KSG STM-221 a Introduction to Negotiation Analysis

MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell

79 JFK Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Brian Mandell Phone: 617.495.9123 Littauer 104 Fax: 617.496.2850 [email protected]

INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS

MLD-221A/B Syllabus: Fall 2012

SECTION A SECTION B Mondays & Wednesdays: 8:40-10:00, L230 Mondays & Wednesdays: 1:10-2:30, L230 Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall Tuesdays: 4:15-6:15, Land Hall

COURSE ASSISTANTS FACULTY ASSISTANT Lauren Harrison ([email protected]) Jean Dombrowski Adam Levy ([email protected]) [email protected] Mona Singh ([email protected]) L107A Mark Truman ([email protected]) (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 cold- called 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.

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) MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell

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 sub- optimal 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 counter- productive 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 3-D Case Analysis: Developing Capacity to Provide Negotiation Analytic Support Tuesdays Negotiation Exercise: Competency-Based Training & Skill-Building Wednesdays 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 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: MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell  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 well- sequenced 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. 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 MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell 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.

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 competency- based 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.” MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell

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 “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; MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell 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 micro- skills 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. 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 1. Check in with CAs outside Land Hall. Your ticket for admission to the exercise (Sharp) 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 – 1. Negotiate. MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell 6:30* 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. 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. *Two exercises end at 7:15 6:30 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. 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. MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell 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!

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 value- creating 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 MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell expected that students will respect this important convention, both for their own benefit and that of their colleagues.

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 Moves & Micro-Skills and the 3-D Framework 10 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Oil Pricing September 11 Wednesday Debrief Oil Pricing exercise and discuss assigned readings September 12 Week 3 Distributive Bargaining I: Claiming Value in Negotiation Monday Case Analysis: Malta September 17 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Mapletech-Yazawa September 18 Wednesday Debrief Mapletech-Yazawa exercise and discuss assigned readings September 19 Week 4 Distributive Bargaining II: Signaling Expectations, Managing Escalation, Avoiding Irrational Commitments & Decision-Making Errors Monday Case Analysis: West Coast Ports Dispute September 24 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Leckenby September 25 Wednesday Debrief Leckenby exercise and discuss assigned readings September 26 Week 5 Integrative Bargaining I: Creating Value by Addressing Shared, Opposed and Tradable Interests Monday Case Analysis: Tobacco Negotiations October 1 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Universal Aircraft October 2 Wednesday Debrief Universal Aircraft exercise and discuss assigned readings October 3 Week 6 Integrative Bargaining II: Confronting the Negotiator’s Dilemma – Managing the Tension between Creating and Claiming Value & Building Sustainable Agreements Monday No Class (Columbus Day) October 8 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Pioneer Consulting October 9 Wednesday Debrief Pioneer Consulting exercise and discuss assigned readings October 10 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 Debrief 3-Way Organization and discuss assigned readings October 17 Friday Assignment I due at 5:00PM October 19 Week 8 Managing Hardball Tactics in Contentious Negotiations Monday Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part I October 22 Tuesday No Negotiation Exercise – Check in with CAs in Land Hall regarding October 23 progress in Assignment II Wednesday Film and role-play/discussion: Final Offer, Part II October 24 Week 9 Integrative Bargaining IV: Synchronizing Internal/External Negotiations to Create and Claim Value Monday Case Analysis: Charlene Barshefsky October 29 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Edgewood Electric October 30 Wednesday Debrief Edgewood Electric exercise and discuss assigned readings October 31 Friday 15-minute Exercise Design Sessions with CAs for Group Negotiation November 2 Consulting Project Week Negotiating Face-to-Face vs. Electronic Negotiating 10 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 e- November 6 negotiation, to be conducted from a computer, not in Land) Wednesday Debrief The Offer and discuss assigned readings November 7 Week Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries and Recruitables I: Negotiating with Contentious 11 Stakeholders Across Sectors and Cultures Monday No class (Veteran’s Day) November 12 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Mouse ends at 7 pm November 13 Wednesday Debrief Mouse and discuss assigned readings November 14

Week The Negotiator As Mediator 12 Monday Case Analysis: George Mitchell November Assignment II: Two Beta Test forms-Due at 9:00 am 19 Tuesday No negotiation exercise (Thanksgiving Break) MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell November 20 Wednesday No Class (Thanksgiving Break) November 21 Week Mobilizing Allies, Adversaries, and Recruitables II: Anticipating Resistance & 13 Vulnerabilities in Building Winning Multiparty Coalitions Monday Case Analysis: Gulf War November 26 Tuesday Negotiation Exercise: Play Seeport ends at 7pm November 27 Wednesday Debrief Seeport, discuss readings & course wrap-up November 28 Friday Assignment 2: Assignment II due at 9:00am in the MLD-221A or November MLD-221B Drop Boxes across the hall from Prof. Mandell’s Office 30 (L104). Week 14 Monday Oral Exam for all MLD 221 A/B students begins December 3 Friday Oral Exams End December 7

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 MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell  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. 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. 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. 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. 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]. 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. 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). 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. 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]. 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

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 4:15-7:00)

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) MLD 221A/B: Fall 2012 Brian Mandell

Tuesday, November 20 No negotiations exercise (Thanksgiving Break)

Wednesday, November 21

No Class (Thanksgiving Break) 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