HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
79 JFK Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Brian Mandell Littauer 104
Phone: 617.495.9123 Fax: 617.496.2850 brian_mandell@harvard.edu
INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS
STM-221A/B
Syllabus: Fall 2007
SECTION A SECTION B
Mondays & Wednesdays: 10:00-11:30, L230 Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall
COURSE ASSISTANTS
Mondays & Wednesdays: 1:00-2:30, L230 Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall
FACULTY ASSISTANT
Naseem Khuri Emilian Papadopoulos Teal Pennebaker Jessica Reitz
Jean Dombrowski jean_dombrowski@harvard.edu L107A (617) 495-1320
I. COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course introduces students to the theory and practice of negotiation. The ability to negotiate successfully rests on a combination of analytical and interpersonal skills. • Analysis is important because negotiators cannot develop promising strategies without a deep understanding of the context of the situation, the structure of the negotiation, the interests of the other parties, the opportunities and barriers to creating and claiming value on a sustainable basis, and the range of possible moves and countermoves both at and away from the bargaining table. • Interpersonal skills are important because negotiation is essentially a process of communication, relationship and trust-building (or breaking) and mutual persuasion. We will develop a set of conceptual frameworks that should help you better analyze negotiations in general and prepare more effectively for future negotiations in which you may be involved. • Through participation in negotiation exercises, you will have the opportunity to practice your powers of communication and persuasion, and to experiment with a variety of negotiating tactics and strategies. • Through analysis of case studies and discussion of readings on negotiation concepts and tactics, you will apply the lessons learned to ongoing, real-world negotiations. The negotiation exercises draw from a wide variety of contexts and their aim is to provide concepts and tools that apply to all types of negotiations, ranging from domestic labor disputes to international environmental and security problems. We hope that you will learn a great deal about yourself from repeated exposure to situations that involve a shifting mix of cooperation and competition as well as important ethical choices. As a result, your negotiating effectiveness should increase significantly. Overall, we hope that you will finish the course a more reflective, analytically savvy, effective and, in all senses of the term, good negotiator.
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
II. CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
The course builds cumulatively from simple negotiations to those of greater complexity, i.e., starting with two-party, single-issue exercises and building toward multi-party, multi-issue negotiations that evolve over time. Structured negotiation exercises are used to isolate and emphasize specific analytic points and essential skills. Cases and readings serve to integrate the analytic points as well as to develop intuition about more complex real-world negotiations. Each week will be structured in the following way:
COURSE DAYS CLASS ACTIVITY
Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays
3-D Case Analysis and Discussion Negotiation Exercise: Improving Individual Performance and Skill-Building Exercise Debrief and Review of Readings: Strengthening Reflective Practice
Mondays Pedagogical Goals Monday’s class discussions have three pedagogical goals: • To familiarize you with complex, dynamic interactions found in multi-party/multi-issue negotiations; • To help you better identify and diagnose potential barriers to agreement; and • To equip you with the ability to use the 3-D framework of negotiation analysis, with special emphasis given to developing the skills of backward mapping and sequencing. Through extensive practice with the 3-D framework, you should then be able to improve your understanding of deal design and subsequently strengthen the prospects for (more) sustainable agreements. Group Preparation for Monday Case Discussion In order to accomplish these pedagogical goals, you must read cases thoroughly and prepare to respond to a range of questions based on the weekly Case Analysis Toolkit (distributed in class). Each Monday, randomly selected groups of four students will be cold-called to lead off discussion regarding the case. A first group will provide a 3-5 minute 360 degree analysis of parties, interests, issues and relationships and an overview of the initial barriers to crafting an effective negotiating agreement. Subsequently, other groups will provide an analysis of action steps taken by parties to overcome barriers to reach a sustainable agreement. Class discussion on how key stakeholders, acting entrepreneurially, might have made different process design and sequencing choices to capture additional sources of value will follow. Tuesdays See Section III below. Wednesdays Pedagogical Goals Wednesday’s class discussions have two pedagogical goals: • To debrief and analyze the previous day’s negotiation exercise; and • To explicitly link theory to practice by incorporating analysis from the assigned readings into the discussion of the weekly exercise. Group Preparation for Wednesday Class Discussion Each Wednesday, groups should be prepared to discuss key takeaways and lessons from Tuesday exercises, drawing general lessons from the case discussed on Monday and from the readings for Wednesday.
2
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
III. TUESDAY NEGOTIATION EXERCISES
A critical component of your training as a negotiator is your mandatory participation in the weekly negotiation exercises on Tuesdays from 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m in Land Hall. You are expected to be present and participate fully during the entire two hours and have no other commitments during this time. These sessions offer a safe and structured environment in which to practice the skills and techniques we explore and discuss in class and through weekly readings. Out of respect for your classmates and the course administrators, it is incumbent upon you to abide by the following guidelines for negotiation exercises.
1.
Be Prepared: On weeks that we are conducting a negotiation exercise, you will be assigned a
role (which you will pick up at the conclusion of class on Mondays) and paired with one or more counterparts. Throughout the semester, you will be asked to play various roles, striking a careful balance between staying in character and representing your own identity as you seek to further develop your negotiation skills. It is imperative that you keep the information provided in the role confidential at all times. It is also essential to prepare thoroughly for each exercise. Failure to prepare for these exercises will adversely affect your class participation grade and will detract from the learning experience of your assigned negotiation partners. Preparation involves completing a green Negotiation Preparation Sheet, which will be considered your ticket for admission to the exercise.
2.
Be There, and Be On Time: There are no unexcused absences from Tuesday negotiation
exercises. Please be considerate to your classmates and arrive promptly at 4:15. Arriving late will significantly slow an entire group’s progress, damaging your reputation as a reliable and trustworthy negotiator. Failing to participate in exercises will be penalized severely. You will lose 5% from your final grade in the course for each unexcused absence from a negotiation exercise. Please note that while participation in and demonstrated learning from all assigned negotiation exercises are key components of your learning, your results will not be used to evaluate your course grade.
3.
Follow the Rules: The instructions for the exercises are designed to be self-explanatory. Please follow the instructions carefully, and remember to keep all role-specific information confidential. You are responsible for obtaining and retaining a copy of your role.
Even after you have completed your negotiation, be careful about discussing the simulation with others. If people who have yet to complete the negotiation learn about your process and outcome, their opportunity to learn may be compromised.
4.
Track your Progress: In order to track progress throughout the semester, you are required to
summarize the exercise with their counterparts using “Hot Debrief Forms” and individually fill out a Negotiator’s Debrief and Feedback Form (i.e. Bluebook) immediately after each weekly exercise and submit them to the CAs. These will be returned to you the following day. If you do not have a hard copy, the Bluebook is available online by logging on to the STM-221 course page on the KSG intranet.
5. Follow the Schedule: You must be prepared to commit a full two hours to Tuesday’s negotiation exercise, Hot Debrief and Bluebook reflection:
3
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
TIME TASK
4:15 Sharp
1. Check in with CAs outside Land Hall, having completed your green preparation sheet; it will be considered your ticket for admission to the exercise. 2. Find your counterpart or group in Land Hall. 3. Once your counterpart or group members have arrived, one person must sign-in the group with the CAs in Land Hall, and pick up the necessary results forms. 1. Negotiate. 2. One member returns the completed results form(s) to Land Hall and receives copies of the self-facilitated hot debrief forms (to complete with your counterpart or group) and Bluebook (to complete individually). 3. Following your negotiation, allocate at least 20-30 minutes for the self-facilitated group Hot Debrief. Peer feedback on your performance in the exercise and selfreflection on your skill development are critical components of your learning. 4. Individually complete your Bluebook in a thorough manner. 1. Submit your completed Bluebook to your CAs in Land Hall prior to check-out. 2. Enjoy your Tuesday evening.
4:15 – 6:15
6:15
•
Remember the negotiation exercise mantra:
BE PREPARED! BE ON TIME! BE READY TO PLAY! BE PROFESSIONAL!
IV. ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING
Course grades will be calculated using the following four components: 1. Participation: 25% This component of the grade is divided equally between participation in negotiation exercises and the quality of your contribution to class discussion. • Attendance: You must attend all class sessions including Tuesday negotiation exercises. Unexcused absences are not permitted. You should have your program director contact Prof. Mandell directly to formally excuse an absence. • Cold Calling: As noted earlier, on Mondays and Wednesdays, randomly selected groups of students will be cold-called to lead off discussion regarding cases, exercises and readings. • Bluebook and Hot Debrief: Bluebooks and Hot Debriefs will serve as a means of capturing insights from Tuesday exercises in a systematic manner, and will also serve as key references for the oral exam. 2. Individual Negotiation Memo: 30% See “Assignment 1: Individual Negotiation Memo” for details. 3. Oral Exam: 15% Each student will meet with Prof. Mandell for fifteen minutes in early December. Drawing on reflections from negotiation exercises and case discussions, you will be required to answer questions regarding: • Preparation for negotiation • Management of the process of negotiation • Personal skills development and your own negotiating style • Utilization of 3-D mapping and deal design in cases discussed throughout the course You are required to bring all Bluebooks, Hot Debriefs and green prep sheets to support your analysis and systematic reflections. 4. Group Exercise/Case: 30% See “Assignment 2: Group Exercise” for details.
4
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
V. COURSE REQUIREMENTS
• Prerequisites: There are no formal prerequisites for this course. Students of strategic management, organizational behavior, political management and policy development will find that the course provides a useful basis for more advanced work in negotiation, conflict resolution and dispute resolution system design. Enrollment: Course enrollment will be limited to 70 participants and be subject to the KSG bidding system. Unfortunately, no auditors will be permitted in STM-221. Special Note: STM-221 is a prerequisite for the January workshop, STM-230: Advanced Workshop in Multi-Party Negotiation and Conflict Resolution.
• •
VI. BOOKS AND COURSE MATERIALS
Required Textbooks - Available for purchase at the COOP. 1. David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Harvard Business School Press, 2006 (hardcover). 2. Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004 (paperback). Required Reading Material – Available for purchase at the KSG Course Materials Office (CMO). 3. Workbook Mandell, Brian. Improving Behavioral Skills: 1-D Tactics for Effective Negotiators. 4. Packet 1: Materials Available in Printed Format Only
Allred, K. and Mandell, B. “Positive Illusions that Backfire: The Implications of Seeing Yourself as More Cooperative than Your Counterpart Views You,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Conflict Management, St. Louis, MO, June 2000. Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. “Chapter Three: Nice Girls Don’t Ask,” Women Don’t Ask. Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock, L. and Laschever, S., Princeton University Press 2003, pp. 62-84. Bazerman, M. “The Mythical Fixed Pie,” Negotiation, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov. 2003. Bazerman, M. and Neale, M. A. “The Irrational Escalation of Commitment,” chapter 2, Negotiating Rationally, The Free Press, 1993, pp. 9-15. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. and Watkins, M. “Toward a Theory of Representation in Negotiation,” Negotiating on Behalf of Others, Mnookin, R. H. and Susskind, L. E. (Eds.), Sage Publications, Inc., 1999, pp. 23-51. Dixit, A. K. and Nalebuff, B. “Resolving the Prisoner’s Dilemma,” Chapter 4, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, pp. 89-118. Kolb, D. and Williams, J. “Introduction,” Chapter 1, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success, Kolb, D. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Simon & Schuster, 2000, pp. 15-38. Korobkin, R. “Estimating the Bargaining Zone, ” Negotiation Theory and Practice, Aspen Law & Business, 2002. pp. 37-57. Levenson, G. “Tobacco Negotiations,” HBS Case #9-899-049. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. “Ethics in Negotiation,” Chapter 9, Essentials of Negotiation, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill Irwin, 2006. Raiffa, H. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Chapter 17. Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 257-274.
5
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell Robinson, R. “Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part 1, Biased Assimilation of Information,” HBS Case #9-897-103. Robinson, R. “Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part 2, Partisan Perceptions,” HBS Case #9-897-104. Rubin, J. and Pruitt, D. “The Persistence of Escalation,” chapter 7, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement, Rubin et al. (Eds.), McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 98-116. Sebenius, J. “Charlene Barshefsky (A),” HBS Case #9-801-421. Sebenius, J. “Charlene Barshefsky (B),” HBS Case #9-801-422. Sebenius, J. and Curran, D. “To Hell With the Future, Let’s Get on With the Past: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland,” HBS Case #9-801-393. Susskind, L. “Winning and Blocking Coalitions: Bring Both to a Crowded Table,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan 2004. Valley, K. and Wheeler, M. “Luna Pen (A),” HBS Case No. 9-396-156. Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. “Sources of Power in Coalition Building,” Negotiation Journal, Jan 1996, pp. 47-68. Wheeler, M. “Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction,” HBS Publication #9-801-156. Witter, D. and McGinn, K. “Showdown on the Waterfront: The 2002 West Coast Port Dispute (A),” HBS Case No. 9-904-045. Witter, D. and McGinn, K. “Showdown on the Waterfront: The 2002 West Coast Port Dispute (B),” HBS Case No. 9-904-067. Wriggins, H. “Up for Auction: Malta Bargains with Great Britain, 1971,” The Fifty Percent Solution, I. W. Zartman, editor, Doubleday, 1976, pp. 208-234.
5. Packet 2: Materials Available Via STM-221 A/B Website or in Print
Allred, K. “Distinguishing Best and Strategic Practices: A Framework for Managing the Dilemma between Claiming and Creating Value,” Negotiation Journal, Oct 2000, pp. 387-397. http://www.springerlink.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/link.asp?id=v335358626728016 Bordone, R. “Dealing with a Spoiler? Negotiating Around the Problem,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 2007. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24198 898&site=ehost-live&scope=site Bordone, R. “Divide the Pie – Without Antagonizing the Other Side,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 11, Nov. 2006.
http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24 198886&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Cohen, J. “The Ethics of Respect in Negotiation,” Negotiation Journal, Apr 2002, pp.115-120. http://www.springerlink.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/link.asp?id=cxpt4leny8pdwfva Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Kochan, T., Ferguson, J.P., and Barrett, B. “Collective Bargaining in the Twenty-First Century: A Negotiations Institution at Risk,” in Negotiation Journal, July 2007, p. 249-265. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.ezp1.harvard.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/j.15719979.2007.00142.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28Kochan%2C+Thomas%29 Curran, D. and Sebenius, J. “The Mediator as Coalition Builder: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland,” International Negotiation, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2003, pp. 111-147. http://www.ingentaconnect.com.ezp1.harvard.edu/content/mnp/iner/2003/00000008/00000001/art00005;jse ssionid=v4irp71mxblh.victoria
6
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell Galinsky, A. and Liljenquist, K., “Putting On the Pressure: How to Make Threats in Negotiations,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 12, Dec. 2004. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=15225 801&site=ehost-live&scope=site Galinsky, A. “Should You Make the First Offer?” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 7, Jul. 2004. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14016 716&site=ehost-live&scope=site Galinsky, A. and Magee, J. “Power Plays,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 7, Jul. 2006. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24198 861&site=ehost-live&scope=site Malhotra, D. “Smart Alternatives to Lying in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2004. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13506 947&site=ehost-live&scope=site Malhotra, D. “Risky Business: Trust in Negotiations,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 2, Feb 2004. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13500 592&site=ehost-live&scope=site Pradel, D., Riley Bowles, H., and McGinn, K. “When Does Gender Matter in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 11, Nov. 2005. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=18773 710&site=ehost-live&scope=site Osterholm, M. T. “Unprepared for a Pandemic,” Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2007, pp. 47-57. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24151 462&site=ehost-live&scope=site Putnam, R. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 427-460. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=51887 22&site=ehost-live&scope=site Schweitzer, M. “Aim High, Improve Negotiation Results,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 8, Aug. 2006. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24198 868&site=ehost-live&scope=site Schweitzer, M. “Call their bluff! Detecting Deception in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 3, Mar. 2007. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24198 911&site=ehost-live&scope=site Schweitzer, M. “Negotiators Lie,” Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 12, Dec. 2005. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=19047 871&site=ehost-live&scope=site Sheppard, B. and Sherman, D. “The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 422-437. http://www.jstor.org.ezp2.harvard.edu/view/03637425/ap010091/01a00070/0?frame=noframe&userID=80 673cc8@harvard.edu/01cc99334100501e653db&dpi=3&config=jstor Susskind, L. “Find More Value at the Bargaining Table,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 2, Feb. 2007. http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24198 904&site=ehost-live&scope=site Varley, P. “X-Treme Planning: Ohio Prepares for Pandemic Flu,” KSG Case #1867.0. On Course Webpage Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. “The Gulf Crisis: Building a Coalition for War,” KSG Case #1264.0. On Course Webpage
7
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
SUMMARY OF CLASS TOPICS
Week 1 Week 2 Introduction
Wednesday September 12
Course Overview
Understanding the Dynamics of Cooperative and Competitive Interaction in Negotiation Monday Scoping the field of negotiation analysis and in-class exercise: The Available September 17 Kidney Tuesday Conduct Oil Pricing negotiation exercise
September 18 Wednesday September 19
Discuss Oil Pricing negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 3
Distributive Bargaining I: Claiming Value in Negotiation Monday Introduction to the 3-D framework and case analysis: Malta
September 24 Tuesday September 25 Wednesday September 26
Conduct Mapletech-Yazawa negotiation exercise Discuss Mapletech-Yazawa negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 4
Distributive Bargaining II: Signaling Expectations, Managing Escalation and Avoiding Irrational Commitments Monday Case Analysis: West Coast Port Dispute
October 1 Tuesday October 2 Wednesday October 3
Conduct Leckenby negotiation exercise Discuss Leckenby negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 5
Integrative Bargaining I: Creating Value by Expanding the Pie Monday No Class (Columbus Day)
October 8 Tuesday October 9 Wednesday October 10
Conduct Universal Aircraft negotiation exercise Discuss Universal Aircraft negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 6
Integrative Bargaining II: The Negotiator’s Dilemma – Managing the Tension between Creating and Claiming Value Monday Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations
October 15 Tuesday October 16 Wednesday October 17
Conduct Pioneer negotiation exercise Discuss Pioneer negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 7
Ethics, Strategic Misrepresentation, Bluffing and Commitment-Making in Negotiation Monday Universal, situational and personal ethics and in-class exercise: October 22 Ethics Vignettes Tuesday Conduct 3-way Organization negotiation exercise
October 23 Wednesday October 24 Friday October 26
Discuss 3-way Organization negotiation exercise and assigned readings Assignment 1: Individual Negotiation Memo Due at 5:00pm 8
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
Week 8
Negotiating “Away-from” and “At-the-Table”: Managing Internal and External Negotiations Monday Case Analysis: Charlene Barshefsky (US-CHINA IP Negotiations)
October 29 Tuesday October 30 Wednesday October 31
Conduct Edgewood Electric negotiation exercise Discuss Edgewood Electric negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 9
Managing Contentious Relationships in High Stakes, Internal and External Negotiations Monday Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part I
November 5 Tuesday November 6 Wednesday November 7
Grand office hours with CAs to review group negotiation exercise proposals Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part II
Week 10
Dealing with Differences: The Ways in Which Culture and Gender Matter Monday No class (Veteran’s Day)
November 12 Tuesday November 13 Wednesday November 14
Conduct Alpha Beta negotiation exercise
Week 11
Discuss Alpha Beta negotiation exercise and conduct in-class exercise: Paula’s Problem The Negotiator as Mediator Monday Case Analysis: George Mitchell and PBS video
November 19 Tuesday November 20 Wednesday November 21
No negotiation exercise No Class (Thanksgiving Eve)
Week 12
Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables I: Building Multiparty Winning Coalitions and Preventing Blocking Coalitions Monday Case Analysis: Gulf War
November 26 Tuesday November 27 Wednesday November 28
Conduct Mouse negotiation exercise Discuss Mouse negotiation exercise and assigned readings
Week 13
Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables II: Anticipating Vulnerabilities in Multiparty Coalition-Building Across Sectors and Organizational Boundaries Monday Case Analysis: Ohio and Pandemic Flu
December 3 Tuesday December 4 Wednesday December 5 Friday December 7
Conduct Seeport negotiation exercise Discuss Seeport negotiation exercise and assigned readings Assignment 2: Group Exercise due at 5:00pm Course Wrap up and Evaluations
Week 14
Conclusion
Monday December 10
9
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
WEEKLY CLASS SCHEDULE WEEK 1
INTRODUCTION
Wednesday, September 12 • Introduction to negotiation analysis and course overview. • Readings: o Wheeler, M. “Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction,” HBS Publication #9-801-156 [in packet 1]. o Thompson, “Negotiation: The Mind and the Heart,” Mind and Heart, Chapter 1, pp. 1-12.
WEEK 2
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE INTERACTION IN NEGOTIATION
Monday, September 17 • Case analysis: The Available Kidney. • Readings: o Thompson, “Preparation: What to Do Before Negotiation,” Mind and Heart, Chapter 2, pp. 1339. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing. Tuesday, September 18 • Negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing. Wednesday, September 19 • Discussion: Oil Pricing and readings. • Readings: o Dixit, A. and Nalebuff, B. “Resolving the Prisoner’s Dilemma,” chapter 4, Thinking Strategically. The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, pp. 89-118 [in packet 1]. o Malhotra, D. “Risky Business: Trust in Negotiations,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 2, Feb. 2004 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: Malta.
WEEK 3
10
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING I: CLAIMING VALUE IN NEGOTIATION
Monday, September 24 • Introduction to the 3-D Framework and case analysis: Malta. • Readings: o Wriggins, H. “Up for Auction: Malta Bargains with Great Britain, 1971,” The Fifty Percent Solution, I. W. Zartman, editor, Doubleday, 1976, pp. 208-234 [in packet 1]. o Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Boston: Harvard Business School Press: 2006. Chapters 1, 2, and 3, pp. 7-50. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa. Tuesday, September 25 • Negotiation exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa Wednesday, September 26 • Discussion: Mapletech-Yazawa and readings. • Readings: o Galinsky, A. “Should You Make the First Offer?” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 7, Jul. 2004 [in packet 2]. o Korobkin, R. “Estimating the Bargaining Zone, ” Negotiation Theory and Strategy, Aspen Law & Business, 2002. pp. 37-57 [in packet 1]. o Schweitzer, M. “Aim High, Improve Negotiation Results,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 8, Aug. 2006 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: West Coast Port Dispute.
WEEK 4
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING II: SIGNALING EXPECTATIONS, MANAGING ESCALATION AND AVOIDING IRRATIONAL COMMITMENTS
Monday, October 1 • Case analysis: West Coast Port Dispute. • Readings: o Witter, D. and McGinn, K. “Showdown on the Waterfront: The 2002 West Coast Port Dispute (A),” HBS Case No. 9-904-045 [in packet 1]. o Witter, D. and McGinn, K. “Showdown on the Waterfront: The 2002 West Coast Port Dispute (B),” HBS Case No. 9-904-067 [in packet 1]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapters 4, 5 and 6, pp. 53-97. o Galinsky, A. and Liljenquist, K. “Putting On the Pressure: How to Make Threats in Negotiations,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 12, Dec. 2004 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Leckenby. Tuesday, October 2 • Negotiation exercise: Leckenby. Wednesday, October 3 • Discussion: Leckenby and readings. • Readings: o Bazerman, M. H. and Neale, M. A. “The Irrational Escalation of Commitment,” Chapter 2, Negotiating Rationally, The Free Press, 1993, pp. 9-15 [in packet 1]. o Rubin, J. and Pruitt, D. “The Persistence of Escalation,” Chapter 7, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement, Rubin et al. (Eds.), McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 98-116 [in packet 1]. o Thompson, “Distributive Negotiations: Slicing the Pie,” Mind and Heart, chapter 3, pp. 40-68. • Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Universal Aircraft.
11
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
WEEK 5
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING I: CREATING VALUE BY EXPANDING THE PIE
Monday, October 8 • No class: Columbus Day. Tuesday, October 9 • Negotiation exercise: Universal Aircraft. Wednesday, October 10 • Discussion: Universal Aircraft and readings. • Readings: o Thompson, “Win-Win Negotiation: Expanding the Pie,” Mind and Heart, Chapter 4, pp. 69-90. o Bazerman, M. “The Mythical Fixed Pie,” Negotiation, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov. 2003 [in packet 1]. o Susskind, L. “Find More Value at the Bargaining Table,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 2, Feb. 2007 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: Tobacco Negotiations.
WEEK 6
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING II: THE NEGOTIATOR’S DILEMMA – MANAGING THE TENSION BETWEEN CREATING AND CLAIMING VALUE
Monday, October 15 • Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations. • Readings: o Levenson, G. “Tobacco Negotiations,” HBS Case #9-899-049 [in packet 1]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapters 7 and 8, pp. 99-134. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Pioneer. Tuesday, October 16 • Negotiation exercise: Pioneer. Wednesday, October 17 • Discussion: Pioneer and readings. • Readings: o Allred, K. “Distinguishing Best and Strategic Practices: A Framework for Managing the Dilemma between Claiming and Creating Value,” Negotiation Journal, Oct 2000, pp. 387-397 [in packet 2]. o Allred, K. and Mandell, B. “Positive Illusions that Backfire: The Implications of Seeing Yourself as More Cooperative than Your Counterpart Views You,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Conflict Management, June 2000, St. Louis, MO. [in packet 1]. o Bordone, R. “Divide the Pie – Without Antagonizing the Other Side,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 11, Nov. 2006 [in packet 2].
12
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
WEEK 7
ETHICS, STRATEGIC MISREPRESENTATION, BLUFFING AND COMMITMENT-MAKING IN NEGOTIATION
Monday, October 22 • In-class exercise: Ethics Vignettes. • Readings: o Cohen, J. “The Ethics of Respect in Negotiation,” Negotiation Journal, Apr 2002, pp. 115-120 [in packet 2]. o Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. “Ethics in Negotiation,” Chapter 9, Essentials of Negotiation, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill Irwin, 2006 [in packet 1]. o Lewicki, R. “Walk the line: Ethical Dilemmas in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 5, May 2007 [in packet 2]. o Schweitzer, M. “Call their bluff! Detecting Deception in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 3, Mar. 2007 [in packet 2]. o Schweitzer, M. “Negotiators Lie,” Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 12, Dec. 2005 [in packet 2]. o Malhotra, D. “Smart Alternatives to Lying in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2004 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: 3-way Organization. Tuesday, October 23 • Negotiation exercise: 3-way Organization. Wednesday, October 24 • Discussion: 3-way Organization and readings. • Readings: o Raiffa, H. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Chapter 17. Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 257-274 [in packet 1]. o Sheppard, B. and Sherman, D. “The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications,” Academy of Management Review, Issue 3, 1998, pp. 422-437 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: Charlene Barshefsky. Friday, October 26 • Individual assignment due at 5:00pm in the STM-221A or STM221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office (L104A).
13
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
WEEK 8
NEGOTIATING “AWAY-FROM” AND “AT-THE-TABLE”: MANAGING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS
Monday, October 29 • Case analysis: Charlene Barshefsky. • Readings: o Sebenius, J. “Charlene Barshefsky (A),” HBS Case #9-801-421 [in packet 1]. o Sebenius, J. “Charlene Barshefsky (B),” HBS Case #9-801-422 [in packet 1]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapters 9, 10 and 11, pp. 135-178. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric. Tuesday, October 30 • Negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric. Wednesday, October 31 • Discussion: Edgewood Electric and readings. • Readings: o Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. and Watkins, M. “Toward a Theory of Representation in Negotiation,” Negotiating on Behalf of Others, Mnookin, R. H. and Susskind, L. E. (Eds.), Sage Publications, Inc., 1999, pp. 23-51 [in packet 1]. o Putnam, R. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, MIT Press, summer 1988, pp. 427-460 [in packet 2].
WEEK 9
MANAGING CONTENTIOUS RELATIONSHIPS IN HIGH STAKES, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS
Monday, November 5 • Film: Final Offer, Part I and role-play/discussion. • Readings: o Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Kochan, T., Ferguson, J.P., and Barrett, B. “Collective Bargaining in the Twenty-First Century: A Negotiations Institution at Risk,” in Negotiation Journal, July 2007, p. 249-265 [in packet 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapter 12, pp. 181-203. Tuesday, November 6 • Grand Office Hours with CAs for Group Project Presentations. Your group will deliver a 5 minute presentation of your proposed final project and receive constructive feedback and suggestions for refinement from the CAs. Wednesday, November 7 • Film: Final Offer, Part II and role-play/discussion. • Readings: o Robinson, R. “Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part 1, Biased Assimilation of Information,” HBS Case #9-897-103 [in packet 1]. o Robinson, R. “Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part 2, Partisan Perceptions,” HBS Case #9-897-104 [in packet 1]. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Alpha Beta.
14
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
WEEK 10
DEALING WITH DIFFERENCES: THE WAYS IN WHICH CULTURE AND GENDER MATTER
Monday, November 12 • No class: Veteran’s Day. Tuesday, November 13 • Negotiation exercise: Alpha Beta. Wednesday, November 14 • Discussion: Alpha Beta and readings. • In-class exercise: Paula’s Problem. • Readings: o Thompson, “Cross-Cultural Negotiation,” Mind and Heart, chapter 10, pp. 242-272. o Kolb, D. and Williams, J. “Introduction,” Chapter 1, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master The Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success, Kolb, D. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Simon & Schuster, 2000, pp. 15-38 [in packet 1]. o Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. “Chapter Three: Nice Girls Don’t Ask,” Women Don’t Ask. Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock, L. and Laschever, S., Princeton University Press 2003, pp. 62-84 [in packet 1]. o Galinsky, A. and Magee, J. “Power Plays,” Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 7, Jul. 2006 [in packet 2]. o Pradel, D., Riley Bowles, H., and McGinn, K. “When Does Gender Matter in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 11, Nov. 2005 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: George Mitchell.
WEEK 11
THE NEGOTIATOR AS MEDIATOR
Monday November 19 • Case analysis: George Mitchell and PBS film. • Readings: o Sebenius, J. and Curran, D. “To Hell with the Future, Let’s Get on with the Past: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland,” HBS Case #9-801-393 [in packet 1]. o Curran, D. and Sebenius, J. “The Mediator as Coalition Builder: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland,” International Negotiation Journal, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2003, pp. 111-147 [in packet 2]. o Thompson, “Multiple Parties, Coalitions, and Teams,” Mind and Heart, Chapter 9, pp. 206-241. • Distribution of case analysis questions: Gulf War. Tuesday, November 20 • No exercise. Wednesday, November 21 • No class.
WEEK 12
15
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES AND RECRUITABLES I: BUILDING MULTIPARTY WINNING COALITIONS AND PREVENTING BLOCKING COALITIONS
Monday, November 26 • Case analysis: Gulf War. • Readings: o Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. “The Gulf Crisis: Building a Coalition for War,” KSG Case #1264.0 [in packet 2]. o Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. “Sources of Power in Coalition Building,” Negotiation Journal, Jan, 1996, pp. 47-68 [in packet 1]. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Mouse. Tuesday, November 27 • Negotiation exercise: Mouse. Wednesday, November 28 • Discussion: Mouse and readings. • Readings: o Bordone, R. “Dealing with a Spoiler? Negotiating Around the Problem,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 2007 [in packet 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapters 13 and 14, pp. 205-235. o Susskind, L. “Winning and Blocking Coalitions: Bring Both to a Crowded Table,” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan 2004 [in packet 1]. • Distribution of case analysis questions: Ohio and Pandemic Flu
WEEK 13
MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES AND RECRUITABLES II: ANTICIPATING VULNERABILITIES IN MULTIPARTY COALITION-BUILDING ACROSS SECTORS AND ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES
Monday, December 3 • Discussion: Ohio and Pandemic Flu and readings. • Readings: o Varley, P. “X-Treme Planning: Ohio Prepares for Pandemic Flu,” KSG Case #1867.0 [in packet 2]. o Osterholm, M. “Unprepared for a Pandemic,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007, pp. 47-57 [in packet 2]. • Distribution of negotiation exercise: Seeport Tuesday December 4 • Negotiation exercise: Seeport. Wednesday, December 5 • Discussion: Seeport and readings. • Readings: o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, Chapter 15, pp 237-254. o Thompson, “Multiple Parties, Coalitions, and Teams,” Mind and Heart, Chapter 9, pp. 206-241. Friday, December 7 • Group assignment due at 5:00pm in the STM-221A or STM221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office (L104A).
WEEK 14
CONCLUSION
Monday, December 10 • Course wrap-up and evaluations. 16
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
ASSIGNMENT 1: INDIVIDUAL NEGOTIATION MEMO
MEMORANDUM To: STM-221 A/B Students From: Date: Bill Colvin, Manager, Rhône-Poulenc Manchester Facility October 18, 2007
As you know, Rhône-Poulenc (RP) must decide how to proceed with its efforts to secure a permit for incinerating hazardous waste. We have two options: Option 1: Option 2: Move forward with a public hearing; or Enter into negotiations with Manchester community representatives to avoid a formal public hearing.
Our parent company and its various facilities are very familiar with permitting and public hearing processes, but have less experience with the type of dialogue envisioned by Carol Alvarado, Rick Abraham, and other community leaders. As such, I am interested only in pursuing Option 2. We are looking for prescriptive strategic advice on how the company can best harness the potential of negotiation to resolve our current situation and, simultaneously, better position us for subsequent dealings with the Manchester community. Your task is to construct a negotiation analytic action memo using the 3-D framework in order to provide me with your best prescriptive strategic advice on how to craft a robust, sustainable agreement with the Manchester community. The following is the memo structure you should use: o Provide an Executive Summary Present me with a 360 degree, big-picture overview of my negotiation problem. Given the issues, my interests and alternatives and those of the other parties involved, briefly introduce me to the negotiation challenges I will face and the strategies I should employ to overcome them. Prescribe how I can best create and claim value for the long term by providing me with a snapshot summary of the major elements that should comprise a workable and sustainable agreement. Provide a 3-D Barriers Audit Conduct a systematic analysis of the barriers that are currently or potentially unfavorable to setting up a sustainable deal for me. Use the 3-D framework to analyze barriers I may encounter away from the table (3-D), on the drawing board (2-D) and at the table (1-D). Questions to help structure your thinking and guide your response include: • As I examine the political and socio-economic environment around me, in what ways does the current configuration of players, issues, interests and no-agreement alternatives (including BATNAs) serve as a barrier to a negotiated agreement? Who are my allies, adversaries and recruitables? • As I begin to design a possible deal, what elements are necessary for ensuring a favorable agreement from Rhône-Poulenc’s perspective? Given your 3-D analysis of the parties and interests involved, how might relationships, patterns of influence and leverage among them act as barriers to this potential deal? • Given my understanding of the setup and the contours of a possible deal, what type of barriers might unfold at the table when I am actually negotiating with members of the Manchester community? What type of hardball tactics might I face? How might communication, trust, personality, style or cross-cultural issues with the other parties block progress? 17
o
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
o
Craft a 3-D Negotiation Strategy and Model Agreement for Me Prescribe a set of well-sequenced momentum-building moves both at and away from the table that I should adopt to align the setup, deal design and tactics to overcome barriers and create a sustainable, value-creating agreement. Remember, I want to maximize opportunity and minimize Rhône-Poulenc’s vulnerabilities as I work to manage this negotiation process. Moving from 3-D to 1-D, questions to help structure your thinking and guide your response include: • In order to create a favorable setup, what pre-negotiation, away-from-the-table action steps should I take? What coalitions should be created early on? What potential coalitions should be blocked? Who should be invited to the table and in what particular sequence? What are my core interests? What do my counterparts care most about? What issues should be discussed and how should they be sequenced into the negotiation? • Once I believe I have shaped a favorable setup, how should I envision the value-creating deal? What core interests need to be included in the deal? What moves should I make to create maximum value in a potential agreement? • When I am at the table, what relationship-building moves should I make? What should I do to build trust and, simultaneously, marginalize or contain possible deal spoilers? What action should I take to counter hardball tactics? When, if at all, should I utilize hardball tactics? How should I frame our interests to best create and claim value in this negotiation? What moves should I make to create and claim value for the long term?
o
Conclusion: Positioning Rhône-Poulenc for Future Negotiations Explain how the model agreement you propose to me is administratively and politically feasible and how the deal will better position Rhône-Poulenc to deal with the community in the future. Be sure to emphasize here the criteria for deal sustainability. • • •
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES
Due Friday, October 26, 2007 by 5:00pm. Length is 4-5 pages maximum (one-sided, double-spaced, 12 point font, one-inch margins). Submit in box across from Prof. Mandell’s office (L104).
18
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
ASSIGNMENT 2: GROUP EXERCISE
SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENT Students will form four-person groups. Each group will be responsible for producing a negotiation exercise and an accompanying teaching note. All group members will receive the same grade for this work. The work should be the product of group discussion to develop a coherent view of the negotiation problem, rather than the mechanistic result of dividing up tasks. Each group will be responsible for choosing its own topic, deciding its process of work, and dividing responsibilities. The core of this exercise will be the writing of a teaching note that identifies key learning objectives, debriefing questions, and instructions for running the exercise. Based on these pedagogical objectives, students will write confidential instructions and roles for each party to the negotiation. The exercise should serve as a vehicle for imparting important analytical lessons about particular dynamics of negotiation. For example, exercises might focus on partisan perceptions, anchoring, aspiration levels, strong/weak BATNAs, coalition-building, miscommunication, strategic misrepresentation, conflict escalation or barriers to effective commitment-making. Throughout the course of this semester you have been exposed to several different types of negotiation exercises. From two-party/single issue exercises to multi-party/multi-issue negotiations, there is a wide range of frameworks to choose from. Yet you should not focus exclusively on the type of exercise you would like to design before you have decided on the kind of learning that you would like the negotiation to create. With this in mind, the following checklist should be useful to start thinking about this assignment. 1. Central Learning: Think back to the negotiations that pushed you to reassess your negotiating skills and behaviors. There is some valuable learning that took place as you reflected on this experience. These instances can provide the type of “learning moments” that you might wish to build into your game. Example: “Mapletech showed me that preparation is useless if I am not capable of reading my counterparts signals.” Brainstorm and write down some of these central learning experiences as a starting point for this process. 2. Create the Environment: Begin to imagine the situation in which the types of learning that you have thought about can occur. You should think about both the emotional as well as physical environments that will facilitate this process. Do you want parties to be frustrated, over-confident, relaxed, anxious or indifferent? Do you want them to be rushed or confused? This will vary greatly depending on what you want students to learn. Example: “I want them to be over-confident about the relative strength of their position so that they must scramble when certain information is revealed in the game. Their reaction to shifting power relationships within the negotiation is where key learning can happen.” To ensure this happens, special attention should be paid to the structural dynamics of the game. 3. Explore Basic Frameworks and Roles: Now you can begin the design of the basic components of the exercise. How many players? How many issues? What characterizes and motivates these people? If you have completed the earlier steps, the creation of a framework and roles should lead to a productive and energetic conversation. Choose a framework that best creates the emotions and learning that you have previously discussed. Remember that the roles should be complex enough to express the emotions, interests and preferences that will create the learning, yet simple enough to be understood and adapted by a participant in a short period of time. The students should quickly feel that they can relate or at least empathize with the character in the game, so that the negotiations revolve around substance rather than play-acting. The roles you create can have very complex interests, yet try to make the motivations for these interests as transparent as possible to the participant who will both read them and live them during the exercise.
19
STM 221A/B: Fall 2007 Brian Mandell
4. Sketch a ZOPA: The Zone of Possible Agreement will begin to reveal itself once you can see the characters in your head. The size and scope of the ZOPA will depend on what you want the parties to learn. Do you want it to be very large so you can explore greed and/or quick agreements that leave great value on the table? Or do you want it to be small or virtually non-existent so that learning occurs through the struggle toward elusive agreement? Be true to the characters that you have created. Real people will play this game, and it serves no purpose to toy with emotions in the absence of constructive learning. 5. Test for Possible Results: Draft some potential outcomes to this negotiation. Where will people tend to end up in the exercise you have created? What have you wrought? This is a good place to make sure you are headed toward the learning you had intended. If you see the results are at odds with your pedagogical objectives, this is a great place to adjust the dynamics of the exercise before you move on to more detailed specifics. You will probably have to play out some scenarios here with your group partners so that you see how the game moves. Trial and error will prove useful in discovering any big roadblocks. 6. Refine the Framework and Roles: You should now be able to write the introduction and description of your exercise. Remember to keep in mind the confidential information that is critical to your exercise. Be careful not to reveal any of this in the general instructions, as even slight insinuations about the parties or issues can compromise the integrity of the exercise. Now go back and do an insightful write-up of your characters. Use the narrative form where appropriate to give this description flavor and authenticity. Try to be genuine and rational in the way you describe these parties. The exercise will fail if the participants are continuously questioning the motivations, positions and perspectives of the role they are playing. 7. Establish the Parameters and Payoffs: If you are producing a scoreable game, make the final adjustments to your numbers and payoff tables. Be sure to create enough agreement scenarios so that your central learning can occur. Role-play the game with your partners or other students so that you can see where the roles and overall design take the parties. Depending on the scope of your exercise, the quantitative aspect of this process may quickly become very complicated. If this is the case, take the time to make the written materials accurate, accessible and as straightforward as possible. 8. The Teaching Note: This is the core component of the group assignment. It should be an extensive and detailed document that explains your fundamental pedagogical principles and objectives in creating this exercise. This document must allow an instructor to easily understand your motives and thought processes. The potential learning that you have created in this negotiation exercise cannot occur without a clear and thoughtful explanation of its origins, intentions and opportunities. The teaching note should have examples of possible resolutions of the exercise and descriptions of what these agreements might reveal. You should also provide clear advise to the instructor on what to look for in the debriefing session that follows the negotiation. The main themes of the exercise should be drawn from the experiences of the participants in order to lead them back to your central learning objectives. Be sure to provide the instructor with extensive information regarding your motivations in restricting or narrowing different dimensions of the game. Remember, the instructor was not part of your creative process, so do not assume that something is obvious merely because it is obvious to you. 9. Peer feedback: You must beta-test this exercise before you submit it. At the end of your exercise, attach a detailed summary of your peer feedback (one page maximum). The peer feedback sheet will constitute the last page of your formal group project submission and must be included in your assignment upon submission on December 7, 2007.
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES
o o o
Due Friday, December 7, 2007 by 5:00 p.m. Length is 20-25 pages maximum (one sided, double spaced, 12 point font, one inch margins). Submit in box across from Prof. Mandell’s office (L104). 20