Instructor	Deborah M.  Kolb, Ph. D.
Office	4th Floor, 419 Commonwealth Avenue Center for Gender and Organizations (CGO)
Contact Information:	521-3871 (telephone) 521-3876 (Jodi DeLibertis, Administrative Manager) 521-3878 (FAX) kolb@simmons. edu
Office Hours:	Tuesday: 3:00-5:00 and by appointment

Negotiation and conflict resolution are becoming more important in organizations today.  In the past, you probably would use negotiation and conflict resolution skills only if your job entailed formal dealings with unions, suppliers, and customers.  In other words, negotiation was a skill needed only by people who did it for a living.  All that has changed in contemporary organizations.  If you analyze an organization through a political lens, all interactions are basically negotiations.  That means that as a manager, you are frequently operating in a situation where your responsibility exceeds your authority.  You will need to negotiate with a range of internal and external stakeholders in order to get your job done.  In network and team structures, you are but one voice among many.  To get your agenda accomplished, you will need to negotiate to build coalitions among different stakeholders and constituencies.  As organizations become more diverse demographically and culturally, the potential for conflict increases, requiring even more attention to how we deal with it. 

And for women, skill in negotiations is even more critical.  Even if her job carries with it formal power and authority, gender relations in organizations frequently make it difficult for women to exercise that authority.  People may expect her to negotiate and consult with them rather than dictate to them.  As a member of a team, she may not be seen as influential and so have to negotiate for her point of view or agenda.  And for many women a more consultative leadership style, where decisions are negotiated, fits with their everyday theories about how best to get work done.  They like participation and believe it leads to better results.  But there are other reasons as well.  Women are often pushing at the boundaries of organizational practice and policy.  They may need to negotiate for more flexible work schedules so they can better integrate their work and personal lives.  They may need to convince people that they are qualified for a position even though their previous experiences don't fit the precise job requirements.  And then of course, we all need to negotiate effectively if we want to get the job responsibilities and salaries we think we deserve. 

For many years, I have been teaching negotiation courses here at Simmons, at other colleges and universities, and to groups in industry.  Influenced by scholars and colleagues in the field, I have structured these courses in what might be called the analytic tradition.  Based on the work of Thomas Schelling (A Strategy of Conflict), Howard Raiffa ( The Art and Science of Negotiation ), and Richard Walton and Robert McKersie ( A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations ), negotiations are divided into two basic models -- distributive (zero-sum) and integrative (mutual gains).  These two models rely on different tactics and strategies, yet both are typically involved in any negotiation.  Negotiation courses generally follow these two models, beginning with the distributive model (as when you buy a car) and building to a more integrative approach (the creation of package deals), the involvement of more parties in team based negotiation, and culminating with a look at assisted negotiation.  The first part of the course will follow a similar format.  Mastering the fundamentals of distributive and integrative negotiations is best done experientially through role plays and so there will be ample opportunity to work on these deal making skills. 

The analytics of dealmaking are important but they do not capture the social complexities of negotiation.  Based on my experiences at the GSM and the research that I have done on gender in negotiations, it has become clear to me that the analytic tradition is necessary, but not sufficient to help women become more effective negotiators.  Findings from this research lead to new thinking about the social or interpersonal dimensions of negotiation.  At the same time as you are negotiating over the issues and considering the kinds of deals that you can make, another negotiation is taking place in tandem.  It is where people negotiate about how they will negotiate even though they don't talk about it directly.  That is what we call the shadow negotiation, described in a new book I co-authored with Judith Williams, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success .  We discovered the shadow negotiation from our interviews and observations of women.  When women told us that they had difficulty pushing for what they wanted or when they did they were accused of being pushy, that they put others needs before their own and that other negotiators expected that of them, that they gave in too quickly to avoid conflict, that they wanted deals that left everybody happy, but feared they would be exploited if they did, that other negotiators pushed them into defensive positions, we recognized that something more than what ingredients make a good deal was at stake.  If we wanted to help women become better negotiators, we had to deal with these relational dimensions of negotiation because that's where women have trouble; it is where gender issues come in.  In the course, we will spend time looking at the shadow negotiations and what happens in them as we negotiate over substance.  In so doing, we will develop a deeper understanding of how gender and diversity issues play out in negotiation and how we manage them to become effective negotiators.  The book develops these ideas and we will explore them in the course through cases, short vignettes, and videos.  Mastering the shadow negotiation will give you the skills and perspectives to take more control in negotiations and to structure the process in ways that suit the task and your preferred style. 

Course Mechanics
The course is a blend of pedagogical techniques and learning milieus.  Although we will use cases to analyze and discuss some features of negotiation and conflict resolution, the primary vehicle for learning negotiation skills is through role plays, short vignettes, and exercises.  This structure is based on my belief that negotiation principles are best learned via hands-on experiences and through in-depth discussions of the experience, using the conceptual material to analyze and inform.  To supplement learning in the classroom about negotiation and conflict resolution, students are encouraged to continually apply what they learn in class to experiences in the workplace and community.  As part of the requirements for the course, students will participate in an Applications Group (A-Team).  Discussions in the A-Team and some discipline of self reflection will help you track your progress as a negotiator. 

Texts Required:
Deborah Kolb and Judith Williams, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success .  This book develops describes the two major requirements of the shadow negotiation – advocacy and connection.  Advocacy means positioning oneself to promote your interests effectively and connection involves creating space for the other party to participate with you in working out differences. 

Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton.  Getting To Yes .  This now classic book develops the 5 major elements of "Principled Negotiation "-- Separate the people from the problem, Focus on interests not positions, Invent options for mutual gain, Use objective criteria, and Develop your BATNA. 

The Case packet includes cases, readings, and the general instructions for some of the negotiation role plays.  It should be purchased in the MBA office.  For role plays, specific roles will be handed out in class.  I use PowerPoint slides for many of the sessions.  These will be posted as they come up in class.  Generally, I post overview slides prior to the class and follow up after the class with a complete set that reflects experiences and discussions in class.  Thus, it is useful to check the web site prior to class and download the slides and then supplement these after the class session. 

Assigned readings generally focus on the conceptual issues we will cover in class that day.  The readings are intended as background for you and, I do not, as a rule, discuss them in class unless specific questions are raised.  Optional readings cover new areas or extend ideas in class and are available on-line.  You will have to use your judgment as to how much you want to do.  When you come across interesting articles, feel free to post them as well.  I have attached a bibliography to the syllabus, which will also be posted on the web site.  The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School is a web site those of you interested in negotiation might want to visit.  (http://www.pon.harvard.edu/)

Materials for the Negotiation Role Plays:
Some of the information/instructions for the role plays will be handed out in class, others will be in your case packets.  Generally, background information is in the case packet and the roles are handed out in the class prior to the one where it takes place.  In a negotiation role play, each party has confidential information that she would not want to share with her counterpart.  A seller, for example, knows more about her situation and what price she will accept while the buyer knows more about what she will be prepared to pay.  This mirrors negotiation in the real world where you would not have complete access to the information your negotiating counterpart has nor to what she values as important.  In preparing for class, pay careful attention to what role you have been assigned.  When you prepare, you can do so with others who have the same role, but not with a person who has a different role.  The names of the roles are indicated on the syllabus.  We do the actual negotiations in class.  It is important to come to class having prepared your role.  It slows down the class if somebody in a negotiating dyad or group is not prepared to negotiate.  Preparation means that you have read the role and mapped out a strategy for the negotiation.  As the course progresses, you will learn more about what constitutes good preparation and so your out-of-class preparation will become more sophisticated.  Use the study questions appended to this syllabus as a guide to preparation When you negotiate, do not show your confidential instructions to the other party.  Obviously, during the course of the negotiation, you may choose to reveal or discuss some or all of the contents of your confidential information.  That is up to you. 

Course Requirements

1. Classes.    Class participation is important in this course.  Students are expected to attend all classes fully prepared to analyze the assigned case and/or participate in a simulation or role play.  For the role plays and cases, use the assigned study questions as a guide. 

   When we do a case, students will be called on to start off case discussions and so quality preparation is important.  When we do negotiation role plays, they will typically commence early in the class session.  If you have not done the preparation or you are late, your partner will have to wait for you, and class will be delayed, a problem as our class time is short.  The negotiation sessions are highly interactive.  Debriefing them effectively requires that you think critically about your participation and be prepared to analyze your major learnings with the class.  Class participation counts for 30 % of your grade.  In judging class participation, I am looking for the following indicators of quality:
   

   • participation in the discussions, but participation that is relevant
   • participation that builds on other comments
   • participation that includes feelings, but goes beyond them to include evidence to support a position taken
   • participation that involves discussion and debate with others in the class
   • participation that contributes to the learning of others (including me)

   Given the importance of class participation, you should make every possible effort to attend class and to be on time.  If you miss more than 20% of the classes, your grade will be negatively affected. 

2. A-Team.    One of the challenges in the negotiation course is translating lessons from the class sessions to one's life.  I have found in the past that the Application Group (A-Team) provides a structure and process that can assist this translation process.  You are required to join an A-Team for the purposes of discussing the connections between what you learn in class and your current and past work situations.  You create your own A-Team.  It should be no more than 3-5 members to facilitate discussion.  The A-Team can meet virtually and/or face to face. 

   How does the A-Team work? It is pretty open ended.  Typically, an A-Team collectively reviews its experiences in class and reflects on the lessons learned.  The next task is to connect these reflections to your own past or current experiences and share these with each other as a group.  A good way to start in your first meeting is to discuss negotiation experiences that you have had.  The requirement, to write a 1-page description of a negotiation you have been involved in during the previous year (see below under written requirements), will provide you with case material to discuss in the first meeting.  Use that assignment to get acquainted but also to discuss individual learning goals for the course.  Given your experience (as described in the one page description), what do you especially want to work on in the course? The A-team can then serve as a sounding board for your individual and collective work on these issues. 

   Teams should plan to meet at least once a week, but at least 5 times during the term, to discuss how the topics covered in the class sessions apply to situations at work and/or other negotiations you are involved with.  I will try (but cannot guarantee) to provide time at the end of class.  Virtual meetings are fine—use the Chat Rooms in Web CT for your meetings.  You will want to focus on how your new insights might help you negotiate differently in business and personal situations. 

   The A-Team meetings should also be a place to discuss reflections on experiences in the class.  After each class, you will want to explore the implications of what we have studied for your emerging negotiation expertise and learning objectives.  There will several opportunities for you to receive feedback during the course which you might want to discuss in the A-Team. 

   The group might want to talk/chat about:

   • What each person learned about negotiation from the case or role play. 
   • What surprised you about yourself or others?
   • What would you do differently the next time around?
   • What are you finding out about your strengths and weaknesses as a negotiator and/or conflict resolver?

   In many cases, the A-team becomes a behind-the-scenes strategy group as people negotiate internships, jobs, and group projects. 

   Make sure that your A-Team meets at least 5 times during the course, again either face-to-face or virtually.  In addition, each A-Team needs to submit a 2-3 page single spaced paper on the last day of class that summarizes the learnings from each of the 5 meetings the team held.  Organize the paper by meeting; use about a half a page for each of the 5 meetings you had.  You can either write it out in text or use bullets or outline it.  This paper counts 15% of the grade for each A- Team Member.  When you submit the paper, make sure you indicate the members in your A- Team. 

3. Written Requirements
   1. One-page Description of a Work-Related Negotiation.  One way for me to get to know you is through your experiences in negotiation.  So I ask you to write a 1-page description of the most difficult negotiation you have been involved in during the previous year.  I prefer a work situation, but you can use a personal or community example.  Do not describe either buying a car or a house/apartment.  Make 2 copies of the paper.  Turn 1 copy into me and the other will be used as the basis for a beginning discussion with you're A-Team.  The paper is due the first day of class.  I use the description to learn more about you, but do not grade them. 

   2. Negotiating a Non-Negotiable Issue.  The purpose of this assignment is to conception of empower you as a negotiator by challenging your assumptions about when negotiation is possible.  Your assignment is to negotiate something that is generally "non negotiable. " It could be a product or service for which you would normally pay a pre-set market price.  It could be a benefit, rule, or policy at work that is rigidly enforced.  Write a one page, single spaced description and analysis of the negotiation.  In your paper, make sure you describe the non-negotiable issue you took on, how you did it and analyze why you think you were successful.  If you are not successful on your first attempt, try again.  If you are not successful on your second try, write a description and analysis of both negotiations, identifying what you would do differently.  Because the purpose of this assignment is to try out some of your newly acquired skills, do not report on a past negotiation.  You must try to negotiate a non-negotiable issue.  Your analysis should include an account of your approach and some possible explanations for the outcome, whether you succeeded or not.  In class, we'll discuss some possible ideas and the day they are due, we'll discuss a few of them in class.  This paper counts 15% of your final grade. 

   3. Final Paper.  The purpose of the final paper is to help you translate what you have learned in class to your past experiences and what you expect in the future.  This translation is a critical part of the course.  You have three choices for your final paper.  You can either do a negotiation analysis of your own experience, conduct an interview with an experienced negotiator who can describe a negotiation that you can learn from, or translate an empirical research paper into a more use-friendly format by using examples from your experiences.  The paper should be 10 pages, double spaced, and is due on the last day of class. 
      1. Negotiation Analysis Final Paper Option.  This paper is an evaluation and assessment of a negotiating experience.  You do not necessarily have to use the description that you developed for the first class.  Indeed, students often report that one of the benefits of the course is that they now see that they have been involved in many negotiations at work or in the community.  The purpose of this paper is to capitalize on this, to help you recognize the opportunities for negotiation in your work, review the strategies and choices you have in carrying out a negotiation, and evaluate your skills.  In writing the paper, you should consider the following questions:
         1. Describe an occasion in your previous or current job or outside of work, where negotiations occurred.  Provide some background --Who were the parties? What were their relationships? What issues were on the table?
         2. Analyze the relative bargaining positions of the parties.  Who was more dependent on the deal? Who had a better BATNA? Who was more in control? Who was in a more reactive or defensive position?
         3. Describe what happened in some detail.  What was your strategy? What did you do? What did others do? What were the outcomes?
         4. Consider your behavior in the shadow negotiations.  What did you do to advocate for yourself? Did you have trouble getting the person to negotiate with you? What did you do about it? What practices did you use to connect to the other person? How difficult or easy was it to do?
         5. Analyze your strengths in this negotiation.  Your weaknesses? Are there insights you have gained from this course that might have made a difference? In the process? In the outcome?
         6. Identify the one major lesson you will take away from this course that will help you negotiate more effectively in the future. 

      2. Negotiation Interview Paper Option.  Interview somebody you think is both a good negotiator and thoughtful about what s/he does.  The person should be somebody who negotiates as a significant part of his/her job.  These might include lawyers, sales people, recruiters, purchasing agents and investment bankers.  You'll want to focus on people who are really expert.  The purpose of this assignment is to learn what you can from an expert about how they negotiate, what they see as the secrets to their success, and then consider how you can use what you learn.  People often have difficulty articulating what makes them successful so you will have to probe based on what you have learned in the course about effective negotiation strategy and tactics.  The best approach is to get them to focus on a recent negotiation.  Some questions you might find useful are:
         1. Ask them to describe in some detail a recent negotiation.  Who were the parties? What were their relationships? What issues were on the table?
         2. Analyze the relative bargaining position of all parties.  Who was more dependent on the deal? Who had a better BATNA? Who could walk away from the deal? Was one party more in control? Was one party more in a defensive or reactive position?
         3. What was their strategy? What did they do? What did others do? What were the outcomes?
         4. Probe to learn about the shadow negotiation (they may not be familiar with the concept so you'll have to explain it – show them the book!
         5. .  How did they prepare themselves? Did they have trouble getting the other party to the table? What did they do about it? Did they find themselves put in a one-down position; how did they respond?
         6. What did they do to build relationships with the other party – how did they connect with them? How difficult or easy was it to do? How did these relationships affect the outcomes?
         7. Based on their experience, what single piece of advice would they give a woman who wanted to negotiate in their field?

         Make sure that in the last section of the paper you describe what you have learned from them that will be important in future negotiations. 

      3. Negotiation Research Translation.  The field of negotiation is one where theory and practice are intended to inform each other.  Howard Raiffa framed the problem as asymmetric description prescription.  What he meant was that research in the field describes something important that can then be turned into prescriptive advice—that is given to one party (hence the asymmetric part) so that they can be more effective negotiators.  One of the problems with the aim of description/prescription is that much of the research (description) is so technical (and appears in journals that only scholars read) that it is not easy to translate into prescriptions that everyday managers can use.  Indeed, one of the comments on the course has been that some of the readings are so technical that they are virtually unintelligible to the average MBA student.  One of my colleagues has observed in a similar manner that a book like Getting to YES (1990) is 250 or so on Amazon whereas a book like Barriers to Conflict Resolution (1995) which contains some significant research on topics like reactive devaluation, loss aversion, and overconfidence, among other topics is 666,000! What we can infer from this is that much of the interesting description from research does not get translated into prescriptions that everyday negotiators can use.  So here is a challenge as the third paper option – take a new piece of empirical research and write an explanation that makes its findings accessible, relevant, and usable to the average GSM student.  What that means generally is describing the concepts in everyday language and using common examples from your own experience to ground them in practice. 
         1. Select an article from the International Journal of Conflict Management (IJCM) (available on-line in ABI/INFORM) that describes an empirical research study undertaken in the past 5 years.  Many of the studies, but not all, will be laboratory experiments.  IJCM generally has articles written a scholarly audience.  What you want to select is an article that has an interesting concept that you think would be helpful to your classmates.  If you have a question about the article you want to write about, consult me either in class or via e-mail. . 

         2. Describe the key concepts and findings in accessible language.  Imagine you are writing it for a journal like Harvard Business Review, Business Week or Fortune.  You do not want to rehash the study, but rather discuss the implications for a negotiator. 
            • What are the key concepts or ideas?
            • Why are the concepts and findings important?
            • What are the implications for you as a negotiator, i. e. , what do you learn about effective practice from the study?
            • How would you recommend that negotiators make use of the study, i. e. , what's the prescription(s)?
            • What is the connection of this work to other concepts and issues in negotiation, that is, how does it extend, confirm, rebut what you have learned in the course?
            • Use examples from your own experience.  The more you can ground your discussion in specific examples, the easier it will be for the everyday negotiator to grasp the key ideas. 

      In grading your papers on any of these options, I will look for demonstrations that you understand the major concepts in the course and can use them in a practical way.  This final paper counts 40% of your grade. 

1. One page description of a negotiation situation that you are currently involved in, were involved in the past, or will be in the near future.  I will not grade this paper. 
       Length: 1 page single spaced
       Due: January 8
2. Negotiating a Non Negotiable Issue.  Describe your efforts to negotiate about something that is deemed non negotiable. 
       Length: 1 page single spaced
       Due: February 7
       % of Grade: 15%
3. Final Paper.  This can be either an analysis of a negotiation where you were one of the parties, an interview with an expert negotiator, or a translation of an empirical research study. 
       Length: 10 double spaced pages
       Due: March 12
       % of Grade: 40%
4. A-Team Papers.  This is a group paper and should summarize the learnings of the A-Team. 
       Length: 2 single spaced pages
       Due: March 12
       % of Grade: 15%

Grading Policy.  Papers are due on the dates indicated.  If you require an extension, you need my permission and your grade will drop by a full grade (i. e. , 'A' to 'B') for every day it is late.  Real emergency situations (health and deaths) will be dealt with on an individual basis.  In grading individual assignments, I use the following numerical scale that is then weighted for the final grade:

    7   Outstanding performance (A)
    6   Superior performance (A-)
    5   Very good performance (B+)
    4   Good performance (B)
    3   Minimally acceptable performance (B-)
    2   Marginal performance (C)
    1   Unacceptable performance (F)

The weights are then converted into the standard letter grades. 

Syllabus For Day Class

* Materials are in the Case Packet.  ** Materials will be handed out in class ***Materials are on the Web

1. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Negotiation
       Date: January 8
       Case: ** WIN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN
       Written Assignment: One Page Description of a Negotiation

2. Distributive Models of Negotiation
       Dates: January 10
       Case: **KINGSTON AND YOSHITO Optional Reading:
       ***The hidden traps in decision making; Harvard Business Review John S Hammond; Sep/Oct 1998

3. Distributive Negotiations in Complex Settings
       Dates: January 15
       Case: **FINAL OFFER
       Readings: Fisher, Ury, Patton, Getting to YES : Parts I and II * Robinson, Errors in Social Judgment, Part 2

4. Mutual Gains Models of Negotiation: Planning and Preparation
       Date: January 17
       Case: * POWERSCREEN PROBLEM **Roles for Star and Hacker
       Readings: Fisher, Ury, Patton, Getting to YES : Parts III and IV

5. Mutual Gains Negotiation: Inventing Options for Mutual Gain
       Date: January 22
       Case: *BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR DISCOUNT MARKETPLACE ** DISCOUNT MARKETPLACE (roles for Hawkins and Discount)
       Readings: *Wheeler, Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction
       Optional Reading: *** Even swaps: A rational method for making trade-offs Harvard Business Review; Boston; Mar/Apr 1998; John S Hammond; Ralph L Keeney; Howard Raiffa;

6. Mutual Gains Negotiations: Creating Value
       Date: January 24
       CASE: *JESSE JUMPSTART (A-1)
       Readings: *Wu, Sources of Joint Gain in Negotiation
       Optional Reading: ***Betting on the future: The virtues of contingent contracts; Harvard Business Review Max H Bazerman; Sep/Oct 1999

7. Mutual Gains Negotiations: Managing the Bargainers Dilemma
       Date: January 29
       Case: **WINEMASTER
       Readings: *Mnookin, "Why Negotiations Fail: An Exploration of Barriers to the Resolution of Conflict Optional Reading: *** Sebenius, Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators, Harvard Business Review, April, 2001

8. Gender and the Shadow Negotiation
       Date: January 31
       Case: *VANESSA ABRAMS (A)
       Readings: Kolb and Williams, The Shadow Negotiation : Introduction and Chapter 1
       Optional Reading: ***Putnam and Kolb: "Rethinking Negotiation: Feminist Views of Communication and Exchange" ***Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis; Personnel Psychology Alice F Stuhlmacher; Autumn 1999 ***Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Walters, Amy E; Oct 1998

9. Making a Place: Getting People to the Table and Staying There
       Date: February 5
       Case: **DISCOUNT MARKETPLACE TRANSCRIPT *CYNTHIA'S CHALLENGE *Instructions for Cynthia's Challenge
       Readings: Kolb and Williams, The Shadow Negotiation : Chapters 2 and 3

10. Connecting with Others: Creating a Process for Mutual Inquiry
        Date: February 7
        Case: *MARJORIE'S MANDATE *Instructions for Marjorie's Mandate
        Readings: Kolb and Williams, The Shadow Negotiation : Chapters 4-6
        Optional Reading: *** Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work Journal of Management Inquiry; Thousand Oaks; Jun 1998; Joyce K Fletcher;
        Negotiating a Non Negotiable Issue Paper is Due

11. Working the Shadow Negotiation Cross Culturally
        Date: February 12
        Case: *LUNA PEN
        Readings: (Choose One): ***Negotiating in the United States and Hong Kong; Journal of International Business Studies Catherine H Tinsley; Fourth Quarter 1998 ***Negotiating cross-border acquisitions; Sloan Management Review James K Sebenius; Winter 1998

12. Coalitions: Strategies for Building and Blocking
        Date: February 14
        Case: ** HARBORCO
        Readings: *Lax and Sebenius: "Thinking Coalitionally"

13. Coalitions: Negotiating Change
        Date: March 5
        Case: **\ NEGOTIATING CORPORATE CHANGE
        Reading: Kolb and Williams, The Shadow Negotiation : Chapter 9
        Optional Reading: ***Kolb and Williams, "Breakthrough Bargaining" Harvard Business Review, February, 2001 ***Turning negotiation into a corporate capability; Harvard Business Review Danny Ertel; May/June 1999)

14. Coalitions: Using a Multifaceted Strategy
        Date: March 7 (joint class with BGGE)
        Case: **CHARLENE BARSCHEFSKY (A&B)
        Reading: *Kolb, "Women's Work"

15. Negotiation Style and Strategy
        Date: March 12
        Case: *LISA SHURCLIFF (A)
        Reading: Kolb and Williams, The Shadow Negotiation : Chapter 8
        Optional Reading: "How to turn Yourself into a top-notch negotiator" ***http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2000

SUGGESTED STUDY QUESTIONS

Kingston & Yoshito

1. Will you make the first offer? After preliminary conversation, someone will likely have to put the first serious figure on the able.  Do you want to make the first offer?
2. Regardless of your preferences, if you have to put the first serious number on the table what amount would you offer?
3. What specific price would be a reasonably good outcome for you?
4. What is your walk–away price?
5. Given the information in the case, what is the absolute most you will pay or least you will accept for the headlights?

1. Prepare for you upcoming negotiations.  What elements of preparation did you emphasize? Do not prepare as an attorney but rather as a principal – either Hacker or Star. 
2. What's a good outcome—focus primarily on what to do about Powerscreen. 
3. Translate your preparation into a negotiating strategy? How will you achieve your outcomes?
4. How will you open the negotiation?

1. As you prepare for the negotiation, take special care to identify the issues which you think are likely to come up.  How are they related?
2. What are your interests? What's your BATNA?
3. What's a good outcome for you? How strategy will you use to achieve it?
4. How will you open the negotiations?

1. What is the Shark's BATNA? What is Jesse's BATNA?
2. Which of the packages is best for Jesse? Which for the Sharks?
3. What would get in the way of you getting the best deal possible if you were Jesse?

1. As you prepare for this negotiation, take special care to identify your priorities.  Which issues are more important than others for you?
2. What would be a good outcome and how will you achieve it?
3. What barriers do you want to pay attention to, and avoid, in this negotiation so you can get the best deal possible

1. At the conclusion of the non-compete negotiations, Vanessa Abrams said, "I ended up giving in. " Do you agree?
2. How did she get herself in this position? What other choices did she have? Why didn't she pursue them?
3. Have you had similar experiences? What were they and how did you handle them?
4. As Vanessa prepares to negotiate further with Jerry about a range of personal and business issues, based on your analysis of her previous experience, what advice would you give her?
5. What gender issues do you see in this case? How relevant are they to our understanding

1. Who is in a better bargaining position? Hawkins? Discount?
2. How does the Hawkins negotiator push her advantage? The Discount negotiator?
3. What most impresses you (positively/negatively about these negotiations?

1. How does Cynthia get in her own way?
2. What moves can Cynthia use to get George to the table?
3. What moves can she anticipate that he might make to put her on the defensive?
4. What turns should she have in mind to counter these challenges?

1. How would Marjorie describe what Dick is doing?
2. What are 5 good reasons, reasons that Dick would give to justify his role in the Sorsa negotiations?
3. As Marjorie, how would you open the conversation with Dick?

1. What cross cultural and gender issues should Erika Graeper pay attention to in devising her strategy?
2. What should she do (confine yourself to the five options identified in the case)

1. What are your objectives in this negotiation?
2. Who are the other stakeholders? What are their interests?
3. What possibilities are there for coalitions? What will you do?

1. In the 'A' case what are Charlene Barschefsky's major challenges in the IPR negotiations?
2. In the 'B' case, what does she do specifically to build a winning coalition on the U. S.  side?
3. What lessons do you take away from how she handled the negotiations with the Chinese?

1. What should Lisa do with her offer from Agora?
2. If she decides to use it at CommLINC to better her situation, how should she do it? Be specific – who should she talk to and when and how? 3.  Should she negotiate with Agora? About what?

SUGGESTED READING

Kenneth Arrow, Robert Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, Robert Wilson, Barriers to Conflict Resolution (Norton, 1995)

Max Bazerman, Smart Money Decisions , (John Wiley, 1999)

Sandra Bem, The Lenses of Gender, (Yale University Press, 1993)

Bush, Robert B. and Joseph Folger, The Promise of Mediation, (Jossey-Bass, 1994)

Cialdini, Robert, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, (Morrow, 1984)

Mary Crawford, Talking Difference, (Sage, 1995)

Anne Donnellon, Team Talk , (Harvard Business School Press, 1996)

Stephen Goldberg, Eric Green, Frank Sander, Dispute Resolution , (Little, Brown, 1985)

Guy Olivier Faure and Jeffrey Z.  Rubin, Culture and Negotiation , (Sage, 1993)

Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton, Getting to YES , (Penguin, 1991)

Roger Fisher and Danny Ertel, Getting Ready to Negotiate: The Getting to YES Workbook , (Penguin, 1995)

Joyce Fletcher, Disappearing Acts, (MIT Press, 1999)

Barbara Gray, Collaborating, (Jossey-Bass, 1989)

John Hammond, Ralph Keeney, Howard Raiffa, Smart Choices , (Harvard Business School Press, 1998)

Deborah M.  Kolb and Judith Williams, The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success , (Simon and Schuster, 2000)

Deborah M.  Kolb, Negotiation Eclectics: Essays in Memory of Jeffrey Z.  Rubin , (Program on Negotiation, 1999)

Deborah M.  Kolb, When Talk Works , (Jossey-Bass, 1994)

Deborah Kolb and Jean Bartunek, Hidden Conflict in Organizations , (Sage, 1992)

Phyllis Kritek, Negotiating at an Uneven Table, (Jossey-Bass, 1994)

David Lax and James Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator , (The Free Press, 1986)

Roy Lewicki, David Saunders, John Minton, Essentials of Negotiation, (Irwin, 1997)

Robert Mnookin and Lawrence Susskind (editors), Negotiating on Behalf of Others , (Sage, 1999)

Robert Mnookin, Scott Peppet and Andrew Tulumello, Beyond Winning: Creating Value in Deals and Disputes , (Harvard University Press, 2000)

Christopher Moore, The Mediation Process, (Jossey-Bass, 1996)

Margaret Neale and Max Bazerman, Negotiating Rationally , (The Free Press, 1992)

Robin L.  Pinkley and Gregory B.  Northcraft, Get Paid What You're Worth, (St.  Martin's Press, 2000)

Dean Pruitt, Negotiation Behavior, (Academic Press, 1981)

Howard Raiffa, ( The Art and Science of Negotiation ), (Harvard University Press, 1982)

Jeffrey Rubin, Dean Pruitt, Sung Hee Kim, Social Conflict , (McGraw-Hill, 1993)

Jeswald Salacuse, Making Global Deals , (Houghton-Miflin, 1991)

Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, (Harvard University Press, 1960)

G. Richard Shell, Bargaining for Advantage, (Viking Press, 1999)

Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen. Difficult Conversations (Viking, 1999)

Lawrence Susskind, The Consensus Building Handbook , (Sage, 1999)

Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruiksank, Breaking the Impasse , (Basic Books, 1987)

Deborah Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5, (Morrow, 1996)

Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, (Morrow, 1990)

Leigh Thompson, The Heart and Mind of the Negotiator, (Prentice-Hall, 2001)

William Ury, Getting Past No , (Bantam, 1991)

William Ury, Getting to Peace , (Viking, 1999)

Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? (MIT Press, 1997)

Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations , (McGraw-Hill, 1965)

Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue, (Simon and Schuster, 1999)

William Zartman and Maureen Berman, The Practical Negotiator, (Yale University Press, 1982)