GSM 470
Negotiation and Conflict Management Workshop
Section A
Instructor:
Office:
Deborah M. Kolb, Ph.D.
3rd Floor, 411 Commonwealth Avenue
Contact Information:
521-3871 (telephone)
kolb@simmons.edu
Office Hours: Thursday: 3:00-5:00 and by appointment
Negotiation and conflict resolution are becoming more important in organizations today.
In the past, you probably would use negotiation and conflict resolution skills only if your
job entailed formal dealings with unions, suppliers, and customers or as a financial deal
maker. In other words, negotiation was a skill needed only by people who did it for a
living. All that has changed in contemporary organizations. If you analyze an
organization through a political lens, all interactions are basically negotiations. That
means that as a leader at whatever level, you are frequently operating in a situation where
your responsibility exceeds your authority. You will need to negotiate with a range of
internal and external stakeholders in order to get your job done. In network and team
structures, you are but one voice among many. To get your agenda accomplished, you
will need to negotiate to build coalitions among different stakeholders and constituencies.
As organizations become more diverse demographically and culturally, the potential for
conflict increases, requiring even more attention to ways of dealing with it.
And for women, skill in negotiations is even more critical. Even if her job carries with it
formal power and authority, gender relations in organizations can make it difficult for
women to exercise that authority. People may expect her to negotiate and consult rather
than dictate to them. As a member of a team, she may not be seen as influential and so
have to negotiate for her point of view or agenda. And for many women a more
consultative leadership style, where decisions are negotiated, fits with their everyday
theories about how best to get work done. They favor participation and believe it leads to
better results. But there are other reasons as well. Women are often pushing at the
boundaries of organizational practice and policy. They may need to negotiate for more
flexible work schedules so they can better integrate their work and personal lives. They
may need to convince people that they are qualified for a position even though their
previous experiences don't fit the precise job requirements. And then of course, everyone
needs to negotiate effectively to get the job responsibilities and salaries they think they
merit. A major objective of the course is to recognize the multiple opportunities there
are to negotiate at work and to see the connection between taking advantage of these
opportunities and your career success.
For many years, I have been teaching negotiation courses here at Simmons, at other
colleges and universities, and to groups in industry. Influenced by scholars and
colleagues in the field, I have structured these courses in what might be called the
analytic tradition. Based on the work of Thomas Schelling (A Strategy of Conflict),
Howard Raiffa (The Art and Science of Negotiation), and Richard Walton and Robert
McKersie (A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations), negotiations are divided into two
basic models -- distributive (zero-sum) and integrative (mutual gains). These two models
rely on different tactics and strategies, yet both are typically involved in any negotiation.
Negotiation courses generally follow these two models, beginning with the distributive
model (as when you buy a car) and building to a more integrative approach (the creation
of package deals) and the involvement of more parties in team based negotiations. The
first part of the course will follow a similar format. Mastering the fundamentals of
distributive and integrative negotiations is best done experientially through role plays and
so there will be ample opportunity to work on these deal making skills. An objective of
this course is to be able to distinguish among these models and assess their utility in
different work contexts. The course will help you to enhance your skills at creating value
in negotiations and garnering your share of that value.
The analytics of dealmaking are important but they do not capture many of the social
complexities in negotiation. Based on my experiences at the SOM, and the research that
I have done on gender in negotiations, it has become clear to me that the analytic
tradition is necessary, but not sufficient to help women (and men) become more effective
negotiators. Findings from this research lead to new thinking about the social or
interpersonal dimensions of negotiation. At the same time as you are negotiating over
the issues and considering the kinds of deals that you can make, another negotiation is
taking place in tandem. It is where people negotiate about how they will negotiate even
though they don’t talk about it directly. That is what we call the shadow negotiation,
described in book I co-authored with Judith Williams, The Shadow Negotiation: How
Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success. (The
paperback version has a different title Everyday Negotiation: Navigating the Hidden
Agendas of Bargaining). We discovered the shadow negotiation from our interviews and
observations of women. When women told us that they had difficulty pushing for what
they wanted or when they did they were accused of being pushy, that they put others
needs before their own and that other negotiators expected that of them, that they gave in
too quickly to avoid conflict, that they wanted deals that left everybody happy, but feared
they would be exploited if they did, that other negotiators pushed them into defensive
positions, we recognized that something more than what ingredients make a good deal
was at stake. If we wanted to help women become better negotiators, we had to deal with
these relational dimensions of negotiation because that’s where women have trouble; it is
where gender issues come in. But it is also the place that many women have considerable
skill. We learned from studying women about aspects of negotiation that had been
hidden; these insights are useful for all negotiators. In the course, we will analyze the
various dimensions of the shadow negotiation as it helps or hinders the discussions about
the substantive issues. In so doing, you will develop a deeper understanding of how
gender, diversity and power issues play out in negotiation and how you can manage them
to become more effective negotiators. The book develops these ideas and we will
explore them in the course through cases, short vignettes, and videos. A final objective of
the course is to help you understand the dynamics of the shadow negotiation and to give
you practice in skills so that you can take more control in negotiations and structure the
process in ways that suit the task and your preferred style. These skills are also critical to
negotiating conditions that will make you successful as a leader. In my new book, Her
Place at the Table: A Woman’s Guide to Negotiating Five Key Challenges to Leadership
Success, my co-authors and I show how successful women leaders recognize that the
transition to leadership roles involves negotiations that position them to succeed.
Course Mechanics
The course is a blend of pedagogical techniques and learning milieus. Although
we will use cases to analyze and discuss some features of negotiation and conflict
resolution, the primary vehicle for acquiring and improving negotiation skills is through
role plays, short vignettes, and exercises. This structure is based on the widely held
belief that negotiation principles are best learned via hands-on experiences and through
in-depth discussions of the experience, using the conceptual material to analyze and
inform. Self assessment of these experiences will help you continually take stock of your
learnings and areas of potential development in negotiation. To supplement learning in
the classroom about negotiation and conflict resolution, students are encouraged to
continually apply what they learn in class to experiences in the workplace and
community. As part of the requirements for the course, students will participate in an
Applications Group (A-Team). Discussions in the A-Team and the discipline of self
assessment and reflection will help you track your progress as a negotiator.
Texts
Required:
Deborah Kolb and Judith Williams, Everyday Negotiation: Navigating the Hidden
Agendas of Bargaining. This book, the paperback edition of The Shadow
Negotiation, describes the two major requirements of the shadow negotiation –
advocacy and connection. Advocacy means positioning oneself to promote your
interests effectively and connection involves creating space for the other party to
participate with you in working out differences.
Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting To Yes. This now classic book
develops the major elements of "Principled Negotiation "-- Separate the people
from the problem, Focus on interests not positions, Invent options for mutual
gain, Use objective criteria.
Case Packet
The Case packet includes cases, readings, and the general instructions for some of the
negotiation role plays. For role plays, specific roles will be handed out in class. I use
PowerPoint slides for many of the sessions. These will be posted prior to the relevant
class. When class discussions cover complex analyses, a follow up set will be posted
after the class to reflect the analysis and discussion that occurred in the class session.
Thus, it is useful to check the web site prior to class and download the slides and then
supplement these after certain class sessions. In addition, there are two Self Assessment
forms in the case packet that you can use at different points in the course.
Assigned readings generally focus on the conceptual issues we will cover in class that
day. The readings are intended as background for you and, I do not, as a rule, discuss
them in class unless specific questions are raised. Optional readings cover new areas or
extend ideas in class; most are available on-line. Recently, a new resource became
available—The Negotiation Newsletter—a joint venture of the Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. These cover a wide range of issues;
a link to the Newsletter is on the resource page for the course. When you come across
interesting articles, feel free to post them as well. I have attached a bibliography to the
syllabus, which will also be posted on the web site. The Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School is a web site those of you interested in negotiation might want to
visit. (http://www.pon.harvard.edu/)
Materials for the Negotiation Role Plays:
Some of the information/instructions for the role plays will be handed out in class, others
will be in your case packets. Generally, background information is in the case packet and
the roles are handed out in the class prior to the one where it takes place. In a
negotiation role play, each party has confidential information that she would not want to
share with her counterpart. A seller, for example, knows more about her situation and
what price she will accept while the buyer knows more about what she will be prepared
to pay. This mirrors negotiation in the real world where you would not have complete
access to the information your negotiating counterpart has nor to what she values as
important. In preparing for class, pay careful attention to what role you have been
assigned. When you prepare, you can do so with others who have the same role, but not
with a person who has a different role. The names of the roles are indicated on the
syllabus.
We do the actual negotiations in class. It is important to come to class having prepared
your role. The workshop structure should facilitate this. It slows down the class if
somebody in a negotiating dyad or group is not prepared to negotiate. Preparation means
that you have read the role and mapped out a strategy for the negotiation. As the course
progresses, you will learn more about what constitutes good preparation and so your outof-class preparation will become more sophisticated. Use the study questions appended
to this syllabus as a guide to preparation When you negotiate, do not show your
confidential instructions to the other party. Obviously, during the course of the
negotiation, you may choose to reveal or discuss some or all of the contents of your
confidential information. That is up to you.
Course Requirements
1. Classes. Class participation is important in this course. Students are expected to
attend all classes fully prepared to participate in a simulation or role play and/or analyze
the assigned case. For the role plays and cases, use the assigned study questions as a
guide.
Role plays require good preparation. Typically we start the class with the role play and
then use the experience to develop the major principles for the class. If you have not
done the preparation or you are late, your partner will have to wait for you, and class will
be delayed, a problem as our class time is short. The negotiation sessions are highly
interactive. While the debriefing of a role play starts with a description of what happened
in several of them, we move quickly to analysis. To participate effectively requires that
you think critically about your participation and be prepared to analyze your major
learnings with the class. It should be noted that certain kinds of participation detract from
learning: being unprepared and continually trying to speak.
Class participation counts for 30 % of your grade. I am not looking for quantity of
participation, but rather quality. In judging quality, I am looking for the following:
•
•
•
•
•
participation that draws on experiences to develop more general principles
participation that includes feelings, but goes beyond them to include evidence to
support a position taken
participation that builds on other comments
participation that involves discussion and debate with others in the class
participation that contributes to the learning of others (including me)
Given the importance of class participation, you should make every possible effort to
attend class and to be on time. If you miss more than 20% of the classes and/or are late
for them, your grade will be negatively affected. Lack of preparation will also affect
class participation grades.
Self-assessment: Strengths and Opportunities for Development. A hands-on
course like negotiations offers you a unique opportunity to track your skill development.
There are several opportunities during the course to complete a self assessment, roughly
connected to analytic and shadow negotiations parts of the course.
The assessment forms are in the case packets. I encourage you to complete these selfassessment forms at the appropriate times. If time permits in class, I will give you time
to complete them and discuss them with the person(s) you negotiated with. These are for
your own use to help you track your development as a negotiator with one exception.
You will need to include a few of the assessment questions as part of the midterm—The
Altos (see below). The assessments may also be something you want to discuss in your
A- teams.
A-Team If the self assessment forms track your individual learning, the A-Team
promotes collective learning, especially as it takes lessons in class and applies them to
current or past work experiences. One of the challenges in the negotiation course is
translating lessons from the class sessions to one’s life. I have found in the past that the
Application Group (A-Team) provides a structure and process that can assist this learning
process. You are required to join an A-Team for the purposes of discussing the
connections between what you learn in class and your current and past work situations. It
is up to you to create your own A-Team. It should be no more than 3-5 members to
facilitate discussion. The A-Team can meet virtually and/or face to face. I will try to
give the teams times to meet during workshop session. Over lunch might also be a good
time to meet.
How does the A-Team work? It is pretty open ended. An A-Team collectively reviews
its experiences in class and reflects on the lessons learned. The next task is to connect
these reflections to your own past or current experiences and share these with each other
as a group. A good way to start in your first meeting is to discuss negotiation experiences
that you have had and the challenges these have presented. You can use these
experiences to create learning goals for the A-Team. Each member should have a goal
and the A teams should have goals that they will review at the conclusion. The A-team
can then serve as a sounding board for your individual and collective work on these
issues.
Teams should plan everyday during the workshop to discuss their learnings, how the
topics covered in the class sessions apply to situations at work and/or other negotiations
you are involved with. Virtual meetings are fine—use the Chat Rooms in Web CT for
your meetings.
Likely a group will begin by looking at the individual experiences of members in a case
or role play. Your self assessments might be useful in these discussions.
• What each person learned about negotiation from the case or role play.
• What surprised you about yourself or others?
• What would you do differently the next time around?
From these individual experiences, the group should move to more general principles.
• What are the implications of these experiences for negotiations generally?
• What is the group learning about negotiation as a leadership skill in the workplace?
• What prescriptive advice would the group offer to continually improve their
effectiveness as negotiators?
In many cases, the A-team becomes a behind-the-scenes strategy group as people
negotiate internships, jobs, and group projects.
Make sure that your A-Team meets at least 4 times during the week, again either face-toface or virtually. In addition, each A-Team needs to submit a 2 page single spaced
paper at the end of the course that summarizes the learnings from each of the 4 meetings
the team held. You can organize the paper by meeting and can either write the learning
out in text or use bullets or outline form. But the focus of the paper should be on
learnings around application, not descriptions of what the team did. This paper counts
15% of the grade for each A-Team Member. When you submit the paper, make sure you
indicate the members in your A-Team.
3. Written Requirements
A.
Negotiation Analysis of The Altos Role Play. The mid-term for this workshop is
an analysis of a real time negotiation—The Altos— a multiple issue, scoreable,
buyer-seller negotiation. On Friday morning (January 5), I will distribute the
roles and randomly assign you to a negotiating duo. You will have part of Friday
morning to prepare either individually, with a partner, or in a group. On Friday
afternoon, January 5, you will try to negotiate an agreement in The Altos. At the
conclusion of the negotiation, you will complete an Altos Deal Form (to be
handed out in class) indicating the elements of the package you have agreed on.
Half of the grade for the midterm will be based on the degree to which you and
your counterpart were able to create joint gain. The deal forms should be handed
in to me on Friday afternoon by 4:00. I will email the class at the end of the day
to let you know how your deal compared to other negotiating dyads in the class.
The other half of your grade will be based on a 1-1.5 single spaced spaced
analysis of the negotiation. Use Self Assessment A to help you analyze your
performance in the negotiation and make sure that you include the self ratings on
claiming and creating value (see below).
The analysis should consist of the following elements:
1. An overview of your preparation. This should include your aspirations for the
agreement—what price you wanted to pay/get; your preferences regarding
financing and runs. Going into the negotiation, where were you prepared to
compromise?
2. Given what you wanted from the deal, what was your strategy for how to get
it? How would you evaluate your strategy? Where was it successful? Where
not? Grade yourself on how well you did in claiming value for yourself on
the scale of 1-3, where 1 is poor and 3 is very well. Explain why you graded
yourself that way.
3. Assess how successful you and your counterpart were at creating joint gain.
Again grade how you think the two of you did on the scale of 1-3, where 1 is
poor and 3 is very welland explain the grade. Where were you successful and
where not?
4. Conclude by identifying what you will do differently the next time you
negotiate.
This paper plus your relative score on your Altos agreement count 20% of your final
grade.
B. Final Paper. The purpose of the final paper is to help you consolidate your learnings
and translate what you have learned in class--the major concepts-- into practical insights
that will guide you in your future negotiations. This translation is a critical part of the
course. You have two choices for your final paper. You can either do a negotiation
analysis of your own real world experience (one in the past, one that is currently
occurring or one you anticipate coming up shortly) or translate a piece of empirical
research into prescriptive terms using examples from your experiences. The paper should
be 4-7 pages, single spaced, and is due at the end of the course
1) Negotiation Analysis Final Paper Option. This paper is an evaluation and
assessment of a negotiating experience or a preparation for one that will be coming up.
The purpose of this paper is to capitalize on this, to help you recognize the opportunities
for negotiation in your work, review the strategies and choices you have in carrying out a
negotiation, and evaluate your skills. This is an opportunity to apply the lessons and use
the concepts from the course for something that has meaning for youIn writing the paper,
you might consider the following questions. (The questions are posed for a negotiation
that has already occurred. If you are writing about a negotiation that is coming up, you
will need to consider these questions in a more future oriented way.
1) Describe the situation. Provide some background --Who were the parties?
What were their relationships? What issues were on the table? How would
you characterize this negotiation—was it more like a distributive negotiation
or one where mutual gains were (are) possible? Is it a multiparty negotiation
where coalitional principles apply?
2) Describe your preparation. What are your interests? Theirs? Your BATNA,
theirs? Did options for mutual gains exist? What were they? What options
were you prepared to propose? What packages were proposed?
Accepted?Given all this, what was your strategy?
3) Consider your behavior in the shadow negotiations. Did you get in your own
way? What did you do to position yourself? Did you have trouble getting the
person to negotiate with you? What did you do about it?
4) Analyze the relative bargaining positions of the parties. Who had a better
BATNA? Who was more in control? Who was in a more reactive or
defensive position? Were you in a position to turn moves that made you
defensive? What turns did you use?
5) Analyze the other party. What were their issues and concerns? What were
their interests? What were their good reasons for taking the positions they
did. What appreciative moves did you use to connect to the other person?
How difficult or easy was it to do? How successful were you at getting their
buy in?
6) What was the outcome? How do you account for what happened?
7) Analyze your strengths in this negotiation. Your weaknesses.? Are there
insights you have gained from this course that might have made a difference?
In the process? In the outcome?
8) Identify the one major lesson you will take away from this course that will
help you negotiate more effectively in the future.
2) Negotiation Research Translation. The field of negotiation is one where
theory and practice are intended to inform each other. Howard Raiffa framed the
problem as asymmetric description prescription. What he meant was that research in the
field describes something important that can then be turned into prescriptive advice—that
is given to one party (hence the asymmetric part) so that they can be more effective
negotiators. One of the problems with the aim of description/prescription is that much of
the research (description) is so technical (and appears in journals that only scholars read)
that it is not easy to translate into prescriptions that everyday managers can use. Indeed,
one of the comments on the course has been that some of the readings are so technical
that they are virtually unintelligible to the average MBA student. One of my colleagues
has observed in a similar manner that a book like Getting to YES (1990) is 250 or so on
Amazon whereas a book like Barriers to Conflict Resolution (1995) which contains some
significant research on topics like reactive devaluation, loss aversion, and
overconfidence, among other topics is 666,000! What we can infer from this is that much
of the interesting description from research does not get translated into prescriptions that
everyday negotiators can use. So here is a challenge for this paper option – take a new
piece of empirical research and write an explanation that makes its findings accessible,
relevant, and usable to the average GSM student. What that means generally is
describing the concepts in everyday language and using common examples from your
own experience to ground them in practice.
1) Select an article. The best journals for finding empirical work on negotiation
are The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Organization Behavior
and Human Decision Processes and a new journal, Negotiation and Conflict
Mangement Research (NCMR). Information from the Library (see Kathy
Berger - kathleen.berger@simmons.edu) about how to access these journals
on line appears on the WebCT resource page for the course. You do not have
to confine yourselves to these two. These journals report primarily laboratory
studies addressed to a scholarly audience. They should be available to you in
the library as an on-line resource. What you want to do is select is an article
that has an interesting concept that you think would be helpful to your
classmates. If you have a question about the article you want to write about,
consult me either in class or via e-mail.
2) Describe the key concepts and findings in accessible language. Imagine you
are writing it for a journal like Harvard Business Review, Business Week,
Fortune or The Negotiation Newsletter. Articles in these resources are
accessible and make extensive use of examples to ground the ideas. You do
not want to rehash the study, but rather discuss the implications for a
negotiator.
• What are the key concepts or ideas?
• Why are the concepts and findings important?
• What are the implications for you as a negotiator, i.e., what do you
learn about effective practice from the study?
• How would you recommend that negotiators make use of the study,
i.e., what’s the prescription(s)?
• What is the connection of this work to other concepts and issues in
negotiation, that is, how does it extend, confirm, rebut what you have
learned in the course?
•
Use examples from your own experience. The more you can ground
your discussion in specific examples, the easier it will be for the
everyday negotiator to grasp the key ideas.
Remember that this is a research translation, not just a description of the article.
You need to translate it so that your classmates would find it useful. The more
you can give examples either from your own experience of the class, the more
likely it is that your classmates would find it useful
In grading your papers on either of these options, I will look for evidence that you
understand the major concepts in the course and that you can apply them to practice.
This final paper counts 35% of your grade.
Honor Code
Ethical conduct is important in negotiating—your reputation follows you. In this course,
I encourage you to prepare for class with people who have been assigned similar roles
(when we do role plays) and to discuss the cases. You can also discuss written
assignments with your A-team or other groups, however, what you ultimately turn in
must be your own work. I expect you to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and
integrity—in your dealings with me and with one another. Please read the sections on the
honor system in the Simmons College Student Handbook and abide by them in this
course.
Summary of Written Requirements
1.
Written analysis of The Altos Negotiation. Hand in deal sheet on January 6.
Length: 1 – 1.5 page single spaced
Due: January 8
% of Grade: 20%
2. Final Paper. This can be either an analysis of a negotiation where you were one of
the parties, an interview with an expert negotiator, a translation of an empirical
research study, or a real-time analysis of a videotaped negotiation
Length: 4-6 single-spaced pages
Due: January 15
% of Grade: 35%
4. A-Team Papers. This is a group paper and should summarize the learnings of the ATeam.
Length: 2 single spaced pages
Due: January 15
% of Grade: 15%
Grading Policy. Papers are due on the dates indicated. If you require an extension, you
need my permission and your grade will drop by a full grade (i.e., ‘A’ to ‘B’) for every
day it is late. Real emergency situations (health and deaths) will be dealt with on an
individual basis. In grading individual assignments, I use the following numerical scale
that is then weighted for the final grade:
Outstanding performance (A)
Superior performance (A-)
Very good performance (B+)
Good performance (B)
Minimally acceptable performance (B-)
Marginal performance (C)
Unacceptable performance (F)
Students Needing Special Accommodation
Reasonable accommodations will be provided for students with documented physical,
sensory, systemic, cognitive, learning, and psychiatric disabilities. If you have a
disability and anticipate that you will need a reasonable accommodation in this class, it is
important that you contact the Academic Support Center early in the semester. Call Ext.
2474, or stop by the center in the Palace Road building, Suite 304A. Students with
disabilities receiving accommodations are also encouraged to contact their instructor
within the first week or two of the semester to discuss their individual needs for
accommodations
.
SYLLABUS FOR WORKSHOP
Syllabus For Workshop
* Materials are in the Case Packet.
** Materials will be handed out in class
***Materials are on the Web
****Harvard Negotiation Newsletter
1. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Negotiation
Date: January 3 (AM)
Case: **WIN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN
Readings: *
Optional Reading:
**** Keith Allred, The High Cost of Low Trust, June, 2004
2. Distributive Models of Negotiation
Dates: January 4 (AM)
Case: **KINGSTON AND YOSHITO (Role of Adler and Moto)
** FINAL OFFER (in class video)
Readings: Fisher, Ury, Patton, Getting to YES: Parts I and II
* David Lax and James Sebenius, Three Ethical Issues in
Negotiation
3. Mutual Gains Models of Negotiation: Preparation and Openings
Date: January 4 (PM)
Case: ** HACKERSTAR(video)
**DISCOUNT MARKETPLACE (Role for Hawkins and
Discount)
Readings: Fisher, Ury, Patton, Getting to YES: Parts III and IV
* Michael Wheeler, Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction
Optional Reading:
*** David Lax and James Sebenius 3-D Negotiation: Playing the Whole
Game, Harvard Business Review,; November 2003.
4. Mutual Gains Negotiation: Creating Value
Date: January 5 (AM)
Case: * JESSE JUMPSHOT
Readings: Readings: *Michael Watkins, Diagnosing and overcoming
barriers to agreement
Optional Reading:
***James Sebenius, Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators,
Harvard Business Review, April, 2001
*** Betting on the future: The virtues of contingent contracts;
Harvard Business Review Max H Bazerman; Sep/Oct 1999
5. Mutual Gains Negotiations: Managing the Bargainers Dilemma (video taped mid
term)
Date: January 5
Case: **THE ALTOS (Role for Sara Davis and Pam Kaplan)
Midterm: Preparation and Role Play
Self Assessment A
January 8—Written Analysis of THE ALTOS NEGOTIATION is due
6. Gender and Everyday Negotiation: Getting People to the Table and Staying There
Date: January 8 (AM)
Case: *PAULA’S PROBLEM
**DOWNTOWN MILLS (video)
** CAITLIN’S CHALLENGE (video)
Readings: Kolb and Williams, Everyday Negotiation: Introduction and
Chapters 1-3
Optional Reading:
***Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis;
Personnel Psychology Alice F Stuhlmacher; Autumn 1999
***Nice Girls Don’t Ask, , Linda Babcock, Sara Laschever,
Michele Gelfand, Deborah Small
Harvard Business Review
7. Connecting with Others: Creating a Process for Mutual Inquiry
Date: January 8 (PM)
Case: *MARJORIE’S MANDATE
LUNA PEN (A)
Self Assessment B
Readings:
Kolb and Williams, Everyday Negotiation: Chapters 4-6
Optional Reading: ****Lawrence Susskind, What Gets Lost in
Translation, September, 2004
8.
Action inquiry skills for reflective negotiation practice (Guest Lecturer: Pacey
Foster)
Date: January 9 (AM)
Case: *The Tardy Twosome
Preparation: Write up your own two-column case
Readings: Rudolph, Taylor, and Foldy, Collaborative Off-line Reflection
Optional Reading:
**** Stone, Patton and Heen, Difficult Conversations Chapters 1-4
9. Coalitions: Strategies for Building and Blocking
Date: January 9 (PM)
Case: **HARBORCO ( Background)
**HARBORCO roles (Governor, DCR, Ports, Unions,
Environmental League, Harborco)
**NEGOTIATING CORPORATE CHANGE (in class video)
Readings: Herminia Ibarra, Building Coalitions
Kolb and Williams, Everyday Negotiation: Chapter 8
Optional Reading:
**** James Sebenius , Mapping Backward: Negotiating the Right
Sequence, May, 2004.
10. Negotiation Style and Strategy: Negotiating Conditions for Career Success
(including salary)
Date: January 10
Case: * RETAILMAX roles (Cam Archer, Regan Kessel)
Reading:
**** Deborah M. Kolb, Will you Thrive or Just Survive? January 2005
Final Paper and A-Team Paper January 15
SUGGESTED STUDY QUESTIONS
Kingston & Yoshito
1. Will you make the first offer? After preliminary conversation, someone will
likely have to put the first serious figure on the able. Do you want to make the
first offer?
2. Regardless of your preferences, if you have to put the first serious number on
the table what amount would you offer?
3. What specific price would be a reasonably good outcome for you?
4. What is your walk–away price?
5. Given the information in the case, what is the absolute most you will pay or
least you will accept for the headlights?
Discount Marketplace
1. As you prepare for the negotiation, take special care to identify the issues
which you think are likely to come up. How are they related?
2. What are your interests? What’s your BATNA?
3. What’s a good outcome for you? How will you achieve it?
4. How will you open the negotiations?
Jesse Jumpstart
1. What is the Shark’s BATNA? What is Jesse’s BATNA?
2. Which of the packages is best for Jesse? Which for the Sharks?
3. What would get in the way of you getting the best deal possible if you were
Jesse?
The Altos
1. As you prepare for this negotiation, take special care to identify your
priorities. Which issues are more important than others for you?
2. What would be a good outcome and how will you achieve it?
3. What barriers do you want to pay attention to, and avoid, in this negotiation so
you can get the best deal possible?
Paula’s Problem
1. What is Paula’s Problem?
2. What does gender have to do with Paula’s Problem?
3. How does Paula get in her own way? What can she do about it?
4. What can Paula do to initiate negotiations?
Marjorie’s Mandate
1. How would Marjorie describe what Dick is doing?
2. What are 5 good reasons, reasons that Dick would give to justify his role in
the Sorso negotiations?
3. As Marjorie, how would you open the conversation with Dick?
Luna Pen (A)
1. What cross cultural and gender issues should Erika Graeper pay attention to in
devising her strategy?
2. What should she do (confine yourself to the options identified in the case)
The Tardy Twosome
1. Using the framework in the Rudolph et al article, what do you think Pacey’s
desired outcomes was?
2. What was the actual outcome? Was it different and if so why?
3. What was Pacey’s actual frame and what might have been a more effective
one?
Harborco
1. What are your objectives in this negotiation?
2. Who are the other stakeholders? What are their interests?
3. What possibilities are there for coalitions? Who are your likely coalition
partners?
Retail Max
1. Apply the principles of the course to this salary negotiation.
2. What is your BATNA? What are your interests? What do you want out of this
negotiation? What kind of deal would be acceptable to you?
3. What are the interests of the other party? What would be a good deal for
them? What is their BATNA?
4. What strategic moves can you use to get the negotiations off to a good start?
What moves can you expect? How will you turn them?
5. How will you know you have a good deal?
Bibliography
Kenneth Arrow, Robert Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, Robert Wilson, Barriers to
Conflict Resolution (Norton, 1995)
Max Bazerman, Smart Money Decisions, (John Wiley, 1999)
Sandra Bem, The Lenses of Gender, (Yale University Press, 1993)
Bush, Robert B. and Joseph Folger, The Promise of Mediation, (Jossey-Bass, 1994)
Cialdini, Robert, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, (Morrow, 1984)
Mary Crawford, Talking Difference, (Sage, 1995)
Anne Donnellon, Team Talk, (Harvard Business School Press, 1996)
Stephen Goldberg, Frank Sander, and Nancy Rogers, Dispute Resolution, (Aspen
Publishers, 1999)
Guy Olivier Faure and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, Culture and Negotiation, (Sage, 1993)
Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton, Getting to YES, (Penguin, 1991)
Roger Fisher and Danny Ertel, Getting Ready to Negotiate: The Getting to YES
Workbook,
(Penguin, 1995)
Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason (Penguin, 2005)
Joyce Fletcher, Disappearing Acts, (MIT Press, 1999)
Barbara Gray, Collaborating, (Jossey-Bass, 1989)
John Hammond, Ralph Keeney, Howard Raiffa, Smart Choices, (Harvard Business
School Press, 1998)
Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can
Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success, (Simon and
Schuster, 2000)
Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams, Everyday Negotiation: Navigating the Hidden
Agendas of Bargaining (Jossey-Bass, 2003).
Deborah M. Kolb, Judith Williams, and Carol Frohlinger, Getting What You’re Worth,
on-line courses at negotiatingwomen.com
Deborah M. Kolb, Judith Williams, and Carol Frohlinger, Her Place at the Table: A
Woman’s Guide to Negotiating Five Key Challenges to Leadership Success
(Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2004)
Deborah M. Kolb, Negotiation Eclectics: Essays in Memory of Jeffrey Z. Rubin,
(Program on Negotiation, 1999)
Deborah M. Kolb, When Talk Works, (Jossey-Bass, 1994)
Deborah Kolb and Jean Bartunek, Hidden Conflict in Organizations, (Sage, 1992)
Phyllis Kritek, Negotiating at an Uneven Table, (Jossey-Bass, 1994)
David Lax and James Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, (The Free Press, 1986)
David Lax and James Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, (Harvard Business School Press, 2006)
Roy Lewicki, David Saunders, John Minton, Essentials of Negotiation, (Irwin, 1997)
Roy Lewicki and Alexander Hiam, Mastering Business Negotiation, (Jossey-Bass, 2006)
Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Michael Wheeler, What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiator.
(Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2004)
Robert Mnookin and Lawrence Susskind (editors), Negotiating on Behalf of Others,
(Sage, 1999)
Robert Mnookin, Scott Peppet and Andrew Tulumello, Beyond Winning: Creating Value
in Deals and Disputes, (Harvard University Press, 2000)
Michael Moffitt and Robert Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, (JosseyBass, 2005)
Christopher Moore, The Mediation Process, (Jossey-Bass, 1996)
Margaret Neale and Max Bazerman, Negotiating Rationally, (The Free Press, 1992)
Robin L. Pinkley and Gregory B. Northcraft, Get Paid What You’re Worth, (St. Martin’s
Press, 2000)
Dean Pruitt, Negotiation Behavior, (Academic Press, 1981)
Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, (Harvard University Press, 1982)
Howard Raiffa, Negotiation Analysis, (Harvard University Press, 2003)
Jeffrey Rubin, Dean Pruitt, Sung Hee Kim, Social Conflict, (McGraw-Hill, 1993)
Jeswald Salacuse, Making Global Deals, (Houghton-Miflin, 1991)
Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, (Harvard University Press, 1960)
Andrea Kupfer Schneider and Christopher Honeyman, The Negotiator’s Fieldbook,
(American Bar Association Press)
G. Richard Shell, Bargaining for Advantage, (Viking Press, 1999)
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen. Difficult Conversations (Viking, 1999)
Lawrence Susskind, The Consensus Building Handbook, (Sage, 1999)
Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruiksank, Breaking the Impasse, (Basic Books, 1987)
Deborah Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5, (Morrow, 1996)
Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, (Morrow, 1990)
Leigh Thompson, The Heart and Mind of the Negotiator, (Prentice-Hall, 2001)
William Ury, Getting Past No, (Bantam, 1991)
William Ury, The Third Side, (Penguin, 2000)
Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? (MIT Press, 1997)
Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations,
(McGrawHill, 1965)
Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue, (Simon and Schuster, 1999)
William Zartman and Maureen Berman, The Practical Negotiator, (Yale University
Press, 1982)
Other Resources:
The Negotiation Journal –Published quarterly by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard
Law School
Negotiation—Monthly Newsletter, Harvard Business School Publishing and the Program
on Negotiation at Harvard Law School