POWER AND NEGOTIATION

Daniel L. Shapiro

Senior Lecturer, MIT

Evan Lee

Teaching Assistant

CONTENTS

I. Overview of the Course

• Symptoms of a problem
• Diagnosis
• Strategy

II. Organization of the Course

• Structure of the Course
• Course Requirements

III. Additional Details about Course Requirements

• Journal Submissions
• Work Application Teams
• Course Readings
• Course Ethics of Confidentiality

IV. Class Assignments and Reading List

1. Overview of the course
2. Negotiation roadmap
3. The power of preparation

4. Difficult tactics
5. Identity-based issues
6. Sensitive concerns
7. More on sensitive concerns
8. Perspective-taking
9. Structural power

10. Interpersonal relations
11. Multi-party relations
12. Dispute resolution systems design
13. Review of learnings & next steps

V. Bibliography of Course Readings

VI. Contact Information

I. OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

Symptoms of a problem

Managers negotiate often…
Managers negotiate in countless ways, whether building support for a new market plan, working out next year's budget, working with other departments on collaborative projects, coming to a decision with other managers as to the scope of each department's responsibilities, or dealing with issues of reported discrimination.

Negotiation is a way of life for many managers in part because their jobs often necessitate that they work with many types of people -- including peers, subordinates, superiors, and parties external to their organization. Managers must try to coordinate the operations of many different segments of their organization, and in order to do that, they often negotiate.

…but not always as well as they could.
Though managers negotiate often, their negotiations do not always go as well as they could. Parties commonly arrive at inferior agreements, unnecessary bickering arises to the detriment of relationships, needless deadlocks waste money and time, and countless other problems occur.

Diagnosis

What are some reasons that negotiations do not go as well as we would like – reasons about which we can do something?

1. We have limited awareness of negotiation methods. Many managers negotiate with little systematic strategy in mind. The basic method employed often is reminiscent of traditional haggling – where parties start with extreme offers, concede stubbornly, and try to demonstrate a greater willingness than the other party to walk from the table if things don't go their way.
2. We have few strategies to deal with negotiation obstacles. Even if negotiators are aware of effective negotiation methods, the negotiation process typically is not always smooth sailing. Several kinds of obstacles challenge the success of the negotiation process, and the unpracticed negotiator might lose his or her path in trying to deal with those obstacles. Obstacles are of at least four kinds: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and structural (e.g., power asymmetries, cultural differences, etc.).
3. We lack adequate understanding and strategies to deal effectively with the complexities of negotiation relationships. Negotiations often become problematic because parties do not know how to deal well with their relationship with others. Negotiations can falter or fail because of interpersonal problems, multi-party difficulties, ineffective third-party assistance, or poorly designed dispute resolution systems.

Strategy

The major goal of this course is that participants will improve upon the above diagnoses and develop strategies and tactics to overcome them. The course will take a structured look at negotiation, and participants will have opportunity to learn and practice skills to enhance their ability to negotiate. Specifically, the course will cover three major areas of negotiation to address the above diagnoses:

1. Basic negotiation methods. (Weeks 1 – 3) This segment of the course provides a background about integrative and distributive components of negotiation and exposes participants to the basics of interest-based negotiation.
2. Obstacles to negotiation. (Weeks 4 – 9) This segment covers several categories of negotiation obstacles, including behavioral challenges, emotional obstacles, cognitive biases, and structural challenges such as dealing with power asymmetries.
3. Co-managing relationships (Weeks 10-13) Relationships often are of central importance in negotiation and conflict management. This segment covers ways to understand and effectively deal with the multiplicity of relationships that might involve managers. In this segment, we will explore interpersonal relations, multi-party challenges, and dispute resolution systems design.

II. ORGANIZATION OF THE COURSE

Structure of the Course

It is my belief that negotiation cannot simply be taught through lecture: The student must experience, experiment, and reflect on different negotiation strategies, concepts, and tools. Thus, this course uses a variety of pedagogical methods to encourage learning of and practical experimentation with the ideas. Teaching methods will include lecture, video, group discussion, role play, case simulations, journal assignments, and out-of-class exercises designed to foster experimentation of learning points.

Course Requirements

Students will have the opportunity to demonstrate their command of the course material and concepts in several ways.

1. Journal (35% of grade). An essential part of your learning in this course is a journal that you will write. A complete description of journal purposes and expectations is provided on page 7 of this syllabus. The purposes of the journal are to give you a place:
   • To reflect upon and synthesize your learning to date,
   • To consider personal application of class ideas, and
   • To gather your thoughts and personal experiences for upcoming class
   topics.

   On many weeks, beginning with the second week of class, you are required to submit a written journal entry. Each entry should be double-spaced, at least 11 font, and approximately 1-2 full typed pages unless otherwise specified.

   During some of the weeks, journal topics are provided for you. Topics are described in this syllabus. In addition to addressing those topics, consider addressing one or more of the following: questions that you have about the material based on the readings and class discussion; areas of disagreement; and areas of application of the course ideas in situations you have experienced, witnessed, or read about.

2. Attendance and participation (30% of grade). This course is meant to be run as both a seminar and a training workshop. To work well, you must not only read the assigned literature, but also come to class fully prepared for a lively exchange of ideas and active participation in class exercises. Part of your grade will be based upon your class participation, including the quality and extent of your effort in the various exercises as well as the sophistication of your comments and analysis.

   Attendance at all classes is required. Full attendance is essential to achieving the goals of the course for you and others. Most exercises depend on every participant playing a specific role. During virtually every class session, you will be teamed with one or more participants for one or more exercises. Any absence is likely to cause substantial inconvenience and loss of opportunity to others. If you must be absent or late due to sickness or an emergency, it is important that you please leave a message with the TA and with the faculty member. Your absence from a particular session will affect your grade negatively if for reasons other than health or family emergency. If you have such an emergency, contact the instructor. Note that job interviews are not an acceptable reason for missing class.

3. Work Applications Team paper (15 %). A major purpose of this course is to promote the practical transfer of negotiation ideas to workplace situations. Over the course of the semester, you will be meeting several times with a small group of participants, and you will discuss the relevance of key learning points and personal insights as they relate to workplace conflicts and negotiation. At the end of the semester, your working group is required to hand in a summary of the discussions; that summary counts 15% toward your grade. See page 10 of this syllabus for a description of the working group.

4. Final paper (20%). A major requirement of the course is a final paper that examines a negotiation or conflict that you have personally experienced, witnessed, or about which you have read. Your paper should pay special attention to the process at work in the negotiation. The task is to identify an appropriate historical or current instance of negotiation and, using the material of the course, to analyze reasons that it was or was not settled constructively. If a "well- managed" negotiation is chosen, the paper might reasonably focus on reasons for success, on critical turning points, and on missed opportunities that may have led to a more successful outcome. If the paper's focus is a "poorly managed" negotiation, then you should consider the reasons for this failure, and possible missed opportunities. I highly recommend you choose a conflict or negotiation of personal or professional significance in your life.

   Grading will be based upon clarity of the writing, the level of integration of course ideas into the paper, clear organization, and creative thinking in the sense that you are not merely describing the negotiation, but are offering a cohesive, coherent explanation for what happened.

   As the semester progresses, the instructor will give you details about this paper. The final paper should be approximately 10 double-spaced, typed pages in length. I recommend you use the circle chart (discussed in class) to organize your paper.

   Quadrant
   1. Description of the situation
   2. Diagnoses about which something can be done
   3. Strategies to address diagnoses
   4. Illustrative tactics

III. DETAILS OF COURSE REQUIREMENTS

A. JOURNAL SUBMISSIONS

Background

An essential part of your learning in this course is a journal that you will write. On many weeks, beginning with the second week of class, you are required to submit a written journal entry. The journal will allow you to reflect and synthesize your learning from the class, the readings, your interactions with others, and your past real world negotiation experiences.

Due dates and length of journal entries are specified in this syllabus.

Purposes

The purposes of the journal are to give you a place:

1. To reflect upon and synthesize your learning to date,
2. To consider personal application of class ideas, and
3. To gather your thoughts and personal experiences for upcoming class topics.

Journal writing can be an excellent means of helping you to achieve a heightened level of awareness of yourself and others, and it can lead to deeper understanding of the negotiation process. Treat the journal as something you do for yourself. By the end of the semester, you will have a chronicle of your progress and a useful reference for the future.

I urge you not to hold back on thoughts and feelings that you would like to express in your journal. In fact, I urge you to identify ideas and feelings that you wish to understand better, discuss lessons of which you may want to remind yourself, ask questions and try to answer them or hold them open for future exploration. In short, I encourage you to dig deep in terms of your reflections about your experiences. Focus on analytical issues, psychological issues, process issues, and skill-centered issues.

What should you write about?

While there is no single correct way to keep a journal, here are some helpful guidelines:

1. Don't simply report the day's events. A brief description is appropriate to illustrate the experiences that have intrigued, interested, surprised, or troubled you. Write just enough so that the reader will understand the context and so that you will remember it if you are reading your journal after some time has passed.

2. Focus on reflections and analysis of your experiences. Your main focus should be on why you experienced what you experienced. Reflect on the difficulties and successes you have experienced during class negotiations or during interactions outside of class. Feel free to discuss real-world experiences that you have had prior to the course, during it, or that you are preparing for in the future.

   Consider tactical questions about which you are unsure, or feelings of pride or disappointment that you experienced. What prompted those experiences? I strongly encourage you to experiment with course ideas in your own life. Use the journal as a place to reflect upon those experiences, including what worked well and what you might do differently in the future.

3. Tie journal entries to readings whenever possible. It can enhance your own learning if you are able to tie your own experiences not only to class or personal experience, but also to the readings as well. You might also write about one or more questions you have on the readings or class discussion or areas of disagreement.

4. Note that themes are provided during several weeks. Journal topics are sometimes open- ended, and during those weeks, you can write and reflect on any issues that are salient to your growth as a negotiator. However, you'll note that on the syllabus, during several weeks a journal topic is given to you (see the "Class Assignments" section of this syllabus). Please reflect on the given journal topics during those weeks. You should also feel free to write about your experiences in class, outside of class, and in reaction to the readings.

Make sure to hand in the journal as follows:

1. Make two copies of the journal entry – one for the instructor, and one for the TA.
2. Put a cover sheet on each of the copies and remember to include your NAME and the DATE the journal is due.
3. If you only want the instructor to read your journal for that week, write on the cover sheet, "For the instructor to read only." Nevertheless, still hand in a cover sheet to the TA stating, "Confidential journal submitted to instructor." This is important to do to ensure that your administrative records are kept in order – i.e., to make sure you get credit for handing in your journal entry for that week.

Note on confidentiality

All entries will be kept confidential and will be read only by Dr. Shapiro and his teaching assistant. During class, the faculty member may bring up general themes or illustrations written in journals, but a good faith effort will be made to disguise journal authors.

Evaluation of and feedback on journal entries. Both the instructor and the TA will review your journals from week-to-week. The TA will provide written feedback from week-to-week, and the instructor will read and occasionally comment on your journal submissions as well. Our purpose is not to judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of your reflections or your competence as a negotiator. Instead, given that a major purpose of the course is to improve your awareness as a negotiator, we provide feedback to gauge whether your journals are sufficiently descriptive, reflective, analytic, and prescriptive. In other words, are you digging deep enough? We may also raise questions for you to reflect upon and offer you coaching advice that may help you to improve future journals or deal with challenges in the course.

Journal due dates

Journals are due weekly by the end of class (at 8:30 pm) and should be handed to the TA. Although you will not get credit for a late journal, we will read them and perhaps give you feedback. Note: The instructor will not accept journals transmitted by e-mail. If you are unable to make class, please contact the TA and submit the journal earlier in the week.

You will have ONE extension for ONE journal entry. This gives you ONE extra week to work on that journal entry. (Of course, you still will be responsible for other journal entries as well.) You cannot take an extension on the "Negotiating a Nonnegotiables" journal, because we will be using your experiences as the basis for class discussion.

B. WORK APPLICATION GROUPS ("WORK APPS")

Overview

One reason that many people choose to take a negotiation course is to learn tools, techniques, and ideas that can be applied in work settings. To facilitate that process, you are required to join a "Work Application Team." (I call them "Work Apps" for short.) During this group, you will have the opportunity to reflect, discuss, and get in-depth feedback on a difficult negotiation case that you have been a part of. You will also have opportunity to provide others in your Work App with analysis, guidance, and other feedback.

Specific Purposes

1. To give you the opportunity to reflect, discuss, and get in-depth feedback on a difficult negotiation that you have been a part of,
2. To develop skill in analyzing difficult negotiations of yours or others, and
3. To apply class concepts to real-life work situations.

Mechanics of Work Apps

General mechanics

1. You will be assigned to a Work Application Team during the second week of class.
2. There will be three people per group.
3. You will be expected to meet at least four times over the course of the semester.
4. Each meeting should last between 45 minutes to 1 hour.
5. Meetings will typically take place outside of class.
6. Schedule meetings early-on, as people's schedules get filled up quickly.

At your first meeting, here are some of the things that you should cover:

1. Team members should each share their background of work experiences, as well as general negotiation experiences that they have had. Note: Everyone has had negotiation experience. Legally, the simplest conversation can constitute an oral contract, as long as you discussed the terms (i.e., duration) and price of a service or product. And practically, any purposive interaction can be considered a negotiation, which means that you have negotiated since the day you were born and cried for food.
2. Members should schedule three future meetings, assuming there are three people in the group. Decide which one member will present a real-life negotiation experience at each of the sessions.

The case presenter needs to PREP for the upcoming Work Apps meeting:

1. The team member scheduled to present a negotiation case in the upcoming meeting should prepare to present background information on a difficult negotiation that he or she experienced preferably within the past year. Given the broad definition of negotiation used in our class, be sure to choose a negotiation situation that holds particular pertinence to you, your future, etc. Don't just talk about a negotiation over a car or house. Choose a personally relevant example from which you can learn something about how to deal with others in the future -- such as a workplace negotiation, a challenging negotiation in a work group, etc.
   1. As prep, identify the parties involved (including constituents and others not directly at the negotiation table), the interests of the various parties, and any additional, relevant background information such as difficulties, challenges, and questions that you faced in the situation.
   2. Be sure to have questions that you'd like to ask the rest of your team, including advice about how you might have handled the situation differently or their insights into analysis of the case. These questions should be carefully articulated in advance of your meeting, as they serve as a bedrock of the meeting agenda and learning.

During each Work App meeting, here are some potential ideas to help structure the meeting:

1. Have the case presenter spend approx ten minutes describing his or her negotiation experience. Other group members can ask clarifying questions if helpful, but be sure that this part of the discussion is focused on DESCRIBING the situation, not analyzing it.
2. The case presenter then poses questions to the group. The purpose of the questions is to elicit conversation about real struggles that you faced during the negotiation. The group might brainstorm possible ways of analyzing the situation, as well as possible advice in the case that that type of negotiation should arise again. Apply course concepts where possible.
3. Spend the next 40 or so minutes ANALYZING the case and considering ADVICE.
   1. What did the negotiator do that worked well?
   2. What might he or she have done differently?

TA Availability

The TA is available to attend one Work App meeting of each group. If you are interested in having the TA attend, schedule that with him.

Work Apps Paper Requirement

Each Work Application Team needs to submit a 3-4 page, double-spaced paper. The paper is due on May 8 (the 2nd to last class). This paper should summarize the learnings from each of the substantive meetings the team held. Organize the paper by meeting; use about a page for each of the meetings you held. You can write out your summary, use bullets, or outline it. This paper counts 15% of your grade for each member of your Work Applications Team. When you submit the paper, be sure to indicate the members in your team.

C. COURSE READINGS

1. Course Reader comprised of a selection of book chapters and journal articles
2. Getting to YES (2nd ed) by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton

D. COURSE GUIDELINES ON CONFIDENTIALITY

Privacy

A sense of openness and trust among participants will increase our ability to share with and learn from one another. We want the class to be a safe place to try out new styles of negotiating and new ways of thinking. Therefore, we ask that you exercise higher than normal discretion in talking about the experiences, behavior, or comments of others. This is particularly important when you are speaking to those outside of our course. We will do the same.

Integrity of the negotiation simulations

In many of the exercises this semester, you will be given confidential instructions. Please do not share these instructions with participants who have different roles in the exercise. We will often provide opportunity after the completion of an exercise to share these instructions with those on the other side and to reflect on the experience together.

Additionally, please refrain from talking about the details or structure of the negotiation exercises with people outside of the course. To invent and refine a case is a laborious task, sometimes taking several years. If either the structure of a case (i.e., its basic challenge) or the substantive facts of one or both sides become widely known, the case would be of little use to future participants.

Thank you for your cooperation. I look forward to a fun and productive semester of learning with you.

IV. CLASS ASSIGNMENTS

Part I. BASIC NEGOTIATION METHODS

1. February 6: Overview of the Course

2. February 13: Negotiation is Complex

3. February 20: Interest-Based Negotiation

Part II. NEGOTIATION OBSTACLES

4. February 27: Behavioral obstacles (i.e., difficult tactics)

5. March 6: Emotional obstacles (Difficult Conversations)

6. March 13: Emotional obstacles (4 sensitive concerns)

NO CLASS MARCH 20 or 27 (Spring Break: Time to kick back, relax, and practice your negotiation skills!)

7. April 3: Emotional obstacles (sensitive concerns part II)

8. April 10: Cognitive obstacles (negotiator biases)

9. April 17: Structural obstacles (e.g., power asymmetries)

Part III. CO-MANAGING THE NEGOTIATION RELATIONSHIP

10. April 24: Interpersonal relations

11. May 1: Multi-party relations

12. May 8: Dispute resolution systems design

13. May 15: Review

• Allcorn, Seth. (1994). "Autonomy as an anger intervention strategy." In Anger in the Workplace: Understanding the causes of aggression and violence (pp. 145-158). Quorum Books: Westport, CT.
• Allcorn, Seth. (1994). "Belonging as an anger intervention strategy." In Anger in the Workplace: Understanding the causes of aggression and violence (pp. 121-144). Quorum Books: Westport, CT.
• Allison, J.R. "Five ways to keep disputes out of court." In Harvard Business Review. January-February 1990. (p. 166-173). Harvard Business School Publishing: Kentucky.
• Averill, J., & Nunley, E.P. (1992). "Autonomy." In J.R. Averill & E.P. Nunley, Voyages of the heart: Living an emotionally creative life (pp. 241-256). New York: Free Press.
• Ball, S.B., and Eckel, C.C. (1996). "Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation." In the journal: Psychology & Marketing, vol 13(4): 381-405.
• Bazerman, M. "Negotiator Judgment: A critical look at the rationality assumption." Pp. 211-228. In Nov/Dec 1983 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, Sage Publications.
• Bazerman, M., and Gillespie. (Sept-October 1999). "Betting on the future: The virtues of contingent contracts." In Harvard Business Review. (p. 155-160). Harvard Business School Publishing: Kentucky.
• Bazerman, M., and Neale, M.A. (1992). Negotiating Rationally. The Free Press: New York. Chapter 5: p. 31-41, Chapter 11: 89-104, Chapter 14: 126-139
• Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. "Overcoming group warfare." In Harvard Business Review. November-December 1984. (p. 98-108). Harvard Business School Publishing: Kentucky.
• Bolton, R. (1979). People Skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. Simon and Schuster: New York. Chapter 4: p. 49-61
• Boulding, K. (1989). Three Faces of Power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (pp. 15-33).
• Coleman, P. (2000). "Power and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, ed by M. Deutsch and P. Coleman. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. (p. 108-130).
• Davis, A. (July 1989). "An interview with Mary Parker Follett." In Negotiation Journal, vol 5, no 3, pp. 223-235. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Ertel, D. "Turning negotiation into corporate capabilitiy." In Harvard Business Review. May-June 1999. (p. 55-64). Harvard Business School Publishing: Kentucky.
• Fisher, R. (Jan 1985). "Beyond YES," vol 1, no 1, pp. 67-70, in Negotiation Journal. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Fisher, R. (Jan. 1989). "Negotiating inside out: What are the best ways to relate internal negotiations with external ones?" In Negotiation Journal, vol 5, no 1, pp. 33-41. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Friedman, R.A., & Shapiro, D.L. (1995). "Deception and mutual gains bargaining: Are they mutually exclusive?" In Negotiation Journal, July 1995, pp. 243-53. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Goldberg, S., Sander, F.E.A., & Rogers, N. (1992). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, and other processes. Aspen Publishers, Inc: New York. Chapter 10: pp 405-420.
• Josselson, R. (1995) "The discourse of relatedness." In R. Josselson, The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Josselson, R. (1995) "Mutuality and resonance." In R. Josselson, The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships (pp. 148-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kolb, D., & Williams, J. (2000). The shadow negotiation. Simon & Schuster: New York. pp. 15-38.
• Krauss, R.M., & Morsella, E. (2000). "Communication and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, ed by M. Deutsch and P. Coleman. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
• Lax, D.A., & Sebenius, J.K. (Jan. 1986). "Interests: The Measure of Negotiation." In Negotiation Journal, vol 2, no 1, pp. 73-92. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Lewicki, R.J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). "Trust, trust development, and trust repair." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, ed by M. Deutsch and P. Coleman. Jossey Bass: San Francisco. (pp. 86-107).
• McCarthy, W. (Jan 1985). "The role of power and principle in Getting to YES." In Negotiation Journal, vol 1, no 1, pp. 59-66. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• McKersie, R.B. (July 1989). "The Eastern Air Lines Saga: Grounded by a Contest of Wills." In Negotiation Journal, vol 5, no 3, pp. 213-218. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Mnookin, R.H., and Ross, L. (1999). "Introduction." In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, edited by Kenneth Arrow, R.H. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, and R. Wilson. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School: Cambridge, MA. Chapter 1: Introduction (pp 2-24)
• Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R., & Tulumello, A.S. (2000). Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Moore, C.W. (1996). The mediation process – 2nd edition. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Chapter 2: 41-77
• Pruitt, D.G., & Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, MK: Open University Press. Chapter 2: 14-27
• Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pages 33-44 and p. 126-130 Chapter 7
• Rogers, C.R., & Roethlisberger, F.J. (1979). "Barriers and Gateways to Communication." In the book Harvard Business Review - On Human Relations. Harper & Row: New York. (pp. 243-266).
• Rubin, J.Z., & Sander, F.E.A. (Oct 1988). "When should we use agents? Direct vs. representative negotiation." In Negotiation Journal, vol 4, no 4, pp. 395-401. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Salacuse, J.W. (1999). "How should the lamb negotiate with the lion? Power in international negotiations." In Negotiation Eclectics. Edited by Deborah Kolb. Published by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School: Cambridge, MA. (pp. 87-99).
• Salacuse, J.W. (Jan 1988). "Making deals in strange places: A Beginner's guide to international business negotiations." In Negotiation Journal, vol 4, no 1, pp. 249-265. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Sebenius, J. Young, H.P. (1996). "Sequencing to build coalitions: With whom should I talk first?" In Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations, edited by Zeckhauser et al. pp. 324-348. (HBS 1996).
• Stone, D., Patton, B., and Heen, S. (1999). Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Viking Press: New York. Chapter 1: pp.3-20.
• Tannen, D. (1986). Chapter 5 from That's not what I meant! William Morrow and Company.
• Touval, S. (April 1989). "Multilateral negotiation: An analytic approach," In Negotiation Journal, vol 5, no 2, pp. 159-173. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp: New York.
• Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1999). "Designing an Effective Dispute Resolution System." In Negotiation Theory and Practice, edited by J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School: Cambridge, MA.
• Walton, R.E., & McKersie, R.B. (1991). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.Chapter 1: pp. 1-10
• Wetlaufer, S. "The team that wasn't." In Harvard Business Review. November-December 1994. Reprint 94612. Harvard Business School Publishing: Kentucky. (pp.22-32)
• Wilmot, W.W., & Hocker, J.L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict – 5th ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA. Chapter 5: pp. 110-153.
• Wokutch, R.E., & Carson, T.L. (May, 1981). "The ethics and profitability of bluffing in business." Westminster Institute Review, pp. 77-83. In Lewicki, Saunders, and
• Wriggins, W. Howard. (1987). "Up for Auction: Malta bargains with Great Britain, 1971." In The Fifty Percent Solution. Edited by William Zartman. New Haven: Yale University Press. (pp. 208-234.)
• Young, H.P. (1996). "Dividing the Indivisible." In Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations, edited by Zeckhauser et al. pp. 370-387. (HBS 1996).

VI. CONTACT INFORMATION