Harvard University

NEGOTIATION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING

HUT 225/GSD 5308

Professor Xavier de Souza Briggs
Hauser Center, Bennett Building Room 236
(voice) 617.496.2776 (fax) 495.0996
xavier_briggs@harvard.edu

This course is about collective action to solve social problems. It is an introduction to the theory and practice of negotiation, along with related collective problem-solving skills, such as consensus building, participatory planning, stakeholder organizing, and the creation of productive alliances (partnerships) to promote the public interest. We focus on problem-solving process and strategy, not the substantive debates in particular public policy domains or market sectors (housing, environment, economic development, labor, etc.). The core premise is that “community building” or community problem-solving skill—a flexible set of joint action concepts and capabilities—is vital and applicable in a wide variety of strategic situations, in all three sectors (public-private-nongovernmental) and across them, and in many corners of the globe.

Enrollment is limited to 60 students, auditing is not permitted, and students may not enroll, or have enrolled, in both this course and either STM-221 (“Introduction to Negotiation Analysis”) or STM-230 (“Advanced Workshop in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution”). Similar to STM- 221 in content, HUT-225 also fulfills the pre-requisite for STM-230.

…Problem-solving (craft)
= art + science

COURSE PREMISES AND OBJECTIVES

A number of closely related worldwide trends are making creative problem-solving in the public interest more intensely negotiated, stakeholder-engaged, and alliance-driven than ever before. These trends include the decentralization of authority and downsizing of government in most parts of the world, rapid social and technological change (with associated strains), the erosion of many traditional forms of social connectedness and civic engagement (“social capital”) as well as trust in government and other public institutions, and the perceived failure of traditional top-down, expert-dictated, single-organization-driven approaches to solving public problems.

From community-driven and “participatory” international development efforts to public/private/non-governmental partnerships and community-engaged or communityfocused programs and policies in the industrialized countries, some common challenges arise. These challenges have to do with creating more local connectedness and capacity as we solve problems together, crossing many traditional divides (of identity, culture, jurisdiction, professional discipline, and more), and learning to share power while avoiding co-optation, process paralysis and other pitfalls. All signs are that demand for the skills needed to confront these challenges will expand over the next generation.

To function in such a world, those who work to advance the public interest, whether they work in the public, nonprofit, or private sectors – or, increasingly, across them - need a flexible set of collective problem-solving skills, renewable over the course of their careers. Moreover, the skills are applicable in virtually every policy area, from the environment to education, from housing to philanthropy, from social services to transportation, economic development, public health, and beyond.

Today’s joint problem-solvers typically confront work in five (5) globally relevant areas: how groups of interested actors learn together what the “work” of a shared problem really is and how to approach it jointly, how interests get mobilized and shaped and re-shaped (through a mix of conflict and cooperation), how the actors seek agreement based on their interests and values, how mechanisms for planning and deciding together get established and sustained, and how the actors network or partner themselves to ensure the capacity needed to solve problems that are too big, complex, or controversial for any one actor to tackle alone.

Targeting each of these global elements, the course is focused on problem-solving process and strategy, not policy particulars—the how of getting things done together more than the contentspecific “what” that we should aim to get done as a society or community. The course is not premised on the following myths:

• Negotiation is about learning how to get your way. Granted, being persuasive about your own interests is a key part of bargaining effectively, but the skilled and wise negotiator knows that the ultimate aim is better agreements that help parties advance a range of interests through jointly decided action. In a world wherein more and more important actions are jointly decided rather than given or imposed in traditional ways, we all need to be better negotiators—on our own behalf and, in ways we will explore, on behalf of complex and often divided constituencies as well.
• Collective problem-solving is primarily about the elimination of conflict and the creation of broad consensus—to the contrary, sometimes promoting the public interest in democratic ways calls for stimulus of productive conflict that clarifies core values, brings new interests and parties to the table, and makes possible more sustainable power relations over the long haul.
• Strong, democratic “communities” of many parties and interests are systems (or places) wherein cooperation routinely dominates competition and conflict. The evidence suggests otherwise—that healthy communities around the world have traditionally been home to both competition and cooperation, conflict and consensus, that purely conflictfree environments are probably running under “managed consent,” not democratic principles or practices. True, no system can productively solve problems if stuck in a state of pervasive conflict, and some predisposition to problem-solve together is essential if parties are to do more than exclude, evade, exploit, and make war. But the key seems to be in thinking of oneself as part of a system, the vitality and sustainability of which depends on attending to these yin-yang forces. One might think of democracy in an age of rapid change as having to equip everyone with the tools to recognize and advance their interests, and be able to construct some community interest, through joint problem-solving.

Through HUT-225, students will become familiar with tools for analyzing:

• The structure of a variety of negotiation, mediation, and consensus building situations;
• The escalation of inter-personal and inter-group conflicts and process break-down, more broadly;
• The role of both conflict and consensus in producing better processes and outcomes;
• The building of favorable coalitions and heading off (or “breaking”) of adverse ones;
• Professional roles and challenges in operating across the three primary sectors (public, private for-profit, and non-governmental);
• Personal style, cross-cultural and gender differences, and the place of both emotions and intellect (heart and mind) in the practice of collective problem-solving; and
• Relationships among negotiation, participatory planning, organizing, and partnership building concepts and skills—making, of a “grab bag of skills,” a true craft of reasonable coherent tools, useful either alone or in combination in particular circumstances.

The ability to successfully negotiate and, through other means, to collaboratively solve problems and seize opportunities, rests on a combination of analytical and interpersonal skills. In the case of negotiation, for example, analysis is important because collective problemsolvers cannot develop promising strategies without a deep understanding of the structure and context of the situation, the interests of other parties, the opportunities and barriers to creating and claiming value (twin forces of cooperation and competition) on a sustainable basis, and the range of possible moves and countermoves both at and away from the bargaining table. Beyond analysis “at the table” and away from the table, interpersonal skills are important because negotiation and other forms of collective problem-solving are essentially processes of communication, relationship and trust building (or breaking), and mutual persuasion. See table of “Negotiation Skills” on last page of this syllabus.

APPROACH

We will develop a set of conceptual frameworks that should help you better analyze collective problem-solving situations in general and prepare more effectively for situations in which you may be involved. Through participation in simulations, you will have the opportunity to exercise your powers of communication and persuasion and to experiment with a variety of tactics and strategies. Through analysis of case studies and discussion of articles, you will apply the lessons learned to ongoing, real-world negotiations and related situations.

The exercises draw from a wide variety of contexts and their aim is to provide concepts and tools that apply to all types of negotiations and other collective problem-solving situations, ranging from local philanthropy and education, labor, homelessness, and urban development disputes to infrastructure, tribal land rights, international political affairs, and public-private partnerships. 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 effectiveness as a community builder should increase significantly. Overall, we hope that you will complete the course a more reflective, analytically savvy, effective and, in all senses of the term, “good” problem-solver.

AUDIENCE

Who this is For. There are no formal prerequisites for this course. Students from a wide variety of backgrounds and with varying interests should find this course useful. Occupations with a particular stake in collective problem-solving include: urban planners, lawyers, managers in many types of organizations, “social entrepreneurs,” social investors, and others.

EXPECTATIONS AND TIME COMMITMENT

Students can take the course only if the 4-6PM Tuesday time slot, in addition to regular class meetings, is open for the entire semester — i.e. with no conflicts with other courses, seminars, or other commitments.

A typical week in HUT-225 will include new core concepts on Monday, the out-of-class exercise and a brief write-up on a reflection form on Tuesday, and an in-class debrief of the exercise on Wednesday.

CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION

The course is in three parts, building from simpler to more complex concepts and exercises. It starts with two-party, single-issue, one-shot negotiations and builds toward multi-party, multi-issue negotiation, consensus building, organizing, and other processes that evolve over time. The course constantly asks: “when are bargaining skills not enough?” and “when is bargaining embedded in something larger?” (such as when interests are ill-defined, emergent, highly fluid, or weakly represented).

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 situations that call for collective problem-solving.

In Part One, we introduce the fundamentals of negotiation along with tools for recognizing its limitations. It is here that we focus on the basics of claiming value in negotiation. This section investigates the structure of bargains that are mainly competitive in that each party’s principal concern is to enlarge his or her share of what is often taken to be a fixed pie. We will discuss in some detail the nature of the tactics used in such bargains and the principles behind them. We will examine the role of “strategic moves” in bargaining such as anchoring, opening offers, counter-offers and commitments. We will look hard at the cognitive and ethical dimensions of “value claiming” interactions.

Part Two explores selected topics in group and inter-group dynamics. This Part is interested in relationship building, breakdowns in collective problem-solving processes, and what to do about such breakdowns. For example, we will address “the negotiator’s dilemma” — the tension between cooperative moves to create value and competitive moves to claim it. Most negotiations and other forms of collective problem-solving contain elements of both cooperation and competition; that is, the parties can realize joint gains or enlarge the pie, as well as divide it. We will use a number of exercises and cases to explore the basis for such joint gains with the aim of managing the tension constructively and crafting valuable, sustainable agreements.

Throughout this and subsequent sections of the course, we will consider the more intangible aspects of collective problem-solving linked to the influence of interpersonal differences, misperceptions and consideration of common notions of what is fair and ethical. In particular, we will seek to sharpen ethical judgment about certain common tactics, different kinds of outcomes, and spillovers affecting parties that are not directly involved in the problemsolving effort. And we will, by debriefing your experiences, explore aspects of trust in the questions you will be asking of others and they of you, including questions about motive, competence, dependability, and collegiality.

In Part Three, we focus on complex, multi-team negotiations, consensus building, participatory planning, organizing, and partnerships.

Complex, multi-level negotiations, such as those among nations, regional authorities, corporations, or unions and managers, are shaped by processes that are not sufficiently illuminated by two-party analysis. To understand these multi-level negotiations, we need consider what is required to productively synchronize “internal” and “external” negotiations (i.e. the dynamics of decision-making within each of the sides) as well as analyze the general management problem of negotiating among many interdependent and linked sets of stakeholder groups. We will also overview the role of facilitation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as “complicating factors” in multi-stakeholder negotiation. In particular, we will explore how intermediaries help shape the zone of potential agreement and affect the creating/claiming calculus of adversaries in the context of three-cornered bargaining. Various aspects of coalition building and breaking loom large here.

Under consensus building, we will look at complex efforts to resolve disputes over important public values and to forge lasting outcomes in often contentious situations. Beyond the technical complexity of the issues explicitly under discussion, historical and demographic factors, such as race, culture, and class, are often significant, albeit unspoken, in consensus building work.

What should planners, managers, entrepreneurs and other would-be problem-solvers do when interests are too diffuse, fluid, or weakly represented to allow for a “negotiation” in the strict sense of the word? Such barriers are especially critical when players with highly unequal power and information face each other around complex issues. Such situations typically call for the organizing of interests, and such organizing begins with relationship building. This element of the course will consider multiple modes of organizing used in the U.S. around the world, some modes more conflict and others more consensus oriented. A central premise of this course is that community builders are not always positioned to be organizers but should, at a minimum, be able to recognize the need for organizing and work productively with the organizing efforts of others. Organizing and other community building skills are especially vital in the growing field of “social entrepreneurs.”

Broadly, participatory planning refers to efforts to carry out planning with significant involvement by stakeholders. “Planning” may mean physical or other urban or regional planning, or it may refer to strategic planning processes focused on the activities of one or more institutions or “initiatives.” The theory and practice of such planning has its roots in the politics of democratic societies, principles of group behavior, theories of identity and communication, and more. Planning and the implementation of plans often lead to, or proceed from, negotiation, organizing, and/or consensus building processes.

Likewise, creating flexible “networks of capacity” or operational alliances among institutions is an increasingly popular objective in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors — and, perhaps most importantly, across the sectors in the form of public/private partnerships. This objective recognizes the persistent tendency of political systems to disperse the authority and resources needed to accomplish important public purposes, as well as the inherent limitations of individual institutions in a world of big, messy problems. Networking challenges multiple institutions to “co-produce” desired outcomes.

Evolving from simpler negotiation analysis, this Part recognizes that interests are fluid; they can be organized and shaped as well as substantively advanced by various actors. It also recognizes that issues of accountability, organizational identity and capacity, and problem framing pervade efforts to create productive networks of institutions. This is especially true for cross-sector partnerships, where private sector concepts, such as market share and business line, may be missing or very diffuse. Finally, this Part recognizes the fact that terms such as “partnership” are virtually meaningless until many “blanks” are filled in —partnerships for what, including whom, for what duration, at what costs, under whose governance, etc. This course will introduce concepts of network or partnership building, relating such concepts to the skills of negotiation, consensus building, organizing, and participatory planning.

THE POWER OF CONTEXT AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: CULTURE, GENDER, PERSONAL STYLE AND PERSUASION TECHNIQUES

Throughout the course, we will ask about the role of context –how if affects analysis and practice. For example, it may make a real difference whether a negotiation involves public as well as private players, whether it is in the sphere of labor-management relations or international politics, or whether it involves different cultural, gender and personal styles, as well as whether the negotiation context is seen as a “deal” or a “dispute.”

Many practitioners and analysts would argue that differences in culture, gender and personal styles have a pervasive and profound effect on bargaining dynamics and outcomes. You, of course, may agree or disagree with them. Regardless of your point of view, throughout your experience in the course you should ask yourself: “How should the analytic framework we are developing be modified to incorporate the effects of culture, gender and personal style differences?’’

LIMITED ENROLLMENT

In order to maximize the learning and practice of skills, the course is limited to 60 participants. Priority for the first 40 seats will be given to Kennedy School students graduating this academic year (randomly selected from those who apply); for the next 10 seats to randomly selected graduating Design School students; and for the next 10 seats to randomly selected firstyear Kennedy School students in a two-year program. Priority for remaining seats goes next to all other Kennedy School students and fellows, to be randomly selected from those who apply, then to all other students, including cross-registrants. If seats are available, an extended waiting list will be generated and tapped on a first-come, first-served basis. The process will be outlined, and a brief application handed out, during the Shopping Day session for the course (Monday, January 28th). The lottery is entirely random; we make no subjective judgments based on statements of interest, much as we appreciate those and will work hard to accommodate everyone willing to commit to the course.

The preliminary class list and waiting list will be posted on Xav’s door (Hauser Center 236) soon thereafter, at a time announced on the application form. It is the student’s responsibility to confirm final registration for the course with the Registrar of the Kennedy School or Design School (as appropriate).

WHAT ARE THE EXERCISES? NEGOTIATION AND MORE…

Roughly once per week, you will be assigned a role, paired with one or more counterparts, given instructions (“general” instructions that are common knowledge and “confidentials” for your eyes only), and asked to prepare and carry out an exercise before the next class. These exercises are the most important vehicle for learning in the class. One major requirement, therefore, is that you conscientiously prepare for, carry out, and be ready to share insights from the exercises with the class.

In our class discussions, we are primarily interested in your faithful and creative participation, in the quality and originality of your discussion of particular strategies, and in your reflections on how you might have done better (or otherwise done differently). Failure to prepare and carry out these exercises will adversely affect your class participation and will harm your assigned partners, whose learning experience depends on your being available and prepared. Again, the quality of our in-class discussions therefore depends on thorough preparation of both negotiation material and study questions before the class.

Many of the exercises include confidential instructions. Do not show these confidential instructions to others. You may choose to discuss or reveal some of their content – indeed, communicating your interests clearly is essential to effective negotiation – but you must not physically show others your confidential instruction sheets. This rule largely mirrors reality since it is rarely possible, in most negotiation situations, for example, to reveal your real underlying values and information to your negotiating counterparts.

The instructions for the exercises are designed to be self-explanatory. Please follow the instructions carefully. For example, an exercise may consist of 20 rounds with instructions that you and your partner make simultaneous offers, one round at a time. Do not, in this case, as a student once did, give your partner a bundle of offers for all 20 rounds and then leave. If the instructions fix the set of issues to be negotiated, do not invent new ones as part of a reported agreement; this will distract from the intended focus of the exercise as well as make scoring and comparisons hopelessly complicated. The class functions far more effectively when we all cooperate in observing this rule.

Though most of the exercises are extreme simplifications of reality, they are intended to isolate and illuminate particular aspects that do arise in real situations. We urge you to take the exercises seriously, to prepare carefully and participate energetically. For those exercises that have fixed numerical scoring systems, you should take the scores as representative of your true interests and try to do as well as you can, subject to whatever considerations of responsibility and ethics you expect would shape your behavior in a similar real-world situations. For those exercises without numerical scoring systems, you should think hard about what you would care about, and what trade-offs you would be willing to make, in the specified situation.

Some students may feel uncomfortable trying to out-guess or outwit other class members, but past students have overwhelmingly found the experience rewarding – a low-cost chance to try different approaches to negotiation and related skill areas. To the extent that your wits and emotions are engaged in the exercises, they will help you become more aware and effective problem solvers. As with a sports match among friends, it does more for your game – and is more fun – to play vigorously and intelligently while on the game field.

EXERCISE TIMING, LOGISTICS AND CONTINGENCIES

Tuesday, 4-6PM is reserved for the conduct of negotiation exercises. In Monday’s class, we will distribute role assignments and confidential instructions. Typically, we will debrief the exercise in Wednesday’s class.

If you cannot find your negotiating partner(s) by 4.15PM on Tuesday or are missing any instructions, you should come immediately to the course assistants’ “problem desk” (location TBA). The assistants will reassign everyone with problems by 4.30PM so that you may proceed with the exercise.

A few exercises have a strict time limit, which you must observe. Most exercises, however, have no fixed deadline except that you hand in results sheets by 6PM on Tuesday evening in the designated location. For these, it is up to you to decide how, and how long, to bargain. The results sheet can, obviously, include statements that agreement was not reached before the deadline. If you have not handed in a results sheet by the deadline, you will be deemed not to have reached agreement, and you will be scored accordingly.

If you cannot participate in a particular exercise, you must inform the course assistants as soon as possible so they can re-assign your partners. Please note that participation in all assigned exercises is a key component of your grade. However, outcomes will not be used to assess your performance. Failing to participate in exercises, except in cases of true emergency, such as an illness or family tragedy, will be heavily penalized. You will lose 5% (i.e. 1/3 of the total of your exercise participation grade) for each exercise you miss.

Typically, the exercises include a feedback or “debrief” form, which you should fill out following the exercise in preparation for the next day’s (Wednesday) class.

Videotaping of Tuesday Exercises

Each week, we will ask one or two groups to conduct their negotiation in front of a video camera in order to capture the rich dynamics. We will review clips from these video recordings in our Wednesday debriefing to strengthen the link between theory and practice. This exercise is voluntary and not graded.

YOUR OBJECTIVES IN THE EXERCISES

What is it that you should be trying to accomplish in these exercises? In general, your aim is not to try to do “better” than the player with whom you are playing; “better” is often meaningless in games that are not strictly competitive and where you and your counterpart start in very asymmetric situations. Your aim is not to maximize your probability of winning – even if winning makes sense in a particular game. Rather, in the negotiation exercises that comprise the bulk of our simulations, you should be concerned with your own (or your organization’s) payoff measured in terms of your own scoring. The best practical advice: try to maximize your expected payoffs by focusing both on the size of your possible payoffs associated with alternative strategies and the probabilities of achieving them. Try not to be riskaverse or risk prone, but focus on maximizing the expected value of your score. Beyond the sphere of negotiation, a critical issue is weighing your own payoff against some concept of collective or “system” payoff.

In some exercises, you may be in a position to raise the score of the person with whom you are playing and, at the same time, raise your score as well. This is certainly a good thing to do, especially since it is your score that will be pitted against all others in similar circumstances. But what if you can improve the other person’s score without changing your own? What you do may depend on how you feel about your counterpart. During the play of the exercise, the other player(s) might have helped you or behaved reasonably and you may wish to “reward” him or her. Or, the opposite may be true, and your altruism could change to malevolence. Whichever way you choose to proceed, you will quickly learn to identify those circumstances where empathy (coupled with assertiveness) or aggressive competitiveness best leads you to conduct a “successful” negotiation.

Sometimes, because you may find that your choices in the negotiation exercises involve ethical issues, you may purposely choose an action that you are fairly sure will result in a lower score for yourself and a higher score for the other player. Will this “ethically appropriate” action be reciprocated? Maybe yes, but if not, is this factor the sole reason to help others?

A word of caution: don’t expect that your colleagues will think and choose as you do. Be wary. This does not mean you should act in ways that you think are competitively inappropriate just because others seem to be doing it. Your aim is to maximize your own expected score, tempered by your concern to do what you think is right.

BE SMART, ACT HONORABLY

It is relatively simple to defeat the purpose of the exercises that lie at the heart of this course, and there are many ways to do so. You could, for example, ask others how they have played an exercise before you “officially” do it. You and your partner could collude to break the rules of an exercise. You could seek out published accounts of some of the exercises to gain an advantage over your partner. You could consult students who have taken similar courses in previous years. Though it is rare, people in the course occasionally try these tricks. Please don’t be tempted. Your own experience is devalued, the exercises are spoiled for other students, the information in the scores is distorted and discussion is deadened.

ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

See “Semester at a Glance” for course topics, exercises, and assignments due by date. There are four (4) components to the course grade:

Take-home Final Exam (35%), due May 17th. Short-answer and long-answer essay questions will be distributed a few days in advance of the exam’s due date during exam period. In the past, we have arranged a distinct pick-up/due date for GSD students, given the GSD’s unique studio project and other deadlines in late Spring, and this can again be arranged if helpful. Students may ask Xav questions of clarification about the exam questions during the Course Review at semester’s end, also during Reading/Exam Period (details will be provided).

COURSE MATERIALS: READINGS AND EXERCISES

Course packets will be available for sale at the Kennedy School Course Materials Office (CMO) and on reserve in the Kennedy School Library. Optional, recommended readings will also be on library reserve. In addition, the following two (2) required texts are available at the Harvard COOP:

• David Lax and James Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, Free Press: New York, 1986.
• Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, 2nd Edition, Penguin Books, Inc., 1991.

Further Reading/Recommended Resources. These other texts, while not required, are strong references for those who want more in-depth material on many of the course topics. We will be using excerpts of most of these in your reading packets. Asterisks (*) below indicate works that make particularly good practitioner references.

• Robert Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, New York: Quill, 1984.
• Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, eds. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
• Robert Fisher, Let The People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America, New York: Twayne, 1994.
• * Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
• * Sam Kaner et al., Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making, British Columbia: New Society, 1996.
• * Christopher Moore, The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, 2nd edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
• Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, New York: Random House, 1986.
• Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1982.
• * Roger Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
• * Lawrence Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Learner, eds., The Consensus Building Handbook, Thousand Oaks: Sage , 1999.

On-line resources:

• Program on Negotiation (Harvard Law School) www.pon.harvard.edu
• Consensus Building Institute www.cbi.org
• Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation www.civicus.org
• Synergos Institute www.synergos.org
• Interaction Institute for Social Change www.interactioninstitute.org

SEMESTER AT A GLANCE

Topics, exercises, and assignments due by date (continues over 3 PAGES)

WEEKLY CLASS SCHEDULE

WEEK 1

Class 1. Wednesday, January 30--Introduction

• In-Class Exercise: “Win-As-Much-As-You-Can.”
• Gray, Barbara, “The Impetus to Collaborate,” in Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989, pp.26-35 [in packet].
• Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes, intro and chapters 1-3.

WEEK 2

Class 2. Monday, Februrary 4—Dealing with Unequal Power: Getting Parties to the Table

• (case) Ray Rogers and J.P. Stevens & Company, Inc. (HBS Case #2-394-092)
• Lax and Sebenius, Manager as Negotiator, chapter 3.

Tuesday, February 5 [No exercise this week.]

Class 3. Wednesday, February 6--Dealing with Unequal Power II: Claiming Value

• (case) Howard Wriggins, “Up for Auction: Malta Bargains with Great Britain, 1971” from The Fifty Percent Solution, I. W. Zartman, editor, Doubleday, 1976, pp. 208-234 [in packet].
• Lax and Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, chapter 4.
• Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes, chapter 6

WEEK 3

Class 4. Monday, February 11—Claiming Value and Dealing with Mixed Motives

• Roy Lewicki, David Saunders, and John Minton, Essentials of Negotiation, Chicago: Irwin, 1994, pp.16-21 [in packet].
• Getting to Yes, chapter 8.

Class 5. Wednesday, February 13—Claiming Value and Assessing Style

• Roger Fisher and Wayne H. Davis, “Six Basic Skills for a Negotiator’s Repertoire,” In Negotiation, eds. Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1999, pp. 354-359 [in packet].
• George Wu, “Anchoring and First Offers in Negotiation,” HBS Case #9-895-070 [in packet].

WEEK 4

Class 6. Wednesday, February 20—Creating Value.

• Popper, Frank J., “LULUs and Their Blockage,” in Joseph Dimento and LeRoy Graymer, eds., Confronting Regional Challenges, Lincoln Institute, 1991 [in packet].
• Davis, Michael, “Homegrown Revolution,” pp.151-219 in City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, New York: Verso, 1990.
• Susskind, Lawrence and Susan Podziba, “Affordable Housing Mediation: Building Consensus for Regional Agreements in the Hartford Area,” in The Consensus Building Handbook, Susskind et al., eds., Sage, 1999, pp.773-799.

WEEK 5

Class 7. Monday, February 25—Creating and Claiming Value: The Negotiator’s Dilemma

• Lax and Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, chapter 7
• Janosik, Robert J., “Rethinking the Culture-Negotiation Link,” pp.235-245 in Negotiation Theory and Practice, J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds., Program on Negotiation Books, Harvard Law School, 1991 [in packet].
• Kolb, Deborah M. and Gloria G. Coolidge, “Her Place at the Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation,” pp.261-277 in Negotiation Theory and Practice, J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds., Program on Negotiation Books, Harvard Law School, 1991.

Class 8. Wednesday, February 27-Creating Value II: Trading on Differences.

• George Wu, “Sources of Joint Gains in Negotiations,” HBS Case #9-396-241 [in packet].
• Supermarkets in Inner Cities, HBS Case #N1-796-145, 1996 [in packet].

• Manager as Negotiator, chapter 5
• “Land Assembly and Negotiation,” HBS Note #1-898-024 [includes strategic, tactical, and ethical issues, plus two urban case studies.]

WEEK 6

Class 9. Monday, March 4—Multi-Party Negotiation: Coalitions

• (case) “The Gulf Crisis: Building a Coalition for War,” KSG Case #1264.0 [in packet].
• Michael Watkins and Susan Rosegrant, “Sources of Power in Coalition Building,” Negotiation Journal, January 1996, pp. 47-68 [in packet].

Class 10. Wednesday, March 6—Multi-Party Negotiation

• James K. Sebenius, “Sequencing to Build Coalitions: With Whom Should I Talk First?” Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations, Richard Zeckhauser, et al, editors, Harvard Business School Press, 1996, pp. 324-348 [in packet].
• Raiffa, Howard, “Ethical and Moral Issues,” pp. 344-356 in The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1982 [in packet].

• Arthur Applbaum, "Rules of the Game, Permissible Harms and the Principle of Fair Play," Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations, Richard Zeckhauser, et al, editors, Harvard Business School Press, 1996, pp. 301-323.
• Albert Z. Carr, "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" Harvard Business Review reprint 68102.

WEEK 7

Class 11. Monday, March 11—Third Parties: Mediators and Facilitators

• Lewicki, Roy, David Saunders, and John Minton, “Third-Party Interventions,” in Essentials of Negotiation, Chicago: Irwin Press, 1997, pp.199-213 [in packet].
• Christopher W. Moore, “How Mediation Works,” in The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, SF: Jossey Bass, 1996, pp. 41-77 [in packet].

Class 12. Wednesday, March 13--Mediation

• Beer, Jennifer E. with Eileen Stief, ”Controlling the Process,” pp.87-102 in The Mediator’s Handbook, 3rd edition, Canada: New Society, 1997[in packet].
• Tannen, Deborah, “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why,” in Negotiation, Roy Lewicki, David Saunders, and John Minton, eds., Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1999, pp.160-173 [in packet].

• Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank, “Mediation and Other Forms of Assisted Negotiation,” in Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes, New York: Basic Books, 1987.

WEEK 8

Class 13. Monday, March 18—Review of Negotiation I: Preparation and Tactics

• Instructions for “The Power Screen.”
• Roy J. Lewicki and Carolyn Wiethoff, “Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair,” The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, editors, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.86-107 [in packet].
• Keith G. Allred, “Anger and Retaliation in Conflict: The Role of Attributions,” The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, editors, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.236-255 [in packet].

Tuesday, March 19, 4-6PM

• Background Note for: GM-UAW Negotiations, 1984, HBS Case #488-027 [in packet].

Class 14. Wednesday, March 20—Review of Negotiation II: Complexity and Tactics

WEEK 9 - SPRING BREAK (MARCH 23 – 31)

WEEK 10

Class 15. Monday, April 1—Multi-Level Negotiation: Internal and External Bargaining

• Susskind, Lawrence and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, “Conducting a Conflict Assessment,” pp.99-136 in The Consensus Building Handbook, Susskind et al., eds., Sage, 1999, pp.61-98 [in packet].
• Roger Fisher, “Negotiating Inside Out,” Negotiation Journal, January, 1989, pp. 33-41 [in packet].

Class 16. Wednesday, April 3—Multi-Level Negotiation. Debrief Franklin.

• Manager as Negotiator, chapters 15 and 17

WEEK 11

Class 17. Monday, April 8—Consensus Building

• (case) Podziba, Susan, “The Chelsea Charter Consensus Process,” in The Consensus Building Handbook, Susskind et al., eds., Sage, 1999, pp.743-772 [in packet].
• Carpenter, Susan, “Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and Strategies,” in The Consensus Building Handbook, Susskind et al., eds., Sage, 1999, pp.61-97 [in packet].

• Kaner, Sam et al., “Dynamics of Group Decisionmaking,” pp.3-21 in Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decisionmaking, Canada: New Society, 1996 [in packet].

Class 18. Wednesday, April 10—Joint Problem-Solving and Creativity

• Carpenter, Susan L. and W.J.D. Kennedy, “Reaching and Carrying out Agreements,” pp. 137-154 in Managing Public Disputes, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988 [in packet].
• James L. Adams, “Groups and Organizations,” In Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1986, pp.131-152 [in packet].

WEEK 12

Class 19. Monday, April 15—Participatory Planning and Deliberation

• (Case) “Dealing with Unexpected Opposition: The Singapore Tourism Board and the Chinatown Enhancement Plan” (KSG Case 1519.0)
• Arnstein, Sherry R., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1969, vol. 35, pp. 216-224.
• Baum, Howell, “Consensus Decision Making” in The Organization of Hope: Communities Planning Themselves, SUNY Press, 1997, pp.135-145 [in packet].

• Putnam, Robert D., with Robert Leonardi and Rafaella Y. Nanetti, chapter 6 in Making Democracy Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bolan, Richard S., “Community Decision Behavior: The Culture of Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1969, vol. 35(5), pp. 301-310.

Class 20. Wednesday, April 17—Stakeholder Organizing and Conflict

• (case) “The Living Wage Debate Comes to Harvard (A)” (KSG Case Draft)
• Bobo, Kim, Jackie Kendall, and Steve Max, “The Fundamentals of Direct Action Organizing,” “A Guide to Tactics,” and “Developing Leadership,” pp.6-13, 34-41, 86-93 in Organizing for Social Change: A Manual for Activists in the 1990s. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks, 1996 [in packet].
• Fisher, R. “Grassroots Organizing Worldwide: Common Ground, Historical Roots, and the Tension Between Democracy and the State,” In Mobilizing the Community: Local Politics in the Era of the Global City, edited by Fisher and Kling, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. [in packet]
• Eichler, Michael, “Consensus Organizing: Sharing Power to Gain Power,” National Civic Review, Summer/Fall 1995 [in packet].

• Fisher, Robert, Let The People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America, New York: Twayne, 1994.
• Gay, Robert, Popular Organization and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro: A Tale of Two Favelas, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.

WEEK 13

Class 21. Monday, April 22—Strategic Alliances

• (case) Excerpts of “Rebuilding Los Angeles: A Public-Private-Nonprofit Partnership (KSG Case #C16-99-1542.9)
• Gray, Barbara, “The Collaborative Process,” in Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989, pp. 55-94 [in packet].
• Ferguson, Ronald F., pp. 589-604 excerpt in “Conclusion: Social Science Research, Urban Problems, and Community Development Alliances,” Urban Problems and Community Development, Ronald F. Ferguson and William T. Dickens, eds., Washington, DC: Brookings, 1999 [in packet].

Tuesday, April 23 4-6 PM Conduct Summitville exercise (final meeting).

Class 22. Wednesday, April 24—Values and History in Negotiation. Debrief Summitville.

• Forester, John, Excerpt of “Dealing with Deep Value Differences,” pp.463-479 in The Consensus Building Handbook, Susskind et al., eds., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1999.

WEEK 14

Class 23. Monday, April 29—Communication and Power

• (case and concepts) Tauxe, Caroline S., “Marginalizing Public Participation in Local Planning: An Ethnographic Account.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 1995, vol.61(4), pp. 471-481 [in packet].
• (case and concepts) Briggs, Xavier de Souza, “Doing Democracy Up Close: Culture, Power and Communication in Community Building,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1998, vol. 18, pp.1-13 [in packet].
• Paul R. Kimmel, “Culture and Conflict,” The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, editors, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.453-474 [in packet].

• Kochman, Thomas, Black and White Styles in Conflict, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Class 24. Wednesday, May 1—Course Review

NEGOTIATION SKILLS