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 [email protected]

INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS

STM-221A/B

Syllabus: Fall 2008

SECTION A

Mondays & Wednesdays: 10:10-11:30, L230 Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall

COURSE ASSISTANTS

SECTION B Mondays & Wednesdays: 1:10-2:30, L230 Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall FACULTY ASSISTANT Jean Dombrowski [email protected] L107A (617) 495-1320

Jamille Bigio David Martinez Jen Scott Jake Waxman

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, and effective negotiator.

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 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 Mondays 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. Learning Team Preparation for Monday Case Discussion In order to accomplish these pedagogical goals, you must read cases thoroughly and be prepared to respond to a range of questions based on the weekly Case Analysis Toolkit (distributed in class). You will be assigned to a Learning Team of four students. The purpose of the Learning Teams is to incorporate students different perspectives of the case and Monday readings into a coherent group discussion and analysis of the case. Learning Teams should meet weekly prior to Mondays class to review the case, go through the Case Analysis Toolkit, and prepare to present a systematic analysis of the case in class. Each Monday, randomly selected Learning Teams will be cold-called to lead off discussion regarding the case. A first team 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 teams will provide their analysis of action steps taken by parties to overcome barriers to reaching a sustainable agreement. Class will conclude with discussion of how key stakeholders, acting entrepreneurially, might have made different process design and sequencing choices to capture additional sources of value. Tuesdays See Section III below. Wednesdays Pedagogical Goals Wednesdays class discussions have two pedagogical goals: To debrief and analyze the previous days negotiation exercise; and To explicitly link theory to practice by incorporating analysis from the assigned readings into class discussion of the weekly exercise.

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

Group Preparation for Wednesday Class Discussion Each Wednesday, groups from the Tuesday negotiation exercises should be prepared to discuss key takeaways and lessons from the exercises, drawing general lessons from the case discussed on Monday and from the readings assigned for Wednesday.

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. (Please note: the last two exercises will run from 4:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.) You are expected to be present and participate fully during the entire two (or three) 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, provided with your role at the end of Mondays class, 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 groups 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 participation in, and demonstrated learning from, all assigned negotiation exercises are key components of your learning. However, 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 your counterparts using Hot Debrief Forms and individually fill out a Negotiators 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.
3

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

5. Follow the Schedule: You must be prepared to commit a full two (or three) hours to Tuesdays negotiation exercise, Hot Debrief and Bluebook reflection:
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. 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: 30% See Assignment 2: Group Exercise for details. 4

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 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 72 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. There are no exceptions to this prerequisite.

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. Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman, Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Bantam Books, 2007 (hardcover). 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 and Packet 2: 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 Dont Ask, Women Dont Ask. Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock, L. and Laschever, S., Princeton University Press 2003, pp. 62-84. Bazerman, M. Chapter 4: Framing and the Reversal of Preferences, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009, pp. 62-83. Bazerman, M. Chapter 5: Motivational and Emotional Influences on Decision Making, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009. pp. 84-100. Bazerman, M. The Mythical Fixed Pie, Negotiation, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov. 2003. 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 Prisoners 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.

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell 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. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., and Barry, B. Negotiation, Fifth Edition., McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006, pp. 172-175. Raiffa, H. Chapter 17, The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 257-274. 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. Chapter 7: The Persistence of Escalation, 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, Lets 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 3: Materials Available Via STM-221 A/B Website or in Print

The Crucial First Five Minutes, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 2007. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26650049&site=ehost-live&scope=site Will Your Proposals Hit the Mark? Negotiation, Vol. 11, No. 5, May 2008. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31626499&site=ehost-live&scope=site

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell 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 Atran, S. and Axelrod, R. Reframing Sacred Values, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, July 2008, pp. 221-246. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/120748814/PDFSTART Bohnet, I. and Meier, S. How Much Should You Trust? Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 3, March 2006. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=19907630&site=ehost-live&scope=site 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=24198886& site=ehost-live&scope=site Cohen, J. The Ethics of Respect in Negotiation, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 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, Vol. 23, Issue 3, July 2007, p. 249265. 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, Vol. 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 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. 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 Kolb, D., Williams, J. and Bazerman, M. Are You Really Ready to Negotiate? Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 2007. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26225949&site=ehost-live&scope=site Kray, L. Leading Through Negotiation: Harnessing the Power of Gender Stereotypes, California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, Fall 2007. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27341345&site=ehost-live&scope=site Lewicki, R. Walk the line: Ethical Dilemmas in Negotiation, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 5, May 2007.

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24687505&site=ehostlive&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 Putnam, R. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 427-460. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5188722&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://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=926619&site=ehost-live&scope=site 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 Thompson, L. and Nadler, J. Negotiating via Information Technology: Theory and Application, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 109-124. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6194718&site=ehost-live&scope=site Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. The Gulf Crisis: Building a Coalition for War, KSG Case #1264.0. Young, Mark. Sharks, Saints, and Samurai: The Power of Ethics in Negotiations, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 2008. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/119405280/PDFSTART

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

VII. SUMMARY OF CLASS TOPICS

Week 1 Week 2 Introduction
Wednesday September 10

Course Overview

Understanding the Dynamics of Cooperative and Competitive Interaction in Negotiation Monday Scoping the field of negotiation analysis and in-class exercise: Luna September 15 Pen Tuesday Conduct Oil Pricing negotiation exercise
September 16 Wednesday September 17

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 22 Tuesday September 23 Wednesday September 24

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
September 29 Tuesday September 30 Wednesday October 1

Conduct Leckenby negotiation exercise Discuss Leckenby negotiation exercise and assigned readings

Week 5

Integrative Bargaining I: Creating Value by Expanding the Pie Monday Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations
October 6 Tuesday October 7 Wednesday October 8

Conduct Universal Aircraft negotiation exercise Discuss Universal Aircraft negotiation exercise and assigned readings

Week 6

Integrative Bargaining II: The Negotiators Dilemma Managing the Tension between Creating and Claiming Value Monday No Class (Columbus Day)
October 13 Tuesday October 14 Wednesday October 15

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 20 Ethics Vignettes Tuesday Conduct 3-way Organization negotiation exercise
October 21 Wednesday October 22 Friday October 24

Discuss 3-way Organization negotiation exercise and assigned readings Assignment 1: Memo Due at 5:00 pm 9

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 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 27 Tuesday October 28 Wednesday October 29

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 3 Tuesday November 4 Wednesday November 5

Election Day. Grand office hours with CAs to review group negotiation exercise proposals Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part II

Week 10

Shadow and Virtual Negotiations Monday In-class exercise: Paulas Problem

November 10 Tuesday November 11 Wednesday November 12

Veterans Day. Conduct The Offer email negotiation. Discuss The Offer negotiation exercise and assigned readings

Week 11

Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables I: Building Multiparty Winning Coalitions and Preventing Blocking Coalitions Monday Case Analysis: Gulf War
November 17 Tuesday November 18 Wednesday November 19

Conduct Mouse negotiation exercise (Note: this exercise and group debrief will last approximately 3 hours, from 4:15-7:15) Discuss Mouse negotiation exercise and assigned readings

Week 12

The Negotiator as Mediator Monday Case Analysis: George Mitchell and PBS video
November 24 Tuesday November 25 Wednesday November 26

No negotiation exercise No Class (Thanksgiving Eve)

Week 13

Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables II: Anticipating Vulnerabilities in Multiparty Coalition-Building Across Sectors and Organizational Boundaries December 1 Oral Exams
December 6 Monday December 1 Tuesday December 2 Wednesday December 3 Friday December 5

In-class preparation for Seeport Conduct Seeport negotiation exercise (Note: this exercise and group debrief will last approximately 3 hours, from 4:15-7:15) 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 8

10

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEKLY CLASS SCHEDULE WEEK 1

INTRODUCTION

Wednesday, September 10 Introduction to negotiation analysis and course overview. Readings: o Wheeler, M. Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction, HBS Publication #9-801-156 [in packet 1].

WEEK 2
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE INTERACTION IN NEGOTIATION

Monday, September 15 Case analysis: Luna Pen. Readings: o Valley, K. and Wheeler, M. Luna Pen (A), HBS Case No. 9-396-156 [in packet 1]. o Kolb, D., Williams, J. and Bazerman, M. Are You Really Ready to Negotiate? Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 2007 [in packet 3]. o The Crucial First Five Minutes, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 2007 [in packet 3]. o Galinsky, A. and Magee, J. Power Plays, Negotiation, Vol. 9. No. 7, July 2006 [in packet 3]. Distribution of negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing. Tuesday, September 16 Negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing. Wednesday, September 17 Discussion: Oil Pricing and readings. Readings: o Dixit, A. and Nalebuff, B. Resolving the Prisoners Dilemma, chapter 4, Thinking Strategically. The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, pp. 89-118 [in packet 2]. o Malhotra, D. Risky Business: Trust in Negotiations, Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 2, Feb. 2004 [in packet 3]. o Bohnet, I. and Meier, S. How Much Should You Trust? Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 3, March 2006 [in packet 3]. Distribution of case analysis questions: Malta.

11

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 3
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING I: CLAIMING VALUE IN NEGOTIATION

Monday, September 22 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 2]. o Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapters 1, 2, and 3, pp. 7-50. Distribution of negotiation exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa. Tuesday, September 23 Negotiation exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa Wednesday, September 24 Discussion: Mapletech-Yazawa and readings. Readings: o Galinsky, A. Should You Make the First Offer? Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 7, Jul. 2004 [in packet 3]. o Korobkin, R. Estimating the Bargaining Zone, Negotiation Theory and Strategy, Aspen Law & Business, 2002. pp. 37-57 [in packet 2]. o Schweitzer, M. Aim High, Improve Negotiation Results, Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 8, Aug. 2006 [in packet 3]. o Malhotra, D. and Bazerman, M. Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Chapter 1, pp. 15-49. Distribution of case analysis questions: West Coast Port Dispute.

12

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 4
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING II: SIGNALING EXPECTATIONS, MANAGING ESCALATION AND AVOIDING IRRATIONAL COMMITMENTS

Monday, September 29 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 2]. 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 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, 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 3]. Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Leckenby. Tuesday, September 30 Negotiation exercise: Leckenby. Wednesday, October 1 Discussion: Leckenby and readings. Readings: 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 2]. o Malhotra, D. and Bazerman, M. Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Chapters 4, 5, 6, pp. 103-155. Distribution of case analysis questions: Tobacco Negotiations.

13

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 5
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING I: CREATING VALUE BY EXPANDING THE PIE

Monday, October 6 Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations. Readings: o Levenson, G. Tobacco Negotiations, HBS Case #9-899-049 [in packet 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapters 7 and 8, pp. 99-134. Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Universal Aircraft. Tuesday, October 7 Negotiation exercise: Universal Aircraft. Wednesday, October 8 Discussion: Universal Aircraft and readings. Readings: o Bazerman, M. The Mythical Fixed Pie, Negotiation, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov. 2003, pp. 3-5 [in packet 2]. o Bazerman, M. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009. Chapter 4, pp. 62-83. [in packet 2] o Susskind, L. Find More Value at the Bargaining Table, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 2, Feb. 2007 [in packet 3]. o Malhotra, D. and Bazerman, M. Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Chapter 2, pp. 50-82. Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Pioneer.

14

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 6
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING II: THE NEGOTIATORS DILEMMA MANAGING THE TENSION BETWEEN CREATING AND CLAIMING VALUE

Monday, October 13 No class: Columbus Day. Tuesday, October 14 Negotiation exercise: Pioneer. Wednesday, October 15 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 3]. 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, pp. 1-4 [in packet 2]. o Bordone, R. Divide the Pie Without Antagonizing the Other Side, Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 11, Nov. 2006 [in packet 3]. o Will Your Proposals Hit the Mark? Negotiation, Vol. 11, No. 5, May 2008 [in packet 3]. o Malhotra D. and Bazerman, M. Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Chapter 3, pp. 83-102.

15

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 7
ETHICS, STRATEGIC MISREPRESENTATION, BLUFFING AND COMMITMENT-MAKING IN NEGOTIATION

Monday, October 20 In-class exercise: Ethics Vignettes. Readings: o Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. Ethics in Negotiation, Chapter 9, Essentials of Negotiation, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill Irwin, 2006 [in packet 2]. o Lewicki, R. Walk the line: Ethical Dilemmas in Negotiation, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 5, May 2007 [in packet 3]. o Cohen, J. The Ethics of Respect in Negotiation, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 2, April 2002, pp.115-120 [in packet 3]. o Schweitzer, M. Call their bluff! Detecting Deception in Negotiation, Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 3, Mar. 2007 [in packet 3]. o Schweitzer, M. Negotiators Lie, Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 12, Dec. 2005 [in packet 3]. Distribution of negotiation exercise: 3-way Organization. Tuesday, October 21 Negotiation exercise: 3-way Organization. Wednesday, October 22 Discussion: 3-way Organization and readings. Readings: o Raiffa, H. Chapter 17: Coalition Analysis, The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 257-274 [in packet 2]. 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 3]. o Young, Mark. Sharks, Saints, and Samurai: The Power of Ethics in Negotiations, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 2008 [in packet 3]. o Malhotra, D. and Bazerman, M. Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, Chapters 9, 10, pp. 196-235. Distribution of case analysis questions: Charlene Barshefsky. Friday, October 24 Individual assignment due at 5:00pm in the STM-221A or STM221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandells Office (L104A).

16

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 8
NEGOTIATING AWAY-FROM AND AT-THE-TABLE: MANAGING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS

Monday, October 27 Case analysis: Charlene Barshefsky. Readings: o Sebenius, J. Charlene Barshefsky (A), HBS Case #9-801-421 [in packet 2]. o Sebenius, J. Charlene Barshefsky (B), HBS Case #9-801-422 [in packet 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapters 9, 10 and 11, pp. 135-178. Distribution of negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric. Tuesday, October 28 Negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric. Wednesday, October 29 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 2]. o Putnam, R. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, International Organization, MIT Press, summer 1988, pp. 427-460 [in packet 3].

WEEK 9
MANAGING CONTENTIOUS RELATIONSHIPS IN HIGH STAKES, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS

Monday, November 3 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 3]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapter 12, pp. 181-203. Tuesday, November 4 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 5 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 2]. o Robinson, R. Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Part 2, Partisan Perceptions, HBS Case #9-897-104 [in packet 2].

17

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 10
SHADOW AND VIRTUAL NEGOTIATIONS

Monday, November 10 In-class exercise: Paulas Problem Readings: o Kray, L. Leading Through Negotiation: Harnessing the Power of Gender Stereotypes, California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, Fall 2007 [in packet 3]. 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 2]. o Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. Chapter Three: Nice Girls Dont Ask, Women Dont Ask. Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock, L. and Laschever, S., Princeton University Press 2003, pp. 62-84 [in packet 2]. Distribution of negotiation exercise: The Offer Tuesday, November 11 Negotiation exercise: The Offer. Wednesday, November 12 Discussion: The Offer Readings: o Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., and Barry, B. Negotiation, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006, pp. 172-175 [in packet 2]. o Thompson, L. and Nadler, J. Negotiating via Information Technology: Theory and Application, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 109-124 [in packet 3] o Pradel, D., Riley Bowles, H., and McGinn, K. When Does Gender Matter in Negotiation, Negotiation, Vol. 8, No. 11, Nov. 2005 [in packet 3]. Distribution of case analysis questions: George Mitchell.

18

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 11
MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES AND RECRUITABLES I: BUILDING MULTIPARTY WINNING COALITIONS AND PREVENTING BLOCKING COALITIONS

Monday November 17 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 3]. o Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. Sources of Power in Coalition Building, Negotiation Journal, Jan, 1996, pp. 47-68 [in packet 2]. o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapters 13 and 14, pp. 205-235. Distribution of negotiation exercise: Mouse. Tuesday, November 18 Negotiation exercise: Mouse. (Note: this exercise and group debrief will last approximately 3 hours, from 4:15-7:15) Wednesday, November 19 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 3]. o Bazerman, M. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009. Chapter 5, pp. 84-100 [in packet 2]. o Susskind, L. Winning and Blocking Coalitions: Bring Both to a Crowded Table, Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan 2004 [in packet 2]. Distribution of case analysis questions: Gulf War.

WEEK 12
THE NEGOTIATOR AS MEDIATOR

Monday, November 24 Case analysis: George Mitchell and PBS film. Readings: o Sebenius, J. and Curran, D. To Hell with the Future, Lets Get on with the Past: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland, HBS Case #9-801-393 [in packet 2]. 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 3]. o Atran, S. and Axelrod, R. Reframing Sacred Values, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, July 2008, pp. 221-246 [in packet 3]. Tuesday, November 25 No negotiation exercise. Wednesday, November 26 No class.

19

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

WEEK 13
MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES AND RECRUITABLES II: ANTICIPATING VULNERABILITIES IN MULTIPARTY COALITION-BUILDING ACROSS SECTORS AND ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES

Monday, December 1 Distribution and preparation of negotiation exercise: Seeport Readings: o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Chapter 15, pp 237-254. Tuesday December 2 Negotiation exercise: Seeport. (Note: this exercise and group debrief will last approximately 3 hours, from 4:15-7:15) Wednesday, December 3 Discussion: Seeport and readings. Friday, December 5 Group assignment due at 5:00pm in the STM-221A or STM221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandells Office (L104A).

WEEK 14
CONCLUSION

Monday, December 8 Course wrap-up and evaluations.

20

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

ASSIGNMENT 1: INDIVIDUAL NEGOTIATION MEMO

MEMORANDUM To: STM-221 A/B Students From: Date: Representative Keith Simons October 6, 2008

Your task is to construct a negotiation analytic action memo using the 3-D framework that: 1. Analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the negotiation approach my team and I have taken thus far, and 2. Identifies barriers that stand in the way of securing a provision for wind power in AEF and recommends how I should proceed. In addressing these two overarching directives, your memo should use the following structure and be guided by the following questions: 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 Rep. Jones and others involved, briefly introduce me to the negotiation challenges I 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 would enable a 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 am likely to 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 design another possible deal, what elements are necessary for ensuring a favorable agreement from Rep. Jones perspective? Given your 3-D analysis of the parties and interests involved, how might relationships, patterns of influence, hard bargaining, and leverage among them act as barriers to this potential deal? How might I face communication, trust, personality, or style issues with the other parties who are blocking progress at the table? What types of hardball tactics have I faced until now in my ongoing negotiation with Rep. Jones? o Craft a 3-D Negotiation Strategy and Model Agreement for Me Prescribe a set of well-sequenced momentum-building moves across dimensions that I should adopt to align the setup, deal design and tactics to overcome barriers, build leverage, and create a sustainable, value-creating agreement. Remember, I want to maximize opportunity and minimize my 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: 21

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

In order to create a favorable setup for subsequent rounds of negotiations with Rep. Jones, what away-from-the-table action steps should I take now? What coalitions should be created to generate favorable momentum? What potential coalitions should be blocked? Who should be invited to the table now 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 action should I take to counter Rep. Jones relentless hardball tactics? How should I frame my interests to best create and claim value in this negotiation? What moves should I make to create and claim value for the long term?

Conclusion: Positioning Me for Future Negotiations Explain how the model negotiation agreement you propose to me is administratively and politically feasible and how the deal will better position me to deal more effectively with Rep. Jones and other Congressional colleagues in the future. Be sure to emphasize here the criteria for deal sustainability.

Please note: This is a negotiation analytic memo, not a political strategy memo (e.g. you should not spend time analyzing or dissecting the districts represented by Simons, Jones, et al). Memos should focus on crafting a 3-D negotiation analysis of the AEF negotiation presented in the case only. Memos that outline a political strategy for Simons will not receive full credit.
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

Due Friday, October 24, 2008 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. Mandells office (L104).

22

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

ASSIGNMENT 2: GROUP EXERCISE

SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENT 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. 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 and deciding its process of work. 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. Reflect on the lessons and key takeaways of your semester in STM221. Think about 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 instructive lessons as a starting point for this process. 2. Create the Environment: Begin to imagine the types of situations that could be used to illustrate the lessons that you have identified. 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 you drive home your chosen teaching points, 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 invokes the emotions and facilitates the learning that you are seeking to impart. 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 to, or at least empathize with, the character in the game so that the negotiations revolve around substance rather than playacting. 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. 23

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 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 failure to create a realistic scenario undermines 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? Does your exercise have a set of possible outcomes that reinforce your teaching points? 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 learning value 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 advice 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 a minimum of two times before you submit it. At the end of your exercise, attach your Friendly Feedback forms and a detailed summary ofhow your peer feedback was incorporated into the final exercise (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 5, 2008.

24

STM 221A/B: Fall 2008 Brian Mandell

ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

Checklist o Final product must include the following items, in this order: 1. Teaching Note containing key pedagogical points and debrief points for the exercise citing applicable literature and concepts discussed in the course (12-15 pages double-spaced) 2. General and role specific instructions (8-10 pages single-spaced) 3. Results template 4. Bluebook with questions specific to your teaching points 5. Friendly Feedback Forms from beta-tests and one-two paragraphs describing how you have incorporated the feedback into the final exercise 6. Statement of Authorization signed by all four group members Formatting and Submission o The Teaching Note and role instructions (items 1 and 2 on checklist above) combined should not exceed 25 pages in total. Items 3-6 are in addition to this page limit. o Format: 12 point font, single sided with one inch margins. o Submit two copies of the final product in the box across from Prof. Mandells office (L104). The first copy should represent your best final product (binder, nice cover, etc.). The second copy does not need to be as formal. o Due Friday, December 5, 2008 by 5:00 p.m.

25