MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
79 JFK Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Brian Mandell
Littauer 104
Phone: 617.495.9123
Fax: 617.496.2850
brian_mandell@harvard.edu
INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS
MLD-221A/B
Syllabus: Fall 2012
SECTION A
SECTION B
Mondays & Wednesdays: 8:40-10:00, L230
Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall
Mondays & Wednesdays: 1:10-2:30, L230
Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall
COURSE ASSISTANTS
FACULTY ASSISTANT
Lauren Harrison (Lauren_harrison@hks13.harvard.edu)
Adam Levy (Adam_levy@hks13.harvard.edu)
Mona Singh (Mona_singh@hks13.harvard.edu)
Mark Truman (Mark_truman@hks13.harvard.edu)
Jean Dombrowski
jean_dombrowski@harvard.edu
L107A
(617) 495-1320
I. COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course introduces students to the theory and practice of negotiation. The ability to negotiate
successfully rests on a combination of analytical and interpersonal skills.
 Analysis is important because negotiators cannot develop promising strategies without a deep
understanding of the context of the situation, the structure of the negotiation, the interests of the other
parties, the opportunities and barriers to creating and claiming value on a sustainable basis, and the
range of possible moves and countermoves both at and away from the bargaining table.
 Interpersonal skills are important because negotiation is essentially a process of communication,
relationship and trust-building 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.
 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 negotiation tactics and
strategies. 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.
 Through analysis of case studies and discussion of readings on negotiation concepts and tactics, you
will apply negotiation concepts learned through readings and lectures to ongoing, real-world negotiations.
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.
1
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
II. COURSE REQUIREMENTS



Prerequisites: There are no formal prerequisites for this course. Students of strategic
management, organizational behavior, decision sciences, social psychology, political
management and policy development will find that the course provides a useful basis for more
advanced work in negotiation, mediation & conflict resolution, and dispute resolution system
design.
Enrollment: Course enrollment will be limited to 72 participants per section and be subject to the
HKS bidding system. No auditors or cross-registrants will be permitted in MLD-221A/B.
Special Note: MLD-221 is a prerequisite for the January workshop, MLD-230: Advanced
Workshop in Multi-Party Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. There are no exceptions to this
prerequisite.
III. 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 Monday and Wednesday class sessions, as well as all Tuesday
negotiation exercises. Unexcused absences are not permitted. You must have your program
director contact Prof. Mandell directly to formally excuse an absence.
 Cold Calling: On Mondays and Wednesdays, randomly selected learning teams will be coldcalled to lead off discussion regarding cases, exercises, and readings.
 Hot Debriefs and Bluebooks: Hot Debriefs and Bluebooks serve as a means to capture insights
from Tuesday exercises in a systematic manner. These debrief materials also aid in tracking skill
acquisition and development over the semester. Hot Debriefs and Bluebooks form an integral part
of the Final Exam.
 Exercise Preparation: Students are expected to fully complete a green prep sheet in advance of
each Tuesday night exercise.
2. Assignment I: Individual Negotiation Memo – Due Friday, Oct. 19, 2012 at 5:00PM: 30%
See “Assignment I: Individual Negotiation Memo” for details.
4. Assignment II: Group Group Project – Due Friday, Nov. 30, 2012 at 9:00AM: 30%
See “Assignment II: Group Exercise” for details.
3. Oral Exam: Monday, December 3-Friday, December 7: 15%
Each student will meet with Prof. Mandell for fifteen minutes in early December. Drawing on reflections
from performance in negotiation exercises and analysis of case materials and readings, you will be
required to answer questions regarding:
 Utilization of 3-D mapping, deal design, and analysis of game-changing moves in cases discussed
throughout the course
 Preparation for negotiation
 Management of the negotiation process
 Micro-skill acquisition, development and performance over time
You are required to bring all Bluebooks, Hot Debriefs and green prep sheets to support your analysis and
systematic reflections.
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
III. CREATING A CULTURE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Students are expected to produce high quality, professional work, which is “… at once excellent
in quality, responsive to the needs of the broader community, and personally meaningful.”
(Howard Gardner)
We are all busy. We all have to manage multiple commitments, and we all recognize that
emergencies and other unexpected events may happen. We are, however, striving to create a
community of interdependent learners. We cannot achieve this goal without each of us being
accountable to our commitments and each other.
3-E: Excellence, Engagement and Ethics (Howard Gardner)
Excellence: This is not a course for passive learners. Cutting corners, missed deadlines and suboptimal work will not be tolerated. Excellence in preparation means arriving on time for each
class and ready to engage with your “A” game. You are best prepared to maximize your own
learning and to contribute to the learning of others when you come well-prepared and ready to
play.
Engagement: The most provocative ideas and freshest insights are of little use if not shared with
classmates. Everyone in the classroom is responsible for advancing group discussion forward in
a productive fashion. Students undermine their own professional development, as well as that of
their classmates, by remaining passive and forgoing opportunities to share their experiences and
unique perspective with the class.
Ethics: Actively managing your reputation for fairness and honesty is one of your core
responsibilities and a critical component of strengthening your professional development. It is
important to emphasize that Professor Mandell considers lying to be unethical and counterproductive for you, your negotiation counterpart(s) and the learning experience of all your
classmates.
V. 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: Developing Capacity to Provide Negotiation Analytic Support
Negotiation Exercise: Competency-Based Training & Skill-Building
Exercise Debrief and Review of Readings: Integrating Theory and Practice
The course overall is grounded in an experiential learning cycle. We move from learning “about”
negotiation concepts and frameworks to learning by direct experience. We start with conceptual
analysis on Monday, moving through active experimentation with real-time feedback on Tuesday
3
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
and into reflective observation on Wednesday. Wednesday discussions strive to synthesize
theories, concepts and best practices in negotiation in order to close the “Knowing-Doing Gap.”
Mondays
Pedagogical Objectives
Monday’s class discussions have three pedagogical goals:
 To familiarize you with the kinds of complex, dynamic interactions found in many protracted
public policy, multi-party/multi-issue negotiations;
 To help you better identify and diagnose potential barriers to agreement, along with credible
courses of action for overcoming such barriers; and
 To equip you with the ability to move seamlessly between analysis and action, using the 3-D
negotiation framework to assist you in designing and exercising backward mapping and
sequencing moves. Through extensive practice with the core elements of the 3-D framework,
you will be able to strengthen the prospects for developing and implementing more
sustainable agreements.
The Value of the 3-D Framework: Generating “Game-Changing” Moves
In many complex negotiations the bulk of the real work of negotiation does not take place “at the
table.” 3-D is a conceptual design tool to help you think more systematically about creating a
better setup for your negotiation away from the table that is more likely to produce a wellsequenced series of moves, leading to outcomes better aligned with your preferences. Getting to
agreement is as much about effective process design as it is about focusing on the elements of a
good outcome.
o Seasoned negotiators understand that one should never accept the set up of the
negotiation as given. Therefore, anticipating barriers to and opportunities for a better
setup and deal design matter a great deal in negotiation.
o As negotiators in complex negotiations often face strong resistance and constraints,
sequencing and coordinating the moves, interests and coalitions among many players is
central to building momentum, maximizing opportunities and obtaining successful
outcomes.
Case Studies: Building Your Analytic Skill-Set and Becoming an Agile Thinker
From an analytic perspective, the case studies examined in MLD-221 are used to help students
understand how to diagnose barriers to and opportunities for robust and sustainable negotiated
agreements.
The overarching theme of the cases is “against all odds.” In the cases, the odds are heavily
stacked against success because of an existing setup prone to repeated failure. We will examine
how a number of entrepreneurial negotiators overcame the complex and protracted nature of
many public policy disputes by successfully combining elements of the 3-D framework to play a
very different game with more positive results.
The central negotiation skills you will develop for this purpose are Mapping the Table and Deal
Design. To understand how the dynamics at the table unfold, you will learn how to: map out
parties’ interests, generate potential coalitional sequences for building momentum, maximize
valuable trades, limit vulnerabilities, anticipate spoilers and produce sustainable agreements.
4
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Additionally, you will consider multiple alternative paths for generating value-creating
agreements by devising a range of alternative coalitions, sequencing of moves and deal designs.
Learning Team Preparation for Monday Case Discussion
You will be assigned to a Learning Team of four students. The learning teams help students
prepare for class. In particular, you should work with your team members to analyze and
evaluate the negotiation action steps taken by key stakeholders to change the game to overcome
barriers to agreement; perform the counterfactual analysis and devise and develop alternative
pathways for overcoming barriers to agreement; and challenge assumptions regarding criteria for
a successful outcome. Intensive preparation is imperative for having a high-caliber, substantive
class discussion.
In order to accomplish these pedagogical goals, you must read each case thoroughly and begin
by preparing independently. Subsequently, your Learning Team must then meet to discuss the
case and prepare a systematic analysis of the case for presentation in class (see Case Analysis
Toolkit).
Cold and Frigid Calling
Each student is responsible for contributing to all dimensions of their Learning Team’s
case analysis and class presentation. The entire Learning Team, as well as individual team
members, will be called on to present their analysis in class.
On Mondays, a randomly selected member of one of the Learning Teams will be cold-called to
lead off the case discussion. The student selected must begin by providing a 1-2 minute 360
degree analysis of parties, interests, issues and relationships as well as an overview of the initial
barriers to crafting an effective negotiated agreement. A different member of the selected
student’s learning team will then be frigid-called to evaluate the first student’s analysis as
presented and provide any additional insights.
After this initial discussion, the instructor will enlist input from other teams to generate a Deal
Design Diagram. Subsequently, other teams will unpack the sequencing of the building blocks of
deal design using the Deal Design Diagram provided for class. Finally, groups will be called
upon to generate counterfactual deal designs and sequencing choices that would match, if not
improve upon, the agreement ultimately produced in the case.
Practical Application of Mondays’ Analysis – Playing it Forward
A fundamental premise of this course is that a savvy, analytic negotiator will perform
significantly better at the negotiation table. This is not, however, an automatic process. The more
effectively one can navigate the structure and context of a negotiation, including diagnosing its
potential barriers to and opportunities for value creation, the more confident and competent one
will likely be “at the table.” Students should use Mondays’ case analyses to heighten their
awareness of the practical and behavioral skills necessary for changing the negotiation setup into
one more aligned with their objectives and preferences.
5
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Instructions and role assignments for Tuesday’s negotiation exercise will be distributed at
the end of class on Monday. Make sure to identify your counterpart or group so as to
commence the Tuesday exercise on time.
Tuesdays
Tuesday evening negotiation exercises are rooted in the pedagogical model of competencybased training. Whereas Monday’s discussion centers on approaching negotiation challenges
from an analytic perspective, Tuesday exercises focus on how to ensure you meet your full set of
interests “at the table.”
Pedagogical Goals – Competency-Based Skill Building
Tuesday’s negotiation exercises have one primary pedagogical goal: Creating a safe & structured
environment in which students can develop and practice negotiation micro-skills and at-the-table
moves to be more effective “in the moment.”
WHAT IS A SKILLED NEGOTIATION MOVE?
A skilled negotiation move is the purposeful application of a learned sequence of
micro-skills that combine to produce a smooth, efficient action in order to
achieve a particular negotiation objective.
Skilled negotiation moves are a function of mastering and applying micro-skills
within three core competency clusters:
1. Preparation
2. Design (Value-Creating Opportunities)
3. Execution (Claiming Value)
Participation in each weekly exercise is dependent upon the completion of a Green Preparation
Sheet, which will guide your preparation for the exercise. Students will not be admitted to
play the exercise without a fully completed Green Sheet. A complete record of all Green
Sheets must be retained for use in the Oral Exam.
The progression of the negotiation exercises in MLD-221 systematically introduces students to
numerous stylized simulations that mimic the structure of many real-world public policy
negotiations. Repeated practice in this controlled environment will give students an important
point of reference for future negotiations beyond the classroom. Over time, students will
accumulate a broader repertoire of strategies, tactics and moves to be more skillful “in the
moment” in their negotiations.
Tuesday night exercises build cumulatively on the 3-D framework utilized throughout the
course. The first set of exercises is focused on single issue, two-party scenarios in order to
increasingly fine-tune your use of a discrete set of negotiation micro-skills. The next set of
exercises builds on these foundational micro-skills and focuses on shared, opposed and tradeable
interests – the raw material of deal design and value creation. The final set of exercises highlight
6
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
“away-from-the-table” moves, drawing on multi-party, multi-issue scenarios, in which you will
develop the capacity to build, block and maintain coalitions.
Exercise instructions, role assignments and preparatory materials are distributed at the end of
class on Mondays. It is your responsibility to make sure that you collect all material necessary to
prepare for and participate in the exercise. You are required to read your role thoroughly and
prepare extensively for each negotiation. Failure to prepare adequately will result in the loss of a
crucial learning opportunity for you and your colleagues.
It is imperative that you actively manage your reputation for being a fair, honest and reasonable
negotiator in weekly exercises. Your reputation is a critical building block of your professional
development.
Evaluation of Participation in Exercises
The following elements in Tuesdays’ exercises are considered in the overall evaluation of your
class participation:
1. Maintaining a consistent record of prompt, ready-to-play attendance;
2. Having a fully completed Green Prep Sheet to present to CAs;
3. Committing to playing the exercise faithfully, as it was written, in a way that maximizes
the intended learning for you and your counterpart(s);
4. Spending sufficient time actively participating in the Hot Debrief;
5. Being prepared to give and receive constructive feedback
6. Submitting a fully completed and thoroughly reflective, Bluebook on time.
Hot Debrief & Analysis: Giving and Receiving Constructive Feedback in Real-Time
The purpose of the Hot Debrief is for you and your counterpart(s) to provide “in-the-moment”
constructive feedback on each other’s performance. Understanding how your actions are
perceived will help to close the performance gap between “message intended” and “message
received.”
After handing in the results of your negotiation, you will be given a Hot Debrief sheet to provide
a framework for conducting a systematic analysis of both the process and outcome of your
negotiation. Each Hot Debrief session will focus on a different selection of negotiation microskills for targeted discussion and constructive peer-to-peer feedback.
Bluebook: Becoming a Self-Reflective Practitioner
After reviewing your performance with your counterpart(s), students are expected to complete a
series of reflective practice questions in the Bluebook. These reflections aim to capture students’
experiential learning in a cumulative, systematic and integrative fashion. It is imperative that
Bluebooks be submitted to CAs before leaving Land Hall for the evening.
Tips for Maximizing Skill-Building Benefits from the Weekly Exercises
- Be Focused on your Skill-Building Objective, as identified on your Green Sheet.
- Be yourself. You are taking on a role with a specific portfolio of interests, to which you
should adhere. However, the role descriptions should not supplant your better judgment.
7
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
-
Remember, you are trying to develop your own negotiation style that fits well with the
broader dimensions of your personality.
Manage Your Emotions. Even in stylized exercises, there are opportunities for real
disagreement and conflict escalation. Maintaining emotional control and composure as
tensions arise are vital negotiation skills.
Manage your Reputation. Your reputation as a fair and reasonable negotiator is based
on how you actively manage the process and outcome of your negotiation.
Keep it Confidential. Your role is confidential unless otherwise indicated. Failure to
keep your role confidential undermines the learning to be derived from the exercise for
you and your counterpart(s).
Overview of Tuesdays’ Tasks and Procedures
TIME
TASK
4:15 (Sharp)
1. Check in with CAs outside Land Hall. Your ticket for admission to the exercise
is a fully completed Green Prep Sheet.
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.
4:15 – 6:30*
1. Negotiate.
2. One member returns the completed results form(s) to Land Hall and receives
copies of the Hot Debrief and Bluebook forms.
3. Following your negotiation, allocate at least 20-30 minutes for the Hot Debrief.
*Two exercises
end at 7:15
6:30
Peer feedback and self-reflection on your performance in the exercise 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. Complete assigned readings for Wednesday’s class.
Exercise-Specific Responsibilities
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 Monday’s class, which will be
considered your ticket for admission to the exercise.
8
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
2.
Be There, and Be On Time: There are no unexcused absences from Tuesday negotiation
exercises. Please be considerate to your classmates and arrive promptly at 4:15. Arriving late will
significantly slow an entire group’s progress, damaging your reputation as a reliable and
trustworthy negotiator. Failing to participate in exercises will be penalized severely. You will lose
5% from your final grade in the course for each unexcused absence from a negotiation
exercise.
Please note that participation in all assigned negotiation exercises are key components of your
learning. Your exercise results will not be used to evaluate your course grade. You will, however,
be questioned on your performance in negotiation exercises during your final oral exam.
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 maximize their learning will be compromised.
4.
Track your Progress: You are required to capture major lessons learned and provide
substantive performance-based feedback in the Hot Debrief. You must also individually fill out a
Bluebook immediately after each weekly exercise and submit them to the CAs. These will be
returned to you the following day.
5. Follow the Schedule: You must be prepared to commit a full two (or three) hours to
Tuesday’s negotiation exercise, Hot Debrief and Bluebook reflection.

Remember the negotiation exercise mantra:
BE ON TIME! BE PREPARED AND READY TO PLAY! BE PROFESSIONAL!
9
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Wednesdays
Pedagogical Goals – Closing the Knowing-Doing Gap
Wednesday’s class discussions have two pedagogical goals:
 To debrief different groups about their negotiation experiences, paying attention to a
broad range of process dynamics, skill development, outcomes and interpretations of
assigned roles and goals. We will also focus on how groups confronted moments of
deadlock, impasse and conflict escalation, particularly where these may have served as
barriers to agreement. Where appropriate, we will also focus on elements of shadow
negotiations, including, but not limited to culture and gender dynamics; and
 To explicitly link and integrate the analytic component on Monday’s class with the
behavioral component of Tuesday’s exercise, thereby creating a richer understanding of
the multiple levels on which a thoughtful negotiator must affect change.
Preparation for Wednesday Class Discussion
Each Wednesday, all negotiation groups must be prepared to discuss key insights and lessons
learned from the exercise. Reflection and self-analysis should not end with the Hot Debrief and
Bluebooks. Students are also expected to complete the assigned readings for Wednesday after
the Tuesday exercise in order to continue processing both the behavioral and analytic
components of their negotiation experience.
Structure of In-Class Debrief
Discussion on Wednesday begins with a systematic analysis of class-wide results derived from
the Tuesday exercise. Individual and group results are presented, with a view to highlighting and
underscoring the particular dynamics that produced the range of results. Insights from student
Bluebooks are used extensively to support major themes in the class discussion.
Students must actively participate and be prepared to offer strategic coaching advice to other
negotiation groups in the debrief conversation. Strategic coaching advice includes, but is not
limited to, recommendations for overcoming particular barriers, interpersonal friction and valuecreating deal design insights.
Class debrief discussions conclude with a summary of important generalizations on developing
strategic and best practices for managing a wide variety of negotiation situations.
How to Capture the Most Value from Wednesday Debrief Discussions
Students must arrive fully prepared to describe their experiences using the concepts, frameworks
and self-reflective practice tools utilized in the course. Be prepared to take public risks. Actively
manage your reputation - Wednesdays’ discussion is reserved for reasoning and reflection, not
for settling scores.
Confidentiality rules: The classroom learning environment presumes a “safe space” for students
to actively take the public risks necessary for improving their performance in negotiation. It is
expected that students will respect this important convention, both for their own benefit and that
of their colleagues.
10
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
VI. SUMMARY OF CLASS TOPICS
Week 1
Introduction to Negotiation Analysis
Friday
Course Introduction & Overview of Negotiation Analysis
September 7
Week 2
Understanding the Dynamics of Cooperative and Competitive Interaction in
Negotiation
Monday
Introduction to Competency-Based Training: Mastering Negotiation
September 10
Moves & Micro-Skills and the 3-D Framework
Tuesday
Negotiation Exercise: Play Oil Pricing
September 11
Wednesday
September 12
Week 3
Distributive Bargaining I: Claiming Value in Negotiation
Monday
Case Analysis: Malta
September 17
Tuesday
September 18
Wednesday
September 19
Week 4
Debrief Mapletech-Yazawa exercise and discuss assigned readings
Negotiation Exercise: Play Leckenby
Debrief Leckenby exercise and discuss assigned readings
Integrative Bargaining I: Creating Value by Addressing Shared, Opposed and
Tradable Interests
Monday
Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations
October 1
Tuesday
October 2
Wednesday
October 3
Week 6
Negotiation Exercise: Play Mapletech-Yazawa
Distributive Bargaining II: Signaling Expectations, Managing Escalation,
Avoiding Irrational Commitments & Decision-Making Errors
Monday
Case Analysis: West Coast Ports Dispute
September 24
Tuesday
September 25
Wednesday
September 26
Week 5
Debrief Oil Pricing exercise and discuss assigned readings
Negotiation Exercise: Play Universal Aircraft
Debrief Universal Aircraft exercise and discuss assigned readings
Integrative Bargaining II: Confronting the Negotiator’s Dilemma – Managing
the Tension between Creating and Claiming Value & Building Sustainable
Agreements
Monday
October 8
Tuesday
October 9
Wednesday
October 10
No Class (Columbus Day)
Negotiation Exercise: Play Pioneer Consulting
Debrief Pioneer Consulting exercise and discuss assigned readings
11
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Week 7
Integrative Bargaining III: Leveraging Party Arithmetic
Monday
Universal, situational, and personal ethics and in-class exercise:
October 15
Ethics Vignettes/ Gender & Negotiation,
In-class exercise: Paula’s Problem
Tuesday
Negotiation Exercise: Play 3-Way Organization
October 16
Wednesday
October 17
Friday
October 19
Week 8
No Negotiation Exercise – Check in with CAs in Land Hall regarding
progress in Assignment II
Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part II
Integrative Bargaining IV: Synchronizing Internal/External Negotiations to
Create and Claim Value
Monday
Case Analysis: Charlene Barshefsky
October 29
Tuesday
October 30
Wednesday
October 31
Friday
November 2
Week 10
Assignment I due at 5:00PM
Managing Hardball Tactics in Contentious Negotiations
Monday
Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part I
October 22
Tuesday
October 23
Wednesday
October 24
Week 9
Debrief 3-Way Organization and discuss assigned readings
Negotiation Exercise: Play Edgewood Electric
Debrief Edgewood Electric exercise and discuss assigned readings
15-minute Exercise Design Sessions with CAs for Group Negotiation
Consulting Project
Negotiating Face-to-Face vs. Electronic Negotiating
Monday
Case Analysis: Bargaining with the Devil – Negotiating with
November 5
Iran/Fiscal Cliff case
Tuesday
Negotiation Exercise: Play The Offer (NOTE: this exercise is an eNovember 6
negotiation, to be conducted from a computer, not in Land)
Wednesday
Debrief The Offer and discuss assigned readings
November 7
Week 11
Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables I: Negotiating with Contentious
Stakeholders Across Sectors and Cultures
Monday
November 12
Tuesday
November 13
Wednesday
November 14
No class (Veteran’s Day)
Negotiation Exercise: Play Mouse ends at 7 pm
Debrief Mouse and discuss assigned readings
12
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Week 12
The Negotiator As Mediator
Monday
Case Analysis: George Mitchell
November 19
Assignment II: Two Beta Test forms-Due at 9:00 am
Tuesday
No negotiation exercise (Thanksgiving Break)
November 20
Wednesday
November 21
Week 13
No Class (Thanksgiving Break)
Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries, and Recruitables II: Anticipating Resistance &
Vulnerabilities in Building Winning Multiparty Coalitions
Monday
Case Analysis: Gulf War
November 26
Tuesday
November 27
Wednesday
November 28
Friday
November 30
Negotiation Exercise: Play Seeport ends at 7pm
Monday
December 3
Friday
December 7
Oral Exam for all MLD 221 A/B students begins
Debrief Seeport, discuss readings & course wrap-up
Assignment 2: Assignment II due at 9:00am in the MLD-221A or
MLD-221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office
(L104).
Week 14
Oral Exams End
13
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
VII. WEEKLY CLASS SCHEDULE
WEEK 1
INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS
Friday, September 7
 Readings:
o Wheeler, M. “Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction,” HBS Publication #9-801-156 [in
packet 1].
o Sebenius, J. “Negotiation Analysis: From Games to Inferences to Decisions to Deals,”
Negotiation Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, October 2009 pp. 449 – 467 [in packet 1].
WEEK 2
Understanding the Dynamics of Cooperative and Competitive Interaction in Negotiation
Monday, September 10
 Introduction to Competency-Based Training: Mastering Negotiation Moves & Micro-Skills and the
3-D Framework
 Readings:
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.
o Movius, H. and Susskind, L. Built to Win: Creating a World-Class Negotiating Organization, pp.
17-24 [in packet 2].
 Distribution of negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing.
Tuesday, September 11
 Negotiation exercise: Oil Pricing.
Wednesday, September 12
 Debrief Oil Pricing exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
o Kramer, R. “Rethinking Trust,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, No. 6, June 2009. [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].
o Bazerman, M. “Strike the Right Balance between Trust and Cynicism,” Negotiation, Vol. 13, No.
11, Nov. 2010.
o Benkler, Yochai. “The Unselfish Gene,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2011, pp. 77-85.
14
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 3
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING I: CLAIMING VALUE IN NEGOTIATION
Monday, September 17
 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 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 “Powerful People Are Better Liars,” Harvard Business Review, May 2010, pp. 32 – 33 [in Packet
3]
o “Power Plays,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2010, pp. 84 – 92 [in packet 3].
o “What Type of Hard Bargainer Are You Facing?” Negotiation, Vol. 14, No. 8, August 2011,
pp.5-7.
 Distribution of Negotiation Exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa.
Tuesday, September 18
 Negotiation exercise: Mapletech-Yazawa
Wednesday, September 19
 Debrief Mapletech-Yazawa exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
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. “Should You Make the First Offer?” Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 7, Jul. 2004 [in packet
3].
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. [in Packet 2]
o “How much should you share?” Negotiation, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp 5-6, Apr. 2010 [in Packet 2]
 Distribution of case analysis questions: West Coast Ports Dispute.
15
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 4
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING II: SIGNALING EXPECTATIONS, MANAGING ESCALATION, AVOIDING IRRATIONAL COMMITMENTS
& DECISION-MAKING ERRORS
Monday, September 24
 Case Analysis: West Coast Ports 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 7 and 8, pp. 99-134.
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 25
 Negotiation exercise: Leckenby.
Wednesday, September 26
 Debrief Leckenby exercise and discuss 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., Ku, G, and Murninghan, J.K. “When Winning is Everything,” Harvard Business
Review Vol. 86 No. 5, May 2008. [in Packet 2].
 Distribution of case analysis questions: Tobacco Negotiations.
16
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 5
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING I: CREATING VALUE BY ADDRESSING SHARED, OPPOSED AND TRADABLE INTERESTS
Monday, October 1
 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, Chapter 12, pp. 181-203.
 Distribution of negotiation exercise: Universal Aircraft.
Tuesday, October 2
 Negotiation exercise: Universal Aircraft.
Wednesday, October 3
 Debrief Universal Aircraft exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
o Bazerman, M. “The Mythical Fixed Pie,” Negotiation, Vol. 6, No. 11, Nov. 2003, pp. 3-5 [in
packet 2].
o Thompson, L. “The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (fourth edition),” Prentice Hall 2009,
Chapter 4 pp. 74-95. [in Packet 2].
o Susskind, L. “Find More Value at the Bargaining Table,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 2, Feb. 2007
[in packet 3].
o “Are you asking the right questions?” Negotiation, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 1-3, Feb. 2010
 Distribution of negotiation exercise: Pioneer.
17
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 6
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING II: CONFRONTING THE NEGOTIATOR’S DILEMMA – MANAGING THE TENSION BETWEEN
CREATING AND CLAIMING VALUE & BUILDING SUSTAINABLE AGREEMENTS
Monday, October 8
Columbus Day, no class.
Tuesday, October 9
 Negotiation exercise: Pioneer Consulting.
Wednesday, October 10
 Debrief Pioneer Consulting exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
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 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 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].
18
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 7
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING III: LEVERAGING PARTY ARITHMETIC
Monday, October 15
 In-class exercise: Ethics Vignettes.
 Readings:
o “Why your Negotiating Behavior may be Ethically Challenged—and How to Fix it,” Negotiation,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 1-5, April 2008 [in Packet 3].
o “Negotiators: Guard Against Ethical Lapses,” Negotiations, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 5-7, June 2009.
[in Packet 3].
o Lewicki, R. “Walk the line: Ethical Dilemmas in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 5, May
2007 [in packet 3].
o Schweitzer, M. “Call their bluff! Detecting Deception in Negotiation,” Negotiation, Vol. 10, No.
3, Mar. 2007 [in packet 3].
o Bazerman, M and Tenbrunsel, A. “Our ethical ‘blindspots’ in negotiation” Negotiation, Vol. 14,
No. 4, Apr. 2011, pp. 1-5.
o "Are you in danger of crossing the line?" Negotiations, Vol. 13, No. 8, July 2010 [in packet 2].
 In-Class Exercise: Paula’s Problem.
 Readings:
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 Kolb, D. “Too Bad for the Woman or Does it Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over
the Past Twenty-Five Years,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, October 2009 pp. 515 – 531
[in packet 3].
o Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. “Chapter Three: Nice Girls Don’t Ask,” Women Don’t Ask.
Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock, L. and Laschever, S., Princeton University Press
2003, pp. 62-84 [in packet 2].
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 Eckel, G., de Oliveira, A.C.M, and Grossman, P.J., “Gender and Negotiation in the Small: Are
Women (Perceived to Be) More Cooperative than Men?” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4,
pp. 429-445, October, 2008. [in Packet 3].
 Distribution of negotiation exercise: 3-way Organization.
Tuesday, October 16
 Negotiation exercise: 3-Way Organization.
Wednesday, October 17



Debrief 3-Way Organization exercise and discuss 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 Young, Mark. “Sharks, Saints, and Samurai: The Power of Ethics in Negotiations,” Negotiation
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 2008 [in packet 3].
o “How to deal with a powerful counterpart,” Negotiation, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp 4-6, May 2010 [in
packet 3].
Distribution of case analysis questions: Charlene Barshefsky.
19
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Friday, October 19
 Individual assignment due at 5:00pm in the MLD-221A or MLD-221B Drop Boxes across the hall
from Prof. Mandell’s Office (L104).
20
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 8
MANAGING HARDBALL TACTICS IN CONTENTIOUS NEGOTIATIONS
Monday, October 22
 Film: Final Offer, Part I and role-play/discussion.
 Readings:
o McKersie, R. and Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. “Labor – Management Relations: Understanding and
Practicing Effective Negotiations,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, October 2009 pp. 499 –
514 [in packet 3].
Tuesday, October 23
 No negotiation exercise – Mandatory Exercise Design Session for Consulting & Design Group
Project.
o Your group will deliver a 5-minute progress report on the development of your team’s exercise
and receive constructive feedback and suggestions for refinement from the CAs. You must also
confirm that you have scheduled two beta tests with other groups at this time.
Wednesday, October 24



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].
Distribution of case analysis questions: Bargaining with Contentious Adversaries.
21
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 9
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING IV: SYNCHRONIZING INTERNAL/EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS TO CREATE AND CLAIM VALUE
Monday, October 29
 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.
o Solomon, R. and Quinney, N. American Negotiating Behavior, pp. 19 – 46 [in packet 2].
o Sebenius, J. and Qian, C. Cultural Notes on Chinese Negotiating Behavior (Harvard Business
School Working Paper, 09-076), 2008.
 Distribution of negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric.
Tuesday, October 30
 Negotiation exercise: Edgewood Electric.
Wednesday, October 31
 Debrief Edgewood Electric exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
o Kurtzberg, T. et al. “Agents in Negotiations: Toward Testable Propositions,” Negotiating on
Behalf of Others, Mnookin, R. H. and Susskind, L. E. (Eds.), Sage Publications, Inc., 1999, pp.
283 - 298 [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 10
NEGOTIATING FACE-TO-FACE VS. ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATING
Monday, November 5
 Case Analysis: Bargaining with Contentious Adversaries – Negotiating with Iran
 Readings:
o Sebenius, James K., and Michael K. Singh. “Is a Nuclear Deal with Iran Possible? An Analytical
Framework for the Iran Nuclear Negotiations.” Belfer Center Iran Nuclear Negotiation Working
Group, Working Paper 2011-01, February 2011.
o Mnookin, R. Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight pp. 11 – 33 [in packet
2].
o Malhotra, D. “Without Conditions,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 84 – 90 [in packet 3].
o McMahon, R. “Negotiating with Hostile States,” Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16402/negotiating_with_hostile_states.html [in packet 3].
o Malhotra, D. & Bazerman, M. “Dealing with the ‘Irrational’ Negotiator,” Harvard Business
School Working Knowledge, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5721.html [in packet 3].
o United States Institute of Peace, “Negotiating with Iran,” /The Fiscal Cliff Case
http://www.usip.org/print/resources-tools/negotiating-iran/the-lessons-fourteen-steps-success [in
packet 3].
o Gelb, L. “In the End, Every President Talks to the Bad Guys,” Washington Post, April 27, 2008
[in packet 3].
22
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
Tuesday, November 6
 Negotiation Exercise: The Offer (NOTE: this exercise is an e-mail negotiation, to be conducted from
a computer, not in Land.)
Wednesday, November 7
 Debrief The Offer exercise and discuss readings.
 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 Staff of Negotiation, “Make the Most of E-mail Negotiations,” Negotiation, July, 2009, pp. 5-7
[in Packet 3].
o Thompson, L. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Prentice Hall, pp. 319 – 337 [in packet 2].
o Distribute negotiations exercise: Mouse
23
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 11
MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES AND RECRUITABLES I: NEGOTIATING WITH CONTENTIOUS STAKEHOLDERS
Monday, November 12
No class (Veteran’s Day)
Tuesday, November 13
 Negotiation exercise: Mouse. (NOTE: this exercise will last approximately 3 hours, from 4:157:00)
Wednesday, November 14
 Debrief Mouse exercise and discuss readings.
 Readings:
o “How to cope when the table gets crowded,” Negotiation, Vol. 14, No. 8, August 2011, pp. 1-4.
o Gelfand, M., Brett, J., “The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture,” Stanford University Press,
2004. Ch. 7, pp. 158-176 [in Packet 2].
o Bazerman, M. et al, “When ‘Sacred’ Issues are at Stake,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1,
January 2008, pp. 113 – 116 [in packet 3].
 Distribution of case analysis questions: George Mitchell.
WEEK 12
THE NEGOTIATOR AS MEDIATOR
Monday, November 19
 Case analysis: George Mitchell and PBS film.
 Readings:
o Sebenius, J. and Curran, D. “To Hell with the Future, Let’s Get on with the Past: George Mitchell
in Northern Ireland,” HBS Case #9-801-393 [in packet 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 2].
o Lax and Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important
Deals, Chapter 15, pp 237-254.
 Assignment II: Two Beta Test Results forms - Due at 9:00 am in the MLD-221A or MLD-221B
Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office (L104)
Tuesday, November 20
No negotiations exercise (Thanksgiving Break)
Wednesday, November 21
No Class (Thanksgiving Break)
24
MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012
Brian Mandell
WEEK 13/Week 14
MOBILIZING ALLIES, ADVERSARIES, AND RECRUITABLES II: ANTICIPATING RESISTANCE & VULNERABILITIES IN BUILDING
WINNING MULTIPARTY COALITIONS
Monday, November 26
 Case analysis: Gulf War.
 Readings:
o Watkins, M. and Rosegrant, S. “The Gulf Crisis: Building a Coalition for War,” HKS 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: Seeport.
 Oral Exams Begin at 3:00 pm
Tuesday, November 27
 Negotiation exercise: Seeport (ends at 7:00 p.m.)
Wednesday, November 28



Debrief Seeport exercise and discuss readings.
Readings:
o Susskind, L. “Winning and Blocking Coalitions: Bring Both to a Crowded Table,” Negotiation,
Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan 2004 [in packet 2].
o Bordone, R. “Dealing with a Spoiler? Negotiating Around the Problem,” Negotiation, Vol. 10,
No. 1, Jan. 2007 [in packet 3].
Course wrap-up
Friday, November 30

Assignment II: Assignment II due at 5:00 p.m. in the MLD-221A or MLD-221B Drop Boxes
across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office (L104).
Monday, December 3

Oral Exam for all MLD 221 A/B students begins
Friday, December 7

Oral Exam for all MLD 221 A/B students concludes
25