Description

A1.Training is an international, scoreable, two-party, six-issue negotiation with integrative potential. One party is a Romanian energy company that wishes to buy consulting services and worker training from a large US-based technical training and consulting company. The six issues of A1.Training represent all three types of negotiation issues: distributive (zero-sum), compatible (shared), and integrative (tradeable). The twist here is that the payoff matrix is asymmetric—one party has more upside potential from this deal. Thus, the negotiation is perfect as an early exercise to teach basic integrative techniques of finding compatible issues and trading off priorities, and it clearly demonstrates to students the folly of comparing their outcome to their counterpart’s outcome and/or worrying about making sure both parties get an equal outcome. This negotiation is also perfect to use in a negotiations course if New Recruit has already been used in a prior core management course.

Description

The Albion Basin is a watershed located within the Wasatch Mountains east of Salt Lake City, Utah. This negotiation exercise calls on multiple parties (7 of them) with interests in the Albion Basin to try to reach an agreement concerning sustainable land use of the basin. The exercise challenges negotiators to identify and value issues and options. Directions walk students through how to develop a scoring sheet that values and prioritizes the issues for their role. (Raiffa’s Formal Analysis, 1982). During preparation participants meet with same-role others. The negotiation can be run with individuals or teams representing the 7 parties. Webinar available!

Description

All in the Family is a two party exercise that illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of four different procedures for distributing a set of ten items between two parties:  1) “Divide and Choose” works off parties’ own priorities and estimates of the other party’s priorities and encourages students to use and understand the maximization procedure, called Solver, in Excel; 2) “Alternating Selection” illustrates first mover advantage effects; 3) “Bargaining” – face to face or electronic – often leads to suboptimal agreements; 4) “FOTE” (full, open, and truthful exchange) illustrates in what ways students can improve their outcome over their bargained outcome. This exercise includes an Excel spreadsheet for students to use to compare and contrast the different procedures, teaching notes, and a second Excel spreadsheet for the instructor to use to post student results.

Description

DRRC's version of Alpha Beta is a cross-cultural, team-on-team negotiation of a potential alliance. The exercise requires the two parties to enact a cultural style during the negotiation.

Description

DRRC's version of Alpha Beta is a cross-cultural, team-on-team negotiation of a potential alliance. The exercise requires the two parties to enact a cultural style during the negotiation.

Description

Analogical Reasoning introduces students to learning by analogy (comparison based on structural versus superficial similarity) with the goal of improving their ability to apply concepts learned in the classroom to real world (business) situations. The unit consists of 5 exercises or “demos” - the Tumor and Fortress Demo, the Contingent Contract Demo; the Logrolling Demo, the Sunk Cost Demo and the Proverb Demo. These “demos” can be used singly or in combination to help students and improve their ability to learn, store, and access structural knowledge. Please note: There is no charge for this exercise. Everything you need to run the exercise is included in the Instructor Packet. Click on "learn more" to download it.

Description

Three-member cross-functional teams negotiate the design of a house, in which a client specifies required features and a limited budget. Each negotiator is assigned a role: the structural expert, the finish expert, or the land expert. Each expert is given confidential information about pricing for various options they can include in the design plan, a confidential profit schedule (indicating how much profit they will make if their option is included in the design), and special bonus information involving integrative tradeoffs. The main task of the group is to determine the set of options, beyond those required by the client, to be included in the design for the house. The exercise involves three dependent measures: perceptions of group members' competitiveness, joint profit (and integrative trade-offs), and equality of resource distribution.

Description

Three-member cross-functional teams negotiate the design of a house, in which a client specifies required features and a limited budget. Each negotiator is assigned a role: the structural expert, the finish expert, or the land expert. Each expert is given confidential information about pricing for various options they can include in the design plan, a confidential profit schedule (indicating how much profit they will make if their option is included in the design), and special bonus information involving integrative tradeoffs. The main task of the group is to determine the set of options, beyond those required by the client, to be included in the design for the house. The exercise involves three dependent measures: perceptions of group members' competitiveness, joint profit (and integrative trade-offs), and equality of resource distribution.

Description

This case demonstrates that internal issues alone can derail a company and emphasizes the importance of leadership in fostering the right corporate culture to turn a company around. Students will identify the key internal and external factors that can contribute to a company’s decline and learn the importance of diagnosing issues within each of three major aspects of a company—strategy, operations, and financials—in order to develop a successful turnaround plan.

Description

Atalanta is a two-party negotiation between the owner of a two-year-old e-commerce business and the fulfillment officer from a shipping company. While the situation is fraught with emotions, personal ambitions, and negative perceptions about the other party, both would benefit from repairing the relationship and continuing to work together.  Through this exercise, students practice the following

• Overcoming the threat of a lawsuit and an initial impasse.
• Recognizing and developing perceived power and refraining from abusing power.
• De-escalating an emotional situation by managing their own and others’ emotions.
• Refocusing on building a future relationship.
• Identifying creative solutions that “expand the pie.”