from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Home Valley is in the rural American West where ranching, hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreations are the norm. Many changes are threatening the valley’s traditional life. Newcomers are buying up the land, forcing up real estate prices, and making it more difficult to keep the land in agricultural production. The new land development often does not respect the wide open spaces and privacy of traditional land uses. Many ranchers’ children are moving away, not interested in the financial risk and endless hard work that ranching entails. Some say that elk, deer, antelope, and other game habitats are shrinking in the face of the boom.

This negotiation is among seven local landowners, aided by a facilitator, who have gathered to develop a private land use plan. This effort does not involve government intervention or regulation. It would be a strictly voluntary agreement aimed at providing financial security while preserving open space and agricultural land.

The two main issues are the location of potential development in the valley, and the number of developable parcels per owner. In addition, each of the parties has a number of “tradable” items that they either want to secure from, or trade to, another party. These include viewsheds, hunting rights, grazing/haying leases, conservation easements, money, developable units, and trusts and partnerships.

This simulation offers participants a low-stakes, non-personalized, experiential means to explore the notion of private land use planning. At the very least, participants should gain a heightened awareness of how private negotiation among landowners can be applied in the real-life situations that many Western landowners are facing today.

MAJOR LESSONS:

Participants should gain a heightened awareness of how private negotiation among landowners can be applied in the real-life situations that many Western landowners are facing today. Key learning topics include private land planning, brokering common as well as individual agreements, integrating numerous parties’ multiple interests into a shared agreement, coalition formation, and facilitation.

MECHANICS:

Facilities needed:

Large room with table with seating for 8. Flipchart, marker, large scale map of home valley, calculator.

Space for private breakouts.

Estimated Time Requirements:

Reading and preparation: 60 minutes

Negotiation: 120 minutes

Debrief: 50 minutes

Written evaluation: 10 minutes

Total: 4 hours

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Teacher’s Package (65 pages total) includes:

• General Instructions

• Confidential Instructions for landowner neighbors: L. Wealth, R. Hunt, C. County, P. Rights, L. Eagle, E. Taxes, and M. Sell; and for facilitator L. Trust

• Teaching Note

KEYWORDS:

Land use dispute resolution; agricultural negotiations; regional policy disputes; mobilization of civil society

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

This negotiation, which takes place among three fictional Pacific Rim countries over the rice trade, is designed to highlight the challenges that can arise in cross-cultural and in multi-party negotiations.

Fuji, the regional power in the “Pacrim” trading block, is a large island nation that imports significant quantities of rice, but that is constitutionally bound to import rice from only one country at a time. The smaller, historically unfriendly island nations of Indocarta and Hawani both wish to export their rice to Fuji. In a series of one-on-one and tripartite meetings, representatives of the three nations must determine not only whether and how Fuji will import rice, but also whether Indocarta and Hawani will cooperate or compete with each other in such an arrangement. The changing economy and the cultural differences among the three nations play a crucial role in the negotiations.

Teacher’s Package includes:

• General Instructions

• Confidential instructions for Fuji, Hawani, and Indocarta

• Teaching Note

• Crisis Bulletin (for instructor only)

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:

Super Computer Corp. just signed its second three-year lease for office space at 100 Blue Chip Street. This office building, managed by Prime Properties, houses the regional offices of several global corporations. Tenga Tenier (Super Computer’s office manager) and Rom Rosok (Prime Properties’ property manager for 100 Blue Chip Street) are about to enter their annual negotiation over parking spaces.

There is an executive parking lot underneath the office building, but this lot is not large enough to accommodate all of the building’s tenants. Prime Properties offers a limited number of “executive” parking spaces in the underground lot, and a larger number of “satellite” parking spaces in a lot that is about ten minutes’ walking distance from the building. Because Prime Properties charges the same lease price for executive and satellite parking spaces, tenants want to lease as few satellite and as many executive spaces as possible, while Prime Properties wants to lease as many satellite and as few executive spaces as possible.

Tenga and Ron must negotiate an agreement on two issues: how many parking spaces will Super Computer lease, and how many of those spaces will be in the executive parking lot underneath the office building? Their scores will depend on the final agreement on each of these issues.

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

the value of exploring interests; the uses of objective criteria; the effect of aspirations on results; the power of trading across differently-valued issues; and the tension between creating and claiming value.

Teacher’s Pack (26 pages total) includes:

• Confidential instructions for Tenga Tenier and Rom Rosok

• Score sheets for all participants

• Teaching Note

• Teaching overheads

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

On answering a call from a concerned neighbor who overheard fighting and screaming, the police arrived at the home of the Malvenues. In their investigation, they saw bruises on Mrs. Malvenue, who stated that her husband had beaten her. George Malvenue was then arrested and charged with assault and battery. Mr. Malvenue, a gas station attendant, has a serious criminal record. However, his wife, who raises their four-year-old son, loves George and worries about making it without him, even though she is afraid of him. She has refused to sign the complaint. Mr. Malvenue’s court-appointed attorney is about to speak to the prosecutor. They have different resolutions in mind, although avoiding a trial is something of a mutual concern.

MECHANICS:

This one-on-one negotiation can run 10-30 minutes. Videotaping and review is useful for building awareness of nonverbal communication.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case presents the lawyer’s classic conflict of personal values and professional responsibility, and the analogous problem for society of deciding when to impose its views in interpersonal relations.

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

• The case is a good vehicle for exploring conscious and unconscious nonverbal communication. Such an exploration virtually requires videotaping.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

• District Attorney

• Defense Attorney

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

Attorney/Client relations; BATNA; Commitment; Compliance; Credibility; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Gilligan, two voices; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Objective criteria; Personality; Risk aversion

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The “Phoenix Program” is an elementary school tutoring program based in an inner-city Minneapolis neighborhood. The co-founder and director of the program is disappointed with one of the tutors, because the tutor does not have adequate Spanish-language skills and does not seem to be working as hard as the other tutors. The tutor believes that the director is unappreciative and difficult to work with, but feels entitled to a raised and has called a meeting in order to ask for one.

This simulation raises issues around shared and differing interests, partisan perceptions, racial and cultural sensitivity, and the dynamics of difficult conversations.

Teacher’s Package includes:

Confidential instructions for:

• Director

• Tutor

• No Teaching Note available

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Phoenix Software, Inc. is a small closely-held corporation that develops and markets software for microcomputers. The six-year-old company was founded by Dana Monosoff, a brilliant programmer who is responsible for the company’s products and became its general manager and president, and Chris Hill, an accountant and computer hobbyist who provided the capital. Monosoff and Hill are each 50% owners. The company has done moderately well, but now faces a crisis resulting from a dispute between the partners over ownership and disposition of PowerGraphics, and new product developed by Monosoff, at least partly on his own time and definitely against Hill’s wishes. Monosoff and Hill have agreed to discuss the problems. At issue is the ownership of PowerGraphics, the need to hire a management expert, and the future of Phoenix, Inc.

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:

HackerStar, Inc. is a small closely-held corporation that develops and markets software for microcomputers. The six-year-old company was founded by Hacker, a brilliant programmer who is responsible for the company’s products and became its manager, and Star, a dentist and computer hobbyist who provided the capital. Hacker and Star are each 50% owners. The company has done moderately well, but now faces a crisis resulting from a dispute between the partners over the ownership and disposition of PowerScreen, a new product developed by Hacker, at least partly on his own time and definitely against Star’s wishes. The company lawyer has referred Hacker and Star to separate counsel in order to avoid a conflict of interest. The exercise revolves around the meeting of these lawyers. At issue is the ownership of PowerScreen and the future of HackerStar, Inc.

MECHANICS:

This exercise is designed as a one-on-one negotiation between lawyers. Individual preparation takes at least two hours; there are moderately extensive financials of potential relevance. Individual preparation can be followed by about an hour of group preparation among the negotiators who will represent each side (in separate negotiations). For the negotiation, allow 45-60 minutes, and 30-60 minutes for review. After having participants negotiate this case, it is often useful to show them (perhaps after a break) The HackerStar Negotiation. In the videotaped negotiation, the principals conducted their own negotiation, with their lawyers assisting. The tape shows an example of fairly good principled negotiation, but still raises questions about goals, tactics, and the outcome.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This negotiation present the opportunity to use a careful analysis of the interests of the parties to craft a recommended agreement to solve a realistic business dispute between partners in a high-tech business.

• The issues divide more or less neatly between the dispute over PowerScreen, and the question of how to improve the management structure of the company in general (assuming the dispute is resolved). The former seems more of a distributive problem, the latter a joint problem to be solved. The question arises as to which should be addressed first.

• The negotiation over PowerScreen can be centered nicely around objective criteria or, alternatively, addressed in a more positional manner.

• How to reestablish a good working relationship between the disputants is a key question vital to the long-run success of this negotiation.

• Representatives of Hacker and Star in this negotiation clearly have limited authority. It is important to explore the question of exactly what the product of the lawyers’ meeting should be.

• Participants may opt to recommend arbitration or some other form of third party intervention in the event that they, or their clients, cannot resolve the PowerScreen problem. The question of BATNA should be clearly addressed in advance.

• If a preparation by side session has been used, preparation and group process issues can usefully be raised when debriefing participants.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Stanley Star’s Attorney

• Allen Hacker’s Attorney

Teacher’s Package (43 pages total)

• All of the above

• Teacher’s note

PROCESS THEMES:

Apologies; Agenda control; Attorney/ Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Commitment; Communication; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creativity; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Drafting; Emotions, role of; Fairness; Financial analysis; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Mediation; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Reality testing; Relationship; Risk aversion; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Trust; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Part I: The coastal town of Puerto Mauricio is faced with a number of important development decisions. First, a large and cultural significant parcel of land is about to be sold. The two potential purchasers are a national environmental group and a local hotel owner – who plan to use the land is very different ways. At the same time, the environmental group is lobbying to destroy a nearby dam to preserve a surrounding estuary – much to the dismay of the local farmers who depend on the dam for irrigation. Finally, a high-tech firm is seeking to develop a nearby parcel of land and their plans involve bringing in light industry to this region. Stakeholders in this matter are coming together to see if they can reach an agreement on developments plans for the area. It is important that any agreement fits within the constructs of the Provincial Land Use Plan and National Sustainability Principles.

Part II: The agreement from Part I is sent to an inter-governmental committee charged with implementing the National Sustainability Principles. The five-person committee meets with three representatives from Puerto Mauricio. The parties negotiate about how to interpret implications of the Sustainability Principles for the Puerto Mauricio Development Proposal. Ultimately, the government committee must decide whether to accept the Proposal and to write a press release to explain their decision to the public.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Mutual gains: Too often, adversarial interactions between governments, conservation organizations and business/ corporate entities result for all parties in the loss of value. Focus on developing mutually advantageous solutions. It is not necessary that for one party to ‘win,’ the other party must ‘lose.’

• Problem solving dialogue. It is important that the stakeholders develop an appropriate consensus building forum such that they can have a meaningful problem solving dialogue.

• Strategic partnerships: Parties are encouraged to explore common interests and focus on long-term relationships.

• Connect policy and project-level negotiations. Parties are encouraged to link high level theoretical policy discussions to ‘on-the-ground’ practical outcomes.

MECHANICS:

Estimated Time Requirements:

Part 1

45 mins – read instructions and confer with other people playing the same role

90 mins – negotiate

45 mins (minimum) – debrief

Part II

45 mins – read instructions and confer with other people playing the same role

30 mins – each group of 3 or 5 plan their group strategy

90 mins – negotiate

45 mins (minimum) debrief

Total: 5 hours

Facility needs:

Room with table and seats for 8, flipcharts, nametags, markers. Breakout rooms for private caucuses.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

Part I:

• Appendix A – The Proposals

• Appendix B – Map of Puerto Mauricio

• Appendix C – Summary of the Provincial Development Plan for Alienta

• Appendix D – Sustainability Principles for Ventura

• Appendix E – Environmental Impact study on the Lento River Dam

• Appendix F – Negotiation Worksheet

Part II:

• Inter-ministerial committee instructions

• Puerto Mauricio representative’s instructions

Role specific:

Part I

• Governor of Alientia (facilitator)

• Regional Head of the Ministry of Environment

• Mayor of the town of Puerto Mauricio

• Executive Director of Naturtrust

• Owner of the Hotel Mauritz

• President of Operations, Computech Inc.

• Farm Union Director

• Representative from ‘Citizens for an Open Castle’

Part II:

• Deputy Director of the Ministry of Environment

• Assistant Director of the Ministry of Agriculture

• Director of the Ministry of Social Welfare

• Director General of the Ministry of Culture

• Senior Manager of the Ministry of Economic Affairs

Teacher’s package (57 pages)

• All of the above

• Teaching notes

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Negotiations for sustainability; environmental dispute resolution; intergovernmental negotiations; multi-party negotiation; infrastructure development disputes

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Managing Groundwater Beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

from $0.00

The Pullman Strike Role Play is a simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on The Rise of Organized Labor in the United States.

SCENARIO:

This role play is set in the town of Pullman, Illinois, outside of Chicago, in 1894. Pullman is a town designed, owned, and operated by industrialist George Pullman, President of the Pullman Palace Car Company, and with a population of several thousand people, almost all employed at the Pullman Company. Labor activism is strong in Chicago at this time, but Pullman tries to keep his workers from organizing and does not recognize unions. Nonetheless, the workers join the American Railway Union, just as the nation is sinking into an economic depression that forces most industrialists to lay off workers and lower wages. The burdens of this economic downswing are especially difficult for Pullman’s workers because the rents in the town of Pullman are high, and Pullman does not lower them.

Eventually, the conflict escalates to a confrontation between Pullman and a committee representing workers. The workers demand higher wages and lower rents, and Pullman informs them that neither can be met. Soon thereafter, the workers go on strike, and manage to convince the members of the American Railway Union to support them with a boycott of Pullman cars. That means they refuse to work on trains containing Pullman cars. The general managers of all the train companies in Chicago side with Pullman, and refuse to disconnect Pullman cars from their lines, and so train traffic is held up and stopped across the nation.

Although attempts were made to convince the parties involved to enter into negotiations, the key stakeholders never convened in either a formal or informal facilitated setting. Instead, the federal government sent forces from the U.S. Army to end the strike. It is at this point that the Pullman Strike Role Play becomes counter-factual. Our simulation asks participants to imagine “what if” all the stakeholder groups had been brought together for negotiations, by imagining that the federal government is unwilling to intervene until negotiations are attempted. Five stakeholders and a mediator/chair agree to sit down together to try to resolve the conflict.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Provide accurate history and background information on growing conflict between labor and capital during the Industrial Revolution, and specifically the Pullman Strike, 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 conflict presented in the role play and the conflict resolution steps presented in the Workable Peace Framework, and to apply them to other conflicts in history and in their own lives.

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• Participant Materials

• Teaching Note

• Master List of Player Goals

• Framework for a Workable Peace

• Workable Peace Self-Assessment Form

• Overheads

• Observation/ Assessment Instructions

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 Phone: 617-492-1414 Fax: 617-492-1919 Website: http://www.cbuilding.org

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 state is required by federal law to site a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility within a year. The State Regulatory Agency responsible for siting the facility must develop a set of criteria. This agency is empowered to decide the criteria on its own, but would prefer to have these negotiated by parties specifically concerned about this issue of low-level radioactive waste. Seven stakeholder groups have an interest in the negotiation. If at least five of the seven agree to a set of ten siting criteria, these criteria will be adopted by the State Agency. In the absence of an agreement, the State will promulgate its own criteria. The seven parties include: a State Management Authority responsible for operating the facility; the Indian Tribal Council; a moderate environmental coalition; a more radical coalition of environmental and anti-nuclear activists; the Municipal and County Governments’ Association; the Radioactive Waste Generators’ Association; and the Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Panel of Science and Economic Advisors.

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best played with 7 people (1 per role), although 14 people (2 per role) works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions.

Estimated Time Requirements:

Exercise instructions require at least 30 minutes to read. The negotiation requries at least 1-1/2 hours; more time is preferable. At least 30 minutes should be set aside for the debrief.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Benefits of a simultaneous iteration: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The players can explore how and why different negotiating strategies lead to different outcomes. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (7-way) agreement.

• Pre-negotiation analysis: The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. This game using stylized ‘points’ to indicate how desirable a particular option is.

• Coalitions: This simulation provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies. Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions; especially blocking coalitions.

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

• Pareto-curve: Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements can be examined as illustrated by the scores.

• Internal vs. External dynamics: When 14 players play the game (2 per role), they have an opportunity to explore the sepcial difficulties of simultaneous “internal” and “external” negotiations.

• Importance of neutrals: The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is illustrated as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.

• Impact of Caucusing: The advantages and disadvantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucusing; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

• Science-intensive issues: The special qualities of environmental disputes are evident particularly the importance of scientific and ideological considerations.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Role Specific:

Confidential instructions for the

• Governor’s Blue Ribbon Committee

• Environmental Coalition

• Public Management Authority

• Association of Radwaste Generators

• Green Wave

• State Association of Municipal and County Governments Federated Indian Tribal Council

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

• Detailed Teaching Notes

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Environmental disputes; Facility siting; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Joint gains; Linkage; Low level radioactive waste; Managing uncertainty; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Native American negotiation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Preparation; Pressure tactics; Regulated policy negotiation; Reservation price; Science-intensive policy disputes; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Managing Groundwater beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

Puerto Mauricio’s Development Conflict

Residential Development in Tienhuizen

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The state is required by federal law to site a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) facility within a year. The state’s Public Management Authority (PMA), responsible for constructing and operating the facility, has identified three candidate sites. One of these sites must be chosen. The PMA is empowered to impose a site selection decision, but would prefer to see the six other stakeholder groups negotiate an agreement on one of the sites. If at least five of the six can reach agreement on a site, that site will be chosen. In the absence of an agreement, the PMA will select a site on its own. The six other stakeholders are: the town of Alford where Site A is located; the town of Bellman where Site B is located; the town of Crandon where Site C is located; a coalition of environmental groups; the Radioactive Waste Generators’ Association; and the Governor’s representative. The negotiations are divided into two rounds (though the players do not know this at the outset). In Round 1, the parties attempt to negotiate an agreement taking into account only the technical merits of each site. In Round 2, the negotiators are empowered to introduce other considerations, including financial compensation to the host community, legislative and administrative actions to reduce the level of LLW generated in the state, shared management and control of the LLW facility, and litigation assistance to parties involved in other environmental disputes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Compensation: The importance of compensation considerations in siting negotiations is illustrated. Benefits need to be created to off-set costs in order to build consensus.

• Benefits of simultaneous iteration: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The players can explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.

• Pre-negotiation analysis: The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. This game using stylized ‘points’ to indicate how desirable an outcome is.

• Pareto-curve:Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior arguments can be examined as illustrated by the scores.

• Importance of neutrals: The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is illustrated as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.

• Coalitions: This simulation provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies. Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions, especially blocking coalitions.

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

• Internal vs. External dynamics: When 14 players play the game (2 per role), they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of simultaneous “internal” and “external” negotiations.

MECHANICS:

The exercise works well with either 6 players (1 per role) or 12 players (2 per role).

Logistical needs:
Room for 7 or 14 people and break out rooms. Flip charts and markers are advised. A game manager is needed to facilitate process but who takes no part in substantive decision making.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Environmental Impact Statement Abstracts

• Urgent Memo

Role Specific:

Confidential and Supplementary Instructions for the

• Governor

• Environmental Coalition

• Association of Radwaste Generators

• Town of Alford

• Town of Bellman

• Town of Crandon

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Solution Set (Includes: Game Manager’s Instructions and Debriefing Information)

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Environmental dispute resolution; Fairness; Facility siting and land use planning; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Joint gains; Linkage; low level radioactive waste management; Managing uncertainty; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Risk aversion; Science-intensive policy diputes; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona
Hitana Bay Development Simulation
Humboldt – Mediating a Regional Development Dispute

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:

Casey Andrews and Kelly Handler have both worked in the American Cafe for about four months. They often work the same shifts and have become friends. Just today Casey complained to the manager about how tips are split. The current system is for waiters to pool their tips at the end of the shift and divide them equally. Casey has noticed that Kelly has been late recently, and that she has had to pick up the slack. Kelly is surprised to hear that Casey has problems with the tips. The manager told them that the restaurant will go along with anything that seems reasonable.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The power of good preparation is extremely clear.

• Mutual feelings of betrayal by a friend complicate matters.

• The two have to continue to work together and with the other people at the restaurant.

• They have to come up with a policy for the entire wait staff.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Calgary Central Gas (‘CC Gas’) is planning to build a natural gas plant near the reserve of the native Canadian River Bend band (‘the Band’). 22 years ago, CC Gas laid a gas pipeline through the same reserve, for which it paid a standard right-of-way fee to the band. The currently selected site for the new plant would require the laying new pipeline to connect the new plant to the main pipeline. CC Gas has never paid any taxes or royalties to the River Bend band for the main pipeline. The band recently obtained the authority to collect property taxes on land within the reserve, and is in the process of establishing a property tax system.

Representatives of CC Gas and of the River Bend band, together with an advisor from the Federal Fair Tax Commission, are meeting to discuss the following four issues: (1) what CC Gas should pay the River Bend band for the right-of-way to construct the pipeline; (2) Whether CC Gas will provide any jobs or create economic development opportunities for the band; (3) whether and how the River Bend band will tax CC Gas for the main pipeline and the new pipeline; and (4) what steps will be taken to ensure the health and safety of the River Bend band members and the wildlife on the reserve.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The status of First Nations (i.e. aboriginal lands) in Canada is quite different from those of the Native America states in the United States of America.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Separate general instructions for CC Gas representatives and for River Bend representatives

Confidential instructions for:

• CC Gas President D. Morins

• CC Gas Vice President G. Lewis

• Northland Partners (CC Gas’ contractor) Project Manager M. Bunin

• River Bend Chief P. Iron

• River Bend member E. Drake

• Federal Fair Taxation Commission Advisor T. McGill

Teaching note

• Teaching/ Overheads

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

environmental justice; multiparty negotiation; negotiating compensation; facility siting negotiation; cross-cultural negotiation

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona

Beaumont Incinerator Exercise

And other First Nations games

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Rockwell Quarry Complex Environmental Negotiation is a five-party multi-issue simulation that allows students to negotiate a struggle between property rights and quality of life issues surrounding the permitting of a gravel quarry in a scenic and recreationally valuable canyon along the Front Range of Colorado. The simulation epitomizes a struggle that is occurring throughout the American West. The game is designed for groups of five (it can also be played with a facilitator in a sixth role). The game highlights the complexity of technical and financial information; inventing options in a complex environment; turning or tipping points that shift negotiation dynamics; accountability when one party possesses important yet confidential information that constrains options; compensation that enables parties to leverage resources and bring in outside issues; coalitions that shift when turning and tipping points emerge; and the dynamic role of the “honest broker.” The game also highlights the basic tenets of interest-based negotiation, with an emphasis on the complexity of players’ BATNAs.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Mr. & Mrs. Rosenberg purchased a home in Brookline. The landscaper of that property, Ronnie Lincoln telephoned the Rosenbergs to see if they wanted to employ his company’s services in the same manner as the prior owners. Seemingly, an agreement was made between Mrs. Rosenberg and Mr. Lincoln to continue the landscaping service. After several billings, Lincoln pursued his clients for payment. A discrepancy surrounding the quality of the work and the actual agreement made has arisen between the Rosenbergs and Lincoln. The landscaper believes that he has done his best to make amends. However, Mr. Rosenberg interprets these actions as concessions to his point of view, and thus far has refused to make any payment to Lincoln Landscaping. The matter finally ends up in small claims court.

MECHANICS:

This mediation role play takes about 10 – 15 minutes for reading and preparation. It can either be simulated with a mediator as a one-on-one or two-on-one. The actual role play can run from 30 to 45 minutes. Videotaping can be helpful for observation and review.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case is useful for small claims mediators. It shows how a misunderstanding can develop due to lack of information and awareness of local customs. These factors provide an opportunity for mediators to test their information gathering skills.

• During debriefing, discussions may arise concerning mediator’s bias. The mediator can easily adopt the view that advantage has been taken of one of the parties. The intervenor then has the challenge to generate options for a good outcome that is mutually beneficial to both parties.

• Participants may discuss the value of a written contract versus an oral agreement. The element of trust is illuminated here, as well as the value of re-establishing a good business relationship.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Information for:

• Dr. Julian Rosenberg

• Ronnie Lincoln

• Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Assumptions; Commitment; Cost-benefit analysis; Communication; Credibility; Drafting; Fairness; Information exchange; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Mediation; Meeting design; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Reality testing; Relationship

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

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

The problems of power imbalance, typical in employee relations, are highlighted.

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.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Participant Materials:

• General Information

• Sandy Tanner, Director of Mail Order Sales

• Pat Lynch, V.P. of Marketing

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• No Teaching Note currently available

from $0.00

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

SCENARIO:

Basic facts are the same as in Sally Soprano I, except that as a result of a discussion between Sally and the Lyric Opera’s Artistic Director, all available information is known by both sides. The principals have left their agents to work out the details of a deal, knowing that something mutually advantageous is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of the exercise Sally Swansong II, developed by Norbert S. Jacker, Deborah Winter and Bruce Patton. Sally Swansong II is still available upon request.

MECHANICS:

This negotiation is best one-on-one, although two-on-two is possible. Allow 10 to 30 minutes for negotiation. Sally II is usually done as a follow-up to Sally Soprano I with 5-10 minutes preparation and a 20 minute negotiation. The language of the case does not specify whether the negotiators are lawyers or not. Allow at least a half-hour for debriefing. Discussion can extend much longer (up to two hours).

MAJOR LESSONS:

This case is a litmus test of what participants believe, on an unconscious psychological level, constitutes success in a negotiation. Is it “winning,” doing better than the other side, or is it achieving an objectively good outcome, one that satisfies your client’s interests about as well as possible? Some participants with a competitive orientation will not settle this case, although that is against the interests of both clients. The question is usually framed, before handing out the case, “Would more information make this case easier or more difficult to negotiate? Participants’ answers correspond to their orientation on “success”–”good outcome” negotiators say “easier”, competitive bargainers say “harder.”

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Constituents; Fairness; Interests, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Misrepresentation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Options, generating; Pareto optimization; Precedents; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation

from $0.00

SCENARIO:
Tensions between the African-American and Korean communities in economically depressed Urbana, where Koreans are the sole providers of groceries in the area, have been building for some time. Many African-American customers have long complained that the grocery store owners are unfriendly and unfairly accuse customers of stealing, while Korean store owners contend that many of their African-American customers use racial slurs and shoplift.

A recent incident involving an elderly African-American woman and a Korean grocery store owner has caused tensions to explode into a massive boycott, led initially by the woman’s family, but gaining support throughout the community. The recently elected African-American mayor was initially neutral on the issue, but as the boycott grew, the mayor decided to intervene. Korean grocers do not wish to be driven out of business, and while African-Americans would prefer to support the establishment of African-American owned grocery stores, they have no convenient, immediate alternative to the existing Korean-American grocery stores.

Legal representatives of the local African-American and Korean-American communities are now meeting with the mayor’s Chief Aide for Urban Affairs in an effort to try to resolve the conflict. During the discussions, a newsflash will inform the parties that the boycott situation has worsened and that an urgent solution is necessary.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Participant Materials include:

• General Instructions for all parties

• WURB Channel 13 Newsflash: Crisis in Urbana

Confidential Instructions for:

• African-American Communities for Action Representative

• Korean Merchants Association Representative

• Mayor’s Chief Aide for Urban Affairs (mediator/ facilitator role)

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

NOTE: The fact pattern of this simulation is similar to that of Grocery Store; the latter is a two-party negotiation between community members rather than a mediation involving legal representatives.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Vessels from the United States Navy equipped for electronic espionage recently entered Russian territorial waters and proceeded to within seven miles of the Russian naval installations at Sevastopol, where they were bumped in order to force them to leave. Both governments now want to engage in negotiations in order to reduce the chance of such scenarios in the future.

MECHANICS:

There are two steps to this case. First, participants are put into U.S. or Soviet groups of 3-4 and asked to draft instructions for their respective country’s negotiator at the upcoming talks. Second, each participant negotiates one-on-one with written instructions from a group different from their own in the first step.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise explores issues of authority and power in situations where internal negotiations produce instructions for external negotiations.

• This case offers participants an opportunity to practice drafting negotiation guidelines for a negotiator, and then to evaluate the effectiveness of their guidelines.

• Some participants will apply more foresight in resolving this situation than others. Those who recognize that their decisions will have substantial impact on the future relationship between the two parties will be far more effective than those who negotiate from a reactionary point of view.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Attachment One: The Law of the Sea Convention of 1982

• Attachment Two: Department of State Bulletin

Role Specific:

• Drafting Instructions for the following:

• Memorandum from Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russia

• Memorandum from U.S. National Security Council

• Instructions to the United States Negotiator (for debriefing)

• Instructions to the Russian Negotiator (for debriefing)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Notes

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Authority; BATNA; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Legitimacy; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Preparation; Trust; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The City of Madrona’s zoning board has approved construction of an asphalt plant in the largely minority-populated neighborhood of Pina. The plant will supply the asphalt necessary for major projects which are vital to stimulating Madrona’s stagnant economy. Opponents of the plant, mainly environmental groups, churches, and neighborhood organizations, believe the zoning process was unfair, particularly in light of the cumulative health risks that will fall primarily on the ‘minority community’. One long-time Pina resident and physician has suggested that there is a correlation between the high rates of lung and respiratory cancer evident in Pina residents and the already high level of air pollution in the neighborhood. Proponents of plant construction claim that all legal requirements regarding the siting and environmental impact assessment have been met. Six key stakeholders must meet to consider how to address this matter in a fair way and also how to deal with claims of racism in environmental decision making.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game introduces the topic of Environmental Justice. ‘Environmental Racism’ involves the deliberate targeting of poor communities or communities of color in the siting of hazardous facilities. It aims to convey lessons in 4 areas.

MECHANICS:

Estimated Time Requirements:
Preparation and reading time – minimum of 30 mins
Negotiation – minimum of 60 mins
Debrief – minimum of 45 mins
Total: 135 mins

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Fairness and equity – Traditionally, poor and historically disenfranchised communities are more willing to demand less than their wealthier, politically-connected neighbors. Does fairness require forbidding any new facilities from being built and/or operating in poor or minority communities because they have housed a majority of such facilities in the past?

• Equity issues must be looked at from a community-wide, even regional perspective. For example, is it equitable to allow higher health risks in one community than in others? What if a community with higher health risks has also received disproportionate benefits in the past? Environmental justice asks whether it is inequitable to have one segment of the population, be it poor or minority, bear disproportionate health burdens.

• Process versus outcome – Establishing a transparent decision making process is a tenant of environmental justice. However, an improved process may not ensure a just outcome, especially if political power is concentrated.

• This exercise shows that even with a well structured process with adequate stakeholder representation, just outcomes are difficult to achieve. Outcomes that are normally deemed appropriate are multi-layered and complex i.e. they ensure local input into land use decisions, guarantees of public health, compensation (financial and/or physical), and environmental mitigation (clean-ups and/or stricter rules) and often some kind of economic stimulus.

• Long-term and cumulative impacts – Many environmental and health decisions are made under great uncertainty. We are forced to make decisions using ‘imperfect’ information or contest scientific findings. One of the essentials of environmental justice is that we should seek to protect populations traditionally bearing the heaviest burdens or greatest risks. This negotiation shows how issues of environmental justice can be addressed even if there is great uncertainty about long-term and cumulative impact.

• Stigma – Communities with historically “dirty” and unhealthy facilities can suffer a stigma as undesirable places to live and work. Urban areas typically develop such reputations and often become “dumping grounds” for noxious facilities. This game shows that a carefully constructed community improvement package can address many of these issues.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This exercise is available in the Environmental Justice Package, which is comprised of the Teacher’s Package, Beaumont Incinerator Exercise, and includes the article Risk and Justice, by Patrick Field, Lawrence Susskind, and Howard Raiffa.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

General Information, including attachments regarding health risk assessment, environmental impact assessments and agenda

Confidential Instructions for:

• Dr. S. Burien (Health Expert)

• P. Reilly (asphalt company representative)

• S. Ramos (City Council President)

• K. Mercer (Mayor of Madrona)

• C. Jackson (leader of STAMP, a neighborhood opposition group)

• T. Tukwila (Director of Madrona’s Department of Environmental Protection)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Teaching Notes

KEYWORDS:

Environmental justice, facility siting, environmental dispute resolution, risk assessment, science-intensive policy disputes, joint fact finding, multi-party negotiation

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Beaumont Incinerator Exercise

River Bend