

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Importance of pre-negotiation analysis: It is important to prepare for a negotiation and particularly to identify both aspirations and BATNA’s.

• Distributive vs. Integrative bargaining differences: The participants have an opportunity to analyze the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining.

• Potential Joint Gains: Focusing on issues that are valued differently will allow participants to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach an agreement.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

A variation of this exercise entitled Ocean Splash is also available from the Clearinghouse.

Estimated Time Requirement:

This scorable game takes about 10 minutes to read. Preparation should take approximately 15-20 minutes. The parties are given a chart to assess their scores for all possible agreements. The negotiation should take from 30-45 minutes. At least 30 minutes should be allocated for debriefing.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions and Scoring Charts for

• Angela Redstone

• John Hammond

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Community development; Constituents; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Land Use Negotiation; Linkage negotiation; Meaning of “success”; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Offers, first; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Public dispute resolution; Public opinion; Reservation price; Risk aversion

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Parking Spaces for Super Computer

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Due to increased public pressures, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) has had several meetings with three coalitions to assess the environmental impacts of electricity production. The coalitions representing environmental organizations, the electric utilities, and industrial electricity users, along with the PUC and a neutral facilitator must meet to review and improve a preliminary draft of a proposed rule that incorporates environmental costs into electric utility rate setting decisions.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Negotiation benefits rule-making processes: This exercise illustrates how negotiation can enhance the process of rule-making by identifying what interests should be served by a particular rule and how those interests can be met.

• Benefits of multiple iterations of this game: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements the usefulness of generating options should emerge.

• Identifying success: Attitudes toward success can change when players in the same role compare outcomes across groups. Seeing what the same party at a different table achieved opens up discussion of the meaning of both winning and fairness.

• Potential roles of the facilitator: It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator’s instructions are rather vague, therefore the role may develop into a mediator’s role, a process manager’s role, or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiation at all.

• Impact of meeting design: The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussion are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.

• Impact of private caucusing: Caucusing can lead to the formation of blocking coalitions. The effects of caucusing on the prospects of reaching agreements can be compared across groups.

• Single Text Tool: The usefulness of a single negotiating text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences and help parties structure packages or trade-offs more creatively.

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include 5 roles, however, more than one player may be assigned to any role.

Estimated Time Requirements:

Reading and preparation: 15 minutes

Parties having the same role may caucus to review their strategies prior to the beginning of the actual negotiation: 35 minutes

Negotiation and Review of the draft: 60 minutes

Debrieft: At least 45 minutes

Total: 2.5-3 hours.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Draft of Proposed Rule

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Electric Utility Negotiator

• Environmental Negotiator

• Industrial User Negotiator

• Public Utility Commission Negotiator

• Confidential Advice to the Facilitator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Negotiated rule-making; Rate setting negotiation; Electricity rate setting; Environmental dispute resolution; Agenda control; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Creativity; Decision analysis; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Mediation; Meeting design; Negotiation entry; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Single-text procedure; Yesable propositions

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dirty Stuff II

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:

Dr. Van Hagen, a distinguished heart surgeon, will soon join the staff at Newtowne Hospital, a 750 bed teaching institution. Although some staff members are elated and perceive the arrival of the doctor as an indication of the hospital’s coming-of-age, other staff members are in shock. Newtowne is already facing financial difficulties, including the fact that the annual wage increase for staff has not kept up with the cost-of-living. Now that the hospital has promised financial support to Dr. Van Hagen and his special staff, and will also fund his new equipment, Newtowne is going to have to cut $3.5 million from the rest of its budget. John Demars, the Chief Operating Officer, has met privately with five people who will serve as a budget advisory committee. The five members: the Chief of the Medical staff, Vice-President of Nursing, Chief Financial officer, Head of the Nurses Union, and president of the Hospital Workers Association all were a bit angry and worried about suggested cuts in their departmental budgets. Demars has asked the Advisory Committee to try to reach a consensus on the budget cuts. If no agreement is reached, the Chief Financial Officer will submit his own recommendation to the hospital Board of Directors.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Relationships: Relationships are a key issue in this case. In order to keep the hospital running smoothly, the players must remain accountable to their constituents while maintaining a good working rapport with each other.

• Identifying ‘success’: During post-negotiation discussions, participants can take a close look at the different notions of a good outcome in each of the negotiating groups. did the parties try to accommodate each other’s interest? What were the results when they did?

• Interests vs. Positions: The parties must separate their interests from their positions, as well as the people from the problem in order to reach a consensus in a distributive bargaining situation. Reactions of the parties make this dispute difficult. The players are very concerned about their status within the hospital hierarchy, causing symbolic aspects of the negotiation to be quite important.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Budget Cutting Strategies Memorandum

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• John Demars, Chief Operating Officer

• Harry Baxter, Chief of the Medical Staff

• Diana Antry, Vice-President of Nursing

• Bob Carter, Financial Officer

• Vickie Eaton, Head of the Nurses Union

• Felicity Fulton, President of the Hospital Workers Association

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

• Results form

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Anchoring; Assumptions; Authority; BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus Building; Constituents; Cost-benefits analysis; Cut-back planning; Fairness; Financial analysis; Group process; Health care management; Hospital administration; Internal budget negotiations; Interests, quantifying; Legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Meeting design; Message analysis; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Preparation; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Williams Medical Centre

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:

Neighborhood Care, Inc. is a non-profit mental health organization that provides counseling and recreational health services to mentally challenged adults and teenagers. Neighborhood Care would like to rent space in a local church, and the church is interested. Local residents oppose the idea and plan on staging a protest at the next zoning hearing, when the church will seek a permit to operate the Neighborhood Care facility. The situation is also complicated by the fact that the church is located in a neighborhood with residents of a different religious faith.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

There are two versions of this exercise:

Original by Lawrence Susskind -
Each participant receives a single sheet of paper with a summary of both sides’ views. The group is asked to discuss how a mediator, contacted by one side, ought to proceed. The group is then asked to discuss how a mediator, in the mediation, should proceed. The participants are then given a copy of the actual negotiated agreement and asked to evaluate it.

Revised version by Bruce Patton -
This is a mediation exercise. Each side receives its views as confidential instructions. The mediator comes to the meeting at the request of the parties. The parties may be represented by individuals and/or teams. Any agreement reached can be compared with the actual signed agreement.

Estimated Time Requirements:

Original non-mediated Version:
Group discussion on how a mediator ought to proceed after being contacted by one side: 15-30 minutes
Group discussion on how the mediator should proceed during the mediation: 15-30 minutes
Evaluation of an actual negotiated agreement: 15-30 minutes Total: 45-90 minutes

Revised Mediation Version:
Reading and preparation: 10 minutes
Mediation 60-120 minutes
Debrief: 45-60 minutes
Total: 105 – 190 minutes

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Partisan perceptions: This case illustrates how and why groups with competing interests or concerns can view the same situation in different ways.

• Mediator issues: The difficulties facing mediators trying to gain entry into community disputes are illustrated, especially the problem of maintaining neutrality.

• Identifying success: The prospects for developing written agreements in community conflicts are presented. The difficulties of defining a “good” outcome in a community dispute are also highlighted.

• Implementation: Review of the agreement reached in the real-life case highlights the problem of implementing informed negotiated agreements.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties: Non-Mediated Version

• Memorandum on the Neighbors’ and Church’s Views

• The Actual Signed Agreement (names blocked out)

Role specific: Mediated Version

• Confidential Instructions for the

• Neighbors’ Representative(s)

• Church’s Representative(s)

• Mediator

• The Actual Signed Agreement (names blocked out)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Extensive teaching notes for mediated version debrief

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Education, as a means; Emotions; Facility siting negotiation; Implementing informed negotiated public agreements; Interest analysis; Issue control; Linkage; Mediation; Mediation, negotiating entry; Meeting design; Negotiating in communities of faith; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Public dispute mediation; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Risk perception; Value-based disputes; Yesable propositions

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Jefferson Hazardous Waste Negotiation

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Mandroa

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The state of New Crimea has an average daily prison population of 13,000, with the prison system currently operating at a 122% capacity. A federal judge recently ruled that such conditions violate inmates’ constitutional rights, and ordered a 13% reduction of the inmate population within six months. Following this ruling, the governor of New Crimea organized a Prison Overcrowding Policy Commission, whose responsibility it is to develop policy recommendations that will alleviate the system-wide overcrowding. The legislature will then consider the Commission’s proposals. Should the Commission fail to reach an agreement, the Department of Corrections will be forced to begin releasing inmates.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• BATNA: This exercise requires participants to identify an focus on their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). By clarifying their aspirations and BATNA, the players give themselves a range within which to evaluate options or packages that develop during the bargaining process.

• Interests vs. Positions: Players should uncover the interests behind the Commission members’ positions. This will enable the Commission to seek out new options in order to maximize joint gains, thus increasing its chances of reaching an effective, mutually acceptable agreement. This case introduces a potential “hard bargaining” situation. Loss of pride may prevent a player from agreeing to a different, but equally acceptable option.

• Alliances: In this exercise, players should learn to maximize their bargaining power by forming political alliances. Coalition-building allows those without a strong power base to promote their most important interests as well as to create innovative options that satisfy multiple party interests.

MECHANICS:

Estimated Time Requirements:

Read instructions: 30 minutes

Players in the same roles discuss strategy: 15 minutes

Negotiations: 90 minutes

Debriefing: 45 minutes

Total: 3 hours

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Instructions

• General Background

• Editorial from The New Crimea Times

Role specific:

Confidential instructions for:

• The Corrections Commissioner

• The Governor’s Advisor

• The Judge

• The Parole Board Chairperson

• The Prisoners’ Advocate

• The State Legislator

• The Victim’s Advocate

Teacher’s package (47 pages total):

• All of the above

• Extensive teaching notes for debriefing

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Agenda control; Coalitions; Consensus building; Constituents; Correctional policy negotiations; Interest analysis; Political constraints; Prison overcrowding; Dealing with public opinion; State policy negotiations

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The U.S. Cancer Association (USCA) chapter in Sixton City is organizing its annual Cancer Walk, which ends at the Sixton University Stadium. Local TV stations cover the Walk awards ceremony inside the stadium.

Every year, many of Sixton City’s largest businesses sponsor the Walk. USCA arranges for sponsors to display banners along the Walk course, and in the stadium. Corporate sponsors prefer to display their banners in the stadium, where the TV stations set up their cameras.

Each year, USCA sets a “banner price” (the cost of displaying one banner along the Walk course or in the Stadium), which is non-negotiable. USCA and the Walk’s corporate sponsors then negotiate the total number of banners each company will display, and the number of banners that the company will be able to display in the stadium.

The USCA Cancer Walk Coordinator, John Simonds, is about to meet with Emilia Biggs, VP for Public Relations at the Ocean Splash Corporation, a major juice manufacturer headquarted in Sixton City and a sponsor of the Walk. John Simonds of USCA wants to “sell” Ocean Splash a large number of banners, but he wants to limit the number of banners Ocean Splash displays in the stadium, so that he can offer stadium display space to as many corporate sponsors as possible. Emilia Biggs of Ocean Splash wants to “buy” a relatively small number of banners, and to display as many of them as possible in the stadium.

This simulation is a variation of Negotiated Development in Redstone, also available from the Clearinghouse.

MECHANICS:

This scorable game takes about 10 minutes to read. Preparation should take approximately 15-20 minutes. The parties are given a chart to assess their scores for all possible agreements. The negotiation should take 30-45 minutes. At least 30 minutes should be allocated for debriefing.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This game involves pre-negotiation analysis enabling parties to understand the importance of “aspirations” as distinct from BATNAs.

• The participants have an opportunity to analyze the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining.

• Focusing on issues that are valued differently will allow participants to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach and agreement.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions and Scoring Charts for:

• John Simonds, USCA Walk Coordinator

• Emilia Biggs, Ocean Splash VP for Public Relations

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Chart of possible outcomes

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; bluffing; closure; constituents; creativity; currently perceived choice analysis; interests, dovetailing; linkage; meaning of “success”; misrepresentation; monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; offers, first; precedents; pressure tactics; public opinion; reservation price

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Integrated Strategy and Implementation, Inc. (ISI) is a consulting firm which expanded to incorporate small firms in specialized areas to help customers implement strategies. Fran Folkman was a partner in one of the small firms which merged with ISI. Along with Fran moved his/her right-hand person, Pat Purcell. Purcell has worked with Folkman, initially as an entry-level employee, and has become a competent professional. Of late, their relationship has soured as Folkman perceives Purcell as less than committed to the business and as having let certain areas of his job performance slide. Purcell has become dissatisfied with Folkman’s efforts at control, lack of feedback, and difficult work habits. Fran has brought matters to a head by sending Purcell and HR form listing areas of substandard performance and demanding that he agree, in writing, to improve his job performance or resign. Both parties have agreed to work through their discontent with Chris Cahill, the vice-president to whom Folkman reports. (Note: You can give students in Cahill’s role the option to assume a different identity, that of an outside neutral, or of someone in a different position at ISI.)

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Shellfish Wind Associates has submitted a proposal to develop offshore wind farms in Dakota Shoal, and the Federal Permitting Agency (FPA) is reviewing the controversial proposal. A group of relevant stakeholders has been meeting to discuss the recently submitted draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and this is the third meeting convened by the FPA. Stakeholders are seeking consensus regarding the following issues:

• How much agreement is there around the developer’s EIS?
• What additional environmental, economic, and/or aesthetic considerations should be addressed in the permitting decision?
• What is preventing stakeholders from reaching agreement?
• What mode of participation should be used to ensure stakeholders an appropriate role in the final permitting decision?

THEMES:

• Techniques for creating value in spite of differences

• Joint fact-finding in the face of disputed scientific information

• Dealing with scientific and technical uncertainty through an adaptive management approach.

Participant Materials Include:

For all parties:

• General instructions

• Shellfish Wind’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• State Dept. of Env. Protection’s Economic Impact Assessment

Role-specific instructions for:

• Federal Permitting Agency (FPA)

• Shellfish Wind Associates (SWA)

• Residents’ Assocation (RA)

• State Department of Environmental Protection (SDEP)

• Fishermen’s Association (FA)

• Resource Economist

• University of Commonwealth Marin Biologist

• National Association for Green Energy (NAGE)

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

In 1990, Tutsi exiles in Uganda formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), a political and military organization. After three years of war, they came within 30 km of invading Kigali, the Rwandan capital. The Rwandan president was forced to sign a power-sharing peace agreement with the RPF. However, Hutu elites within the government had been training civilians, militias, and army units to massacre the Tutsis. On April 6, 1994, President Habyarimana was assassinated and the genocide began.

For three months, the citizens of Rwanda were slaughtered on such a massive scale that five times more people were killed per day than in any other twentieth century genocide. Approximately 830,000 people were killed, of which 800,000 were members of the Tutsi ethnic minority, and the remainder members of the Hutu majority. Eleven percent of Rwanda’s population died. Two million of Rwanda’s seven million people fled the country as refugees.

In 1996, most of the Rwandan people returned to their homes and livelihoods. The ethnic conflict that had exploded into genocide two years before still existed, however, and new conflicts had arisen out of the genocide.

This negotiation is set in a small village in Gisenyi Province of northern Rwanda, just after the return of a massive wave of refugees. The format is a village meeting with six participants: Bernadette (a 44-year old Tutsi woman whose husband and son were killed by the Hutus); Frederic (a 22-year old Tutsi refugee whose parents fled to Uganda from Gisenyi 30 years ago); Ancille (a 45-year old Hutu woman whose daughter had married Bernadette’s son); Joseph (a 25-year old Hutu man, recently appointed prefect); Charles (a 60-year old Hutu man and the locally elected bougmestre who challenges Joseph’s authority); and Perpetune (a 29-year old Hutu woman whose land abust the land claimed by Bernadette, Ancille, and Frederic). The villagers will seek consensus regarding competing land claims and local authority issues.

NOTE: One Village, Six People is a role simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Ethnic Conflict and Genocide in Post-Colonial Africa.

Key learning points include:

• How intergroup conflicts begin when individuals identify strongly with a particular group as a way to meet their physical and psychological needs, and come to believe that this “identity group” is being threatened by members of other groups;

• How intergroup conflicts escalate when group members and leaders decide to use threats or acts of violence to meet the needs of their own group; and

• How members of groups in conflict can take steps toward a workable peace by negotiating truces, recognizing each others’ right to meet basic needs, and making rules for settling their conflicts and meeting their needs without violence.

Teacher’s Pack includes:

• History and General Instructions

• Confidential instructions for Perpetune, Frederic, Charles, Joseph, Ancille  and Bernadette

• Observation/ Assessment Instructions

• Teaching Note

• Master List of Player Goals

• Teaching Overheads

• Framework for a Workable Peace

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 Main Street, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617-492-1414 Fax: 616-492-1919 web: http://www.cbuilding.org Email: stacie@cbuilding.org

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A custom-made, oval-shaped rug was purchased from Andy Onembo at the Benjamin Rug Company by Bill Runyon. Runyon initially made a $50 down payment, and one week later paid the balance of $139. Both payments were by check, on an account held jointly with his former foster mother, Betty Lebeau. When Runyon presented the rug as a gift to Mrs. Lebeau, she expressed her gratitude, but believed the rug to be too expensive. Mrs. Lebeau decided to take the gift back. On the day of the return, Onembo stated that the customers should at least pay the $7 freight cost. An argument ensued, during which Mrs. Lebeau became infuriated. Eventually, she left the store with the rug still in her car. She then canceled both the checks. Andy Onembo sued Runyon and Lebeau in small claims court. The claim has now been referred to mediation.

MECHANICS:

The agenda for the mediation is left up to the mediator, and may include separate meetings with each party, joint conferences, or both. The session needs 60 to 90 minutes. “A Brief Outline of the Mediation process,” Case No. 15003.0 in Other Materials, is useful as background reading for the mediator. “An Actual Small Claims Mediated Agreement,” Case No. 15004.0 in Other Materials, is useful as follow-up reading, especially if mediators have been asked to draft any agreement reached. (Hand this out after the mediators have finished their own try at drafting).

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case severely tests a mediator’s skill in reality testing. Both sides hold strong views about the facts, a fair outcome, and each other, and are strong-willed and stubborn in general.

• 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.

• The role of “face-saving” and legitimacy is highlighted in analyzing those solutions that are reached.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Basic Fact Sheet

Role Specific:

Confidential Information for:

• Plaintiff, Andy Onembo

• Defendant, Betty Lebeau

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Caucusing; Credibility; Drafting; Emotions; Interpersonal skills; Mediation; Meeting design; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Reality testing; Risk aversion