Eazy’s Garage – Two-Party

Note: This simulation is also available in a four-party version (with roles for two lawyers and two clients) here.

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Eazy’s Garage All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Eazy’s Garage. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

 

SCENARIO:

Susan Garfield has a billing dispute with John Eazer, owner of a local garage, over some work done on Garfield’s car. Finding the bill significantly higher than the original informal estimate, Garfield angrily confronted Eazer. Eazer prepared a second bill at an even higher figure. Frustrated, Garfield returned to the garage after closing time with a spare key and drove her car home, without paying anything. Eazer turned to his child-in-law, an attorney, wishing to file a criminal complaint. When phoned, Garfield referred the attorney to her father, a senior partner in a local law firm. Garfield’s father is letting one of his young associates handle the case.

 

MECHANICS:

This case takes 30-45 minutes to negotiate, either one-on-one or two-on-two. Debriefing can take from 45 minutes to 2 hours.

 

TEACHER’S MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Eazer’s Attorney
  • Susan Garfield’s Attorney
  • Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)
  • Sample Preparation Memo

 

Teacher’s Package (30 pages total):

  • All of the Above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include a Teaching Note)

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Tension between empathy and assertiveness, especially in the context of a long-term relationship.
  • The relevance and uses of objective criteria.
  • Negotiating in the shadow of the law (and under the threat of a possible lawsuit).
  • Balance among short-term and long-term interests, including financial, relationship, reputation, and emotional interests.
  • Role of agents (such as lawyers) in negotiating a resolution to an emotional dispute between clients with a long-term relationship.
  • Questions about what constitutes “success” in this negotiation? Is it making the other side back down? Avoiding litigation? Getting a “fair”deal? What are the criteria for a “good” outcome in negotiation?

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Apologies; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Joint gains; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Litigation analysis; Meaning of “success”; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Yesable propositions.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Eazy’s Garage Enhanced Package click here.

GE International Contract

SCENARIO:

Several years ago, GE International purchased a networked computer system to serve all of its operating departments. Unfortunately, the computer system has become utterly ineffective. GE International's Senior Manager of Information Management Operations has been charged with finding an expert to divide and reprogram the computer system, rewrite the manuals, and maximize the value of the existing high-quality hardware and software.

The Senior Manager has located a computer consulting company that seems to be far better equipped than any of the alternative companies to handle this project. The consulting company, in turn, is eager for the publicity of working with a world-renowned company like GE International. At the last minute, the Senior Manager and the computer consultant realize that they have been exploring this contract without knowing that the other party had an enormously different idea regarding the appropriate price for the project. The parties are meeting one last time to see if there is a way to salvage the deal.

This case is similar to The Tendley Contract but takes place in a more corporate setting.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation to positional bargaining.
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of revealing one's BATNA in this situation? How do the parties' BATNAs — and their disclosure or nondisclosure of them — affect the negotiation?
  • The fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in what the two parties want GE International to pay for the job makes it very difficult to come up with a contract without generating creative options. What can the parties do to facilitate option generation?
  • This case often generates discussion around "fair" pricing for the contract. What are some criteria for determining a fair price? Are the parties' initial expectations regarding the price relevant to what the price should be? Do the parties' BATNAs have any bearing on what the price should be?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Confidential Instructions for:
    • Computer Systems Consultant
    • GEII Team
  • Teacher's Package includes:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note

Hong Kong Property Deal

SCENARIO:

The Hong Kong Property Deal is a simple two-party negotiation that appears to have a single distributive issue (price), but contains several hidden issues that offer integrative opportunities.

The simulation is set in Hong Kong in 1996, just before the British returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. Lee Wing and Terry Jones each operate a business next door to each other on Tai Po Kau Harbour Road. Between their two businesses is a small lot that is unattractive as a separate building site because it sits between two large warehouses. Lee Wing purchased the small lot in 1990 for $70,000 with the intent of expanding his warehouse. These plans were never realized, and the lot is currently vacant.

Wing has decided to move to Australia, and has arranged to sell his construction material importation business to a family friend, Bill Ling. Ling has gathered the necessary funds to buy Wing’s business and warehouse, but can only offer $50,000 for the small vacant lot (which he neither particularly needs nor wants).

Terry Jones conducts the Hong Kong business for Australian-based Outback Foods from the lot on the other side of Wing’s vacant lot. Unbeknownst to Wing, Outback Foods is having great success in Hong Kong and could use some extra space to expand its warehouse. Indeed, Terry Jones has a budget of up to $200,000 to purchase additional space for a warehouse.

Wing called Jones yesterday, and the parties are about to meet.

 

This case allows for the introduction of several fundamental negotiation concepts:

  • Bargaining range (both positive and negative bargaining range); also known as zone of possible agreement (ZOPA);
  • First offers in a distributive negotiation: how and when to present a first offer;
  • Gathering information to determine the other party’s intentions and goals;
  • Managing information about our own intentions and goals; and
  • Introduction to integrative strategy.

 

Teacher’s Package Includes:

  • Confidential instructions for Lee Wing
  • Confidential instructions for Terry Jones
  • Teaching note

Job Negotiation, The

SCENARIO:

Jordan Webb, a current masters student, negotiates via email (simultaneously) with two tech firms who are potential employers. Both firms have offered to create a new position for Jordan, as the Director of Community Engagement, to manage public-private partnerships. Jordan’s interests are wide-ranging, including the work itself, salary & benefits, start date & vacation time, location, degree of travel, and flexibility in working from home because of family concerns. Avery Adams represents Computech, Jordan’s former employer. Baylor Bell represents Innoventrix, another potential employer. Avery Adams does not know Jordan has another job offer (unless Jordan decides to reveal this information). Baylor Bell knows that Jordan has an offer from Computech, but does not know that Jordan is still negotiating the terms of the offer (unless Jordan decides to reveal this information).

MAJOR LESSONS:
The major lessons relate to self-advocacy in job negotiations as well as dealing with the challenges presented by communicating via email (instead of face-to-face). This simulation highlights sources of power for job candidates in career negotiations, including preparation, setting high aspirations, having a strong BATNA, emphasizing unique skills or contributions the job candidate can bring to the organization, considering a range of interests, and connecting with others. This simulation also helps students consider strategies to effectively negotiate via email, including setting up a meeting in person (or via Skype) prior to the email exchange when possible, establishing shared norms for communication (and swiftly sharing the reason for any delay in communication), formatting messages so they appear professional and are easy for the recipient to understand, and the importance of proofreading.

This role-play is based on Sheila Heen’s “The Offer”.

 

View a Questions & Answers sheet here

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • Jordan Webb (Job Candidate)
  • Avery Adams (Computech)
  • Baylor Bell (Innoventrix)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Slides with teaching tips for the negotiation simulation

Kelly Corporation, The

SCENARIO:

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

 

MECHANICS:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case calls for fine interpersonal skills in balancing assertiveness and relationship maintenance. What general guidelines seem applicable for preserving a good working relationship?
  • The problem of power imbalance, typical in employee relations, are highlighted. This is probably a good case for principled negotiation, but useful criteria may be hard to come by.
  • In speaking to the boss together, the employees have to address the issue of whether to take a competitive, cooperative, or monolithic approach, and how to maintain it in the face of various employer tactics.
  • The employer has to confront the issue of how to distinguish between the two employees, without embittering the less well rewarded. Ethical choices loom as potentially important.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Employer
  • Employees (same or both)

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

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

Lattitude.com

SCENARIO:

Lattitude.com is a simple two-party, single-issue, primarily distributive negotiation regarding the potential sale of an internet domain name. It is designed to be negotiated entirely via e-mail, and may either be used in an online course or as a supplement to a face-to-face course. This simulation is a good vehicle for discussing the dynamics of distributive bargaining as well as the effect of the communication via email on both process and outcome.

Participant’s materials include:

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

 

Teacher’s Package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teacher’s note

 

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

Law Library, The

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

 

SCENARIO:

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

 

MECHANICS:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This is an excellent case for exploring the uses of objective criteria. A variety of criteria can be gathered from the case and outside research, and others, with a little thought, can be inferred.
  • This case is also a convenient vehicle for exploring different systems of negotiation and how they fare against each other.
  • The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is easily illustrated here.
  • The case suggests how seldom one encounters a true single-issue negotiation. A little reflection suggests the presence of significant opportunities to expand the pie. In particular, the possibility of establishing an ongoing relationship that might lead to client referrals merits careful consideration.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • List of Some Possible Objective Criteria

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Sellers — Burns & Burns
  • Buyers — Jones & Solomon

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

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

Mountain View Farm

SCENARIO:

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

 

MECHANICS:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This negotiation focuses squarely on interests, options, and objective criteria. Positional bargaining is virtually certain to leave large potential joint gains unrealized. On the other hand, there is the challenge of engaging in joint brainstorming without unintentionally committing oneself.
  • While a variety of options seem likely to be of mutual benefit, most require additional information for full analysis and decision-making. This raises nice questions of how to structure contingent decisions under uncertainty, and how to build in appropriate incentives for objective information-gathering.
  • Poorly thought out agreements often ignore important unknowns and details of implementation. Clear thinking suggests setting realistic expectations about what can be accomplished in the meeting. Agreements will tend to vary dramatically in their scope.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the:

  • Owner
  • Farmer

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

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

Negotiated Development in Redstone

SCENARIO:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Importance of pre-negotiation analysis: It is important to prepare for a negotiation and particularly to identify both aspirations and BATNA's.
  • Distributive vs. Integrative bargaining differences: The participants have an opportunity to analyze the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining.
  • Potential Joint Gains: Focusing on issues that are valued differently will allow participants to assess the importance of trading across issues to reach an agreement.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

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

 

Estimated Time Requirement:

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

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions and Scoring Charts for

  • Angela Redstone
  • John Hammond

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

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

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Parking Spaces for Super Computer

Negotiating Budget Cuts at Newtowne Hospital

SCENARIO:

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

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Relationships: Relationships are a key issue in this case. In order to keep the hospital running smoothly, the players must remain accountable to their constituents while maintaining a good working rapport with each other.
  • Identifying 'success': During post-negotiation discussions, participants can take a close look at the different notions of a good outcome in each of the negotiating groups. did the parties try to accommodate each other's interest? What were the results when they did?
  • Interests vs. Positions: The parties must separate their interests from their positions, as well as the people from the problem in order to reach a consensus in a distributive bargaining situation. Reactions of the parties make this dispute difficult. The players are very concerned about their status within the hospital hierarchy, causing symbolic aspects of the negotiation to be quite important.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Budget Cutting Strategies Memorandum

 

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • John Demars, Chief Operating Officer
  • Harry Baxter, Chief of the Medical Staff
  • Diana Antry, Vice-President of Nursing
  • Bob Carter, Financial Officer
  • Vickie Eaton, Head of the Nurses Union
  • Felicity Fulton, President of the Hospital Workers Association

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above
  • Results form
  • Teaching Note

 

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

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

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Williams Medical Centre

Negotiation of Rabbi Ben Newman’s Employment Contract, The

SCENARIO:

 

This simulation provides an opportunity for students to immerse themselves in the elements of negotiating a rabbi’s employment contract with a synagogue.

 

Beth El, a medium-sized, suburban, conservative synagogue in the Midwest United States, grew considerably under Rabbi Newman’s two and a half years of guidance. He is younger and more progressive than the previous rabbi who led Beth El for 32 years.

 

A new contract is necessary now that Rabbi Newman’s three-year probationary period is coming to an end. Though it was originally assumed that negotiating the new contract would be smooth and easily ratified by the General Board, it has proven to be difficult. Rabbi Newman ran into resistance from the second Vice President, Sy Katz, who represents older members of the congregation who don’t agree with the rabbi’s style and feel he is asking for too much.

 

The two men plan to sit down with the congregation’s president serving as mediator, to try to reach agreement for the terms of the new contract.

 

 

MECHANICS/LOGISTICS:

Timetable for the Exercise:

2.5 – 3.5 hrs:

Offline Preparation:               1-2 hours

Final Preparation and Class:   20 minutes

Conducting the Exercise:       40 minutes

Debrief:                                20 minutes

 

 

TEACHER’S PACKAGE INCLUDES:

Teaching Notes

General Instructions          

Confidential Instructions for:

     Rabbi Ben Newman

Second VP, Sy Katz

     President, Charlene Gold

Oil Pricing Exercise

SCENARIO:

Alba and Batia are two unfriendly oil producing nations that sell a significant amount of their production to nearby Capita. Anti-dumping agreements and Capita's alternate supply options limit Alba and Batia to prices per barrel of $10, $20, and $30. Each country's monthly profit can vary from $2 to $18 million per month, depending on the two country's relative prices and consequent Pricing Board of Alba or Batia. They are instructed that maximizing their own country's profits is their sole objective.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on each country's Oil Pricing Board. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each Board. The exercise is run in 8 or more rounds, corresponding to months, and takes 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 hours to run and review.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions and Score Sheets
  • Monthly Price Report Message Forms

 

Teacher's Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include teaching note)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Education, as a means; Ethics; Game theory; Group process; Group-think; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of "success"; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Recurring negotiations; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called "social trap" exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. In most rounds, communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don't actually exist. At certain points, the parties are given the opportunity to communicate explicitly, and may choose to reach pricing agreements or not (and subsequently, to honor those agreements or not).

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

The difference between reacting to the other side's moves (or one's perception of what those moves mean or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former, some teams have to take a risk. Players face the tension between seeking high short-term gains and low short-term risk inherent in a competitive strategy, and lower but more stable long-term gains inherent in a cooperative strategy.

The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision making.

Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part III
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON faculty member Sheila Heen running and debriefing the "Oil Pricing" exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.

Parker-Gibson

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are new to teaching negotiation or are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts, the Parker-Gibson All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need to teach negotiation.

The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation, track learning outcomes, and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Parker-Gibson. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

The Parker-Gibson All-In-One Curriculum Package requires a minimum of 90 minutes of class time, but is best run in a two and half or three-hour class. To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

The Parkers and the Gibsons own homes on adjacent plots of land. The homes are separated by a 1/2 lot the Parkers purchased years ago in hopes of building a tennis court, which they never got around to. The Parkers are now moving out of state and are interested in selling the half lot, as the buyer of their home is not interested in it. The Parkers have approached the Gibsons (who have interest in the lot for home improvements they have planned) about purchasing the lot. Neither party knows much about the other’s interests. The Parkers and Gibsons are meeting to explore whether a mutually beneficial transaction is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of a former exercise titled Appleton v. Baker (Appleton v. Baker is still available, upon request). This exercise is also analytically similar to the exercises The Book Contract (with a different setting) and Bradford Development (without the linkage payment).

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best run as a one-on-one exercise. Preparation should require 5-10 minutes. Negotiations can take from 10-30 minutes, and review from 30 minutes to 1 1/4 hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Role specific:
    Confidential Instructions for:

      • Parker
      • Gibson

     

  • Teacher’s package:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note (English version only)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Quantitative analysis; Risk aversion; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

When several pairs negotiate this game at the same time, the resulting sale prices vary dramatically. Participants can then discuss how and why different negotiation strategies led to different outcomes.

Concepts of “fair prices” often surface in post-negotiation discussions. If participants do not take a “principled” approach to the negotiation, one side or the other often feels “taken,” especially when other players with the same role appear to do better.

The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.

The advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing your BATNA can also be illustrated, especially when several pairs negotiate the exercise.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Parker-Gibson Enhanced Package click here.

Parking Facility Venture

SCENARIO:

Three firms (Arundel Products, Bartel Publishing and Chiptech) are building new facilities in a recently developed part of town. The city requires each of them to construct off-street parking for their employees. The firms have jointly hired financial analysts, architects and other specialists to describe and price their options. The firms recognize that if they pool their capital and operating resources, they can build one parking garage to serve all employees. However, if all three firms cannot come to an agreement, various joint ventures between any two of the firms would still save some money for the two participants, though not as much. The climate for coalitions are unstable because the goal of each company is to maximize its own interests and financial well-being.

NOTE: The underlying mathematical structure of this exercise is similar to that of the exercises Rushing River Cleanup, Social Services and Three-Party Coalition Exercise.

 

MECHANICS:

The three firms should meet together initially to introduce themselves and to formally start the negotiations. Once negotiations begin, there will be 15-30 minutes to try to reach an agreement. If two of the three firms wish to speak privately, the third firm may not interrupt for 5 minutes (although he or she may listen to what the others are saying). If an agreement is reached it must last 5 minutes before negotiations can conclude. Two of the firms can conclude the negotiations.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For All Parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Constraints, time; Competition v. Cooperation; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Offers, first; Options, generating

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

The consequences of no agreement can be quite different in a multi-party negotiation compared to a two-party negotiation: BATNAs can shift and change. The power of seemingly "weak" players can be enhanced through the creation of blocking coalitions. A variety of tactics can cause parties to change their offers, close a deal, or break a deal. This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions. When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive.

Parking Spaces for Super Computer

SCENARIO:

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

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

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

 

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

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

 

Teacher's Pack (26 pages total) includes:

  • Confidential instructions for Tenga Tenier and Rom Rosok
  • Score sheets for all participants
  • Teaching Note
  • Teaching overheads

Pepulator Pricing Exercise

SCENARIO:

The pepulator market is controlled by two giant companies: Pulsar Pepulator and Consolidated Pepulator. The monthly profits of both companies are determined solely by the price each charges and how it compares to the price of the competitor. Participants in this exercise act as the board of directors for each company, determining their company's price of pepulators for each of several months. They are instructed that maximizing profits is their sole objective.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on the board of directors of each company. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each board, though an average of six or seven members is most manageable. This is a time-slice game played in rounds, and it takes about 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours to run the entire exercise with review.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions and Score Sheet
  • Monthly Price Report Message Form

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Education, as a means; Ethics; Game theory; Group process; Group-think; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of "success"; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Recurring negotiations; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called "social trap" exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. In most rounds, communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don't actually exist. At certain points, the parties are given the opportunity to communicate explicitly, and may choose to reach pricing agreements or not (and subsequently, to honor those agreements or not).

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

The difference between reacting to the other side's moves (or one's perception of what those moves mean or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former, some teams have to take a risk. Players face the tension between seeking high short-term gains and low short-term risk inherent in a competitive strategy, and lower but more stable long-term gains inherent in a cooperative strategy.

The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision making.