Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-1
STRUCTURING THE
NEGOTIATION COURSE
In talking with many instructors about the ways that they design and teach
courses in negotiation, we know that there are as many different course designs as there
are instructors! As a result, we only offer here some general guidelines to instructors
about the factors that should be taken into consideration in designing and structuring a
course. Many of these guidelines and suggestions were identified in the previous
Negotiation Journal article; we will briefly review them here.
1. Class Size. Instructors differ on their ability to manage various groups in experiential
learning activities. Good experiential learning requires a classroom of moderate size —
i.e. big enough to conduct multiple role-plays that will produce different results, small
enough to orchestrate the experience in a limited time. We recommend a minimum
class size of 16, and a maximum class size of 36-40. However, some of us have taught
these activities to groups of 60 or more. In larger classes, tight orchestration of activities
is a must in order to not waste time distributing materials, etc.
2. Facilities. Role-playing with multiple teams negotiating simultaneously requires that
each team have a room or place to meet, and that additional space is available for one
or both teams to caucus (lounges, hallways, cafeteria, etc.). Thus, it is most desirable to
have several breakout rooms available near the classroom for negotiation and
caucusing. It will be almost impossible to conduct this class in a fixed seat auditorium
with no options for breakout space. Some instructors prefer to teach this course at night
when they can have access to lots of empty classrooms that are full during the daytime.
Others assign role-plays to be done outside of class. If in any doubt, move the class to a
place where extra rooms or flexible seating are available.
3. Class Hours. It is very difficult to teach this class in a number of short class periods.
50-60 minute classes do not allow students to prepare for and carry out an exercise;
spanning the exercises over two days frequently takes the “life” out of them. We
recommend that you schedule this class for AT LEAST 75 minutes. Longer class times
are generally preferred (90 – 100 minutes), and some instructors even prefer one 3-4
hour class period once a week. While the fatigue factor is high, the longer class allows
for maximum flexibility in carrying out role-plays, discussing them, and integrating them
with conceptual material.
4. Sequencing of Content. This is a matter of choice among instructors. The issue
boils down to one question: is it more advantageous for students to read theory and hear
lectures about a topic (e.g. integrative bargaining) before experiencing it in a role-play, or
is it better to do the role-play first? Instructors differ on this question, and we suggest
that you experiment with both formats.
5. Assignment Evaluation and Grading. Instructors have used a variety of different
learning vehicles in courses on negotiation. We make the following suggestions:
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-2
• Examinations. We recommend essay or case-analysis examinations. Essay exams
may be used to test understanding and application of concepts presented in the text
and in class. Case-analysis examinations should assess the negotiation and
conflict dynamics of a selected case, and perhaps application of theories and
approaches. Several of the cases in the Readings volume make excellent exam
cases. However, the Lewicki et al. books do provide short answer test banks for
the textbook and Essentials book.
• Quizzes. In spite of the first statement about examinations, some of us do use
short answer quizzes to assure that students do the readings. There is no test
bank for the Readings volume, but a test bank has been developed for the
accompanying Negotiation text and Essentials volume.
• Term papers. We have frequently given students a number of options for a
term paper assignment:
> Researching and analyzing a negotiation as reported in the media —
e.g. a labor-management dispute, merger or acquisition talks,
international negotiations, major business deals, etc. There are an
unlimited number of topics to be taken from history, politics, labor
relations, business and international affairs.
> Researching and analyzing a negotiator — e.g. a diplomat, a labor
leader, head of state, or someone the student can get information on.
Actual interviews with car dealers, real estate salespeople, insurance
adjusters, purchasing agents, etc. often provide interesting experiences.
> Preparing a paper that summarizes a stream of research in one of the
many areas of negotiation — e.g. the effectiveness of threats, face saving,
strategies of deterrence, effectiveness of third parties, etc. Topics can be
generated from the research-oriented textbooks and journals.
> Writing a “personal case,” based on a student’s own negotiating
experience. Students should write a case that describes their experience,
and then analyze that case. Because students are frequently still “myopic”
about their own effectiveness or ineffectiveness as negotiators, we
frequently encourage students not to select this option unless they can
get someone’s view other than their own about the events and how they
transpired.
> Actually negotiating for something of personal value, and then writing a
paper on it. Instead of describing a past experience, students can also be
asked to plan and execute an actual negotiation during the span of the
course, and then write a paper on it. The paper can entail the actual
planning for the negotiation, the execution of the negotiation, report of
results, post-hoc interviews and analysis, integrating theory, models, etc.
Students have done some wonderful projects: negotiating a grade change
with a faculty member, resolving a conflict with a roommate, parent,
spouse or friend, negotiating a new job assignment, salary or working
conditions with an employer, buying automobiles, furniture and sporting
goods, etc.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-3
> Writing a role-play. Finally, students may combine personal negotiating experience
with historical research to write a role-play scenario rather than a case or
description. These role-plays can be tried in the classroom and used in
future classes.
• Personal Application Papers or Diary. These assignments encourage
students to reflect upon a simulation or role-play, and to abstract the key learning
points out of that event. We generally either require students to keep a weekly
journal that is periodically collected and reviewed, or assign 4 to
5 application papers in a term. Here is a sample from one of our course outlines:
“The purpose of the paper is to encourage a reflection and analysis process
on the ‘learning by experience’ simulations; the paper also gives the instructor a
sense of your individual progress, and your strengths and weaknesses as a
negotiator. Your task in this paper is to describe your reactions, perceptions,
impressions or significant insights gained from participation in or reflection on the
simulation. You may talk about yourself, or the behavior of other people, and may
want to address some or all of the following points:
1. Briefly, what happened in the simulation, role-play (or ‘real-life negotiation’) —
that is, provide a brief overview of the key events.
2. What did you learn about yourself from this experience?
2. What did you learn about the behavior of others from this experience?
4. How does this experience compare to others that you have had in similar or
comparable circumstances?
5. What did you learn about bargaining or conflict from this situation?
6. How do the concepts in lectures or readings enrich your understanding of the
process of negotiation, its outcome or your own negotiation style?
7. What would you do the same or do differently in the future, or how would you
like to behave in order to perform more effectively?
Each paper will be read, commented on, graded, and returned to you.
The purpose of the grades is to encourage thoughtful analysis and understanding
of the simulations, and to encourage use of theory and research presented in
readings, and lectures. A good short paper is one which tries to step back from a
simulated bargaining situation, identifies key events and processes, uses
readings or lecture material to help structure the analysis, and is well written. All
of these guidelines are just that — guidelines. Outstanding papers have
frequently been written in the past that do not closely conform to this format.”
• Summary Personal Negotiation Assessment Paper (End of Course)
Whether the short papers are used or not, students may also be asked to write a
summary self-evaluation paper at the end of the course. These papers are
usually 8-10 pages in length. We ask students to comprehensively address their
negotiating style and effectiveness (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
threats, future learning agenda, etc.), integrating readings and activities that have
occurred during the academic semester. Students might address some or all of
the following points:
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-4
1. Do I enjoy bargaining? Do I enjoy being in situations of conflict, and/or do I enjoy
attempting to persuade others to my point of view? Why?
2. Do others see me as a good bargainer? Am I seen as strong or weak? Am I
perceived as one who gives in easily, or holds out too long, or knows when to
make concessions and tradeoffs?
3. How do I see myself in relation to the question in (2) above?
4. How effective am I at persuading others? How effective are my verbal skills to
argue my points?
5. At what time do I feel most competent in bargaining? Least competent?
6. How do I respond when I hold the power in a situation? How do I respond
when I have little or no power in a situation?
7. Overall, what are my major strengths and weaknesses as a negotiator, and
what kind of learning goals must I set for myself for the future?
We have had good experience with personal learning papers and journals, and
summary papers on personal learning and development. Many students like
them — but some don’t, and it shows in the amount of time and effort they give to
the activity. Two cautionary notes about using diaries, journals and learning
summaries:
• They are time consuming to read. Evaluation for each student takes
significantly longer than grading an exam. In addition, individual feedback to
students — written or verbal — is also very time consuming.
• Grading and evaluation of journals, by necessity, is a reasonably subjective
process. As a result, while the instructor will be able to discriminate differences
in the conscientiousness paid by the student to the journal-writing task, the
detailed nature of entries, and level of student insight and personal learning that
may be occurring, it may be very difficult to explain and justify such differences
(and the related grade) to students. If you, and/or your students, have a strong
need for objectivity in grading, using journals can create a problem.
• Graded negotiation. Lastly, we have often graded students on the outcomes
of several negotiations. One clear consequence of this practice is that it raises
the competitiveness of the simulations considerably; but it also forces students to
evaluate their positions carefully and take the process seriously. An example of
one format for using graded negotiations is as follows:
Graded Negotiations. Three role-plays will be conducted outside of class. By
virtue of a point scheme assigned to particular variations in settlements,
negotiators will be evaluated on the settlements they achieve. The procedure will
basically operate as follows:
1. Roles will be assigned and the negotiations explained at the end of a particular
class period. Students will be assigned to one or two person teams, and
opponents specified.
2. Students will have an entire week to arrange a negotiation with their opponent
and arrive at a settlement.
3. Results of negotiation are due in writing to the instructor by a specified
deadline. Failure to meet the deadline will result in a penalty.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-5
4. Teams will be assigned grade points based on the quality of their solution as
compared to all other teams playing that same position.
5. All members of a team will be assigned the same grade points for the exercise
unless appealed to the instructor. Appeals must be specified in writing no later
than 24 hours after the negotiation results are submitted.
There will be three role-plays, and they are weighted in their contribution
to the final grade. Role-plays 1 and 2 will be worth x% apiece, and Role-play #3
will be worth y%.”
If an instructor is going to use graded negotiations, we suggest the
following rules of thumb:
• Graded negotiations should comprise no more than 1/3 of the total course
grade.
• There should be several graded negotiations.
• Agreements arrived at by the students should be submitted to you in their
handwriting and signed by both sides, so that there is no disagreement as to
what was agreed to.
• In purely distributive negotiations, students receiving the best package on each
side should be given the best grades. Thus, in a buyer/seller negotiation, the
best buyer outcome and the best seller outcome get the top grade, and others
are graded relative to the top in each group.
• In simulations that emphasize integrative negotiations, students should be
graded based on the best cooperative, innovative joint agreement that is derived.
Student judges may be used as an aid to determine what the “best” solutions are.
STUDENTS SHOULD BE TOLD WHETHER THEY WILL HAVE A
NEGOTIATION GRADED BY DISTRIBUTIVE OR INTEGRATIVE CRITERIA.
• Unless you set up explicit criteria to do so, students should not be judged on
their behavior in the negotiations, but on the results they achieve. If you think
you are able to judge “better” or “worse” negotiator performance, we would be
pleased to learn of the scheme you develop or use to do this.
• In evaluating negotiation outcomes and assigning grades — particularly
integrative negotiations — we have frequently been challenged by students as to
the validity of our evaluation criteria. Be prepared to defend the criteria you use if
you employ this method. We have also found it helpful to delegate a small group
of students to be an “appeals panel” for hearing grade grievances on graded
negotiations, and/or to develop the criteria for evaluating the results of each
scenario. Thus, for example, a small group of students could be asked not to do
the role-play, but instead to develop the criteria by which others’ solutions will be
judged.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-6
• We have experimented with combining the graded negotiation and an analysis paper
on the negotiation. Thus, part of the grade is assigned based on the actual outcome
achieved in the graded role-play, while another part of the grade is based on the
quality of an analysis paper on the event. This combines two types of
assignments into one, and creates the opportunity for students with good
negotiating skills but poor writing/analysis skills (and vice versa) to perform well.
In summary, grading negotiations can be a creative alternative to reading
papers and correcting exams. However, the more competitive the classroom
environment, the more the instructor may become enmeshed in numerous
“grading hassles” with students about criteria used, how good their solutions
were, etc. Be prepared for this as a logical offshoot of any efforts to grade
students on their performance. Take appeals only in writing, and consider them
when you are not under direct pressure from a student’s own persuasive
negotiating ability.
Peer Assessment/Reputation Index. There are at least two variations here.
First negotiators might be encouraged to give each other feedback at the end of
specific role play/simulation exercises. For example, instructors might create a
form which each student fills out after a role play, indicating:
• 1-2 strengths demonstrated by the other negotiator in the exercise
• 1-2 weaknesses demonstrated by the other negotiator in the exercise
• how much you want to work with the other in the future.
These forms may be distributed to the other (and used to prepare a summary
self-assessment learning paper), or may be shared ‘on the spot’ with the others
in an after-class debriefing.
In contrast, students may judge each other’s negotiation reputation at the end of
the class. Roy Lewicki has been using a peer assessment tool for many years,
called the ‘Reputation Index’. The index was created by Prof. William Kahn at
Boston University, and has been used and adapted with his permission.
The purpose of the Reputation Index (RI) was to create a brief peer
assessment tool that would curtail highly competitive behavior in the class. In
those earlier class sections, students believed that they had to behave ruthlessly
to get a satisfactory grade, and/or believe that highly competitive role-playing
behavior has no negative consequences. As a result, an end-of-course peer
assessment was introduced. Students have the opportunity to rate every other
student in their section, awarding them “votes” for good or bad negotiation
reputations in the section (see RI briefing form following this section).
Students were required to complete the Index, even if they chose to give
no other student a mark. They were also required to make comments for every
negative vote they gave. The instructor then enters all of this information into a
spreadsheet, so that students who received negative comments could obtain that
feedback ‘blind’ from the instructor. RI evaluations can be turned into numerical
grades as follows:
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-7
1. Prepare a master list of names on an Excel spreadsheet.
2. Review each student’s questionnaire. On the spreadsheet, enter:
a. + 2 points if a student got a “Good” evaluation by someone who had
direct experience with him.
b. + 1 point if a student got a “Good” evaluation by someone who did not
have direct experience with him.
c. – 2 points if a student got a “Bad” evaluation by someone who had
direct experience with him.
d. –1 point if a student got a “Bad” evaluation by someone who did not
have direct experience with him.
e. Enter all comments, made by students. (I require students to make
comments if they give negative evaluations, so you have something to tell
those students that get negative scores.
3. When you have entered all the points received by every student, create an
absolute total score for each student (combination of the + scores and – scores.
Then scale these absolute scores against the number of points you want to give
for the Index in your grading allocation (I weight this activity 10%, or 20 points, in
the course). My distribution of ‘points’ usually runs from 20 points for the most
positive reputation to 8-10 points for the most negative reputation.
4. All “C” votes and comments carry over into extra credit in the Class
Participation grade
Feeding Back the Reputation Index. I provide students with their + scores, –
scores, absolute score, point for the RI in the grading scheme, and all the
comments that have been made about that individual (these can be easily cut
and pasted from the spreadsheet to a blank page or to an email.)
Evaluating the Impact of the Reputation Index on Student Conduct. The RI
has generally been successful in curtailing frivolous competitive behavior.
However, some students have complained that it is too powerful—i.e. that they
too more concerned about their reputation with peers, at the expense of allowing
them to ‘experiment’ with competitive behavior in the class. Indeed, this is
tradeoff, and instructors should consider the positive and negative consequences
for themselves. In several presentations about the RI at teaching conferences
and seminars, Lewicki has outlined the pros and cons as follows:
+Tempers careless, thoughtless and clearly unethical behavior (over-
weights the negative costs, even though the index is only worth 10% of a
course grade).
+Creates a reasonably simple procedure for incorporating peer
assessment into the grading process.
-Tempers student risk-taking across the board (creates normative
pressure toward mediocrity, being invisible)
–“Bad” behavior incidents (and individuals) become lightning rods for lots
of generalized negative affect, commentary from peers.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-8
–May play into the “clique” network of the MBA program (peers evaluate friends
positively, non-friends negatively).
Alternatives
1. Abandon the index
2. Continue the index, but make it a non-graded course component.
3. Do a more complex or formal peer assessment, such as “ Is assertive without
damaging relationship” or “ Improves relationship without damage to a
particular negotiation”
4. Specific peer assessment by opponents after each negotiation
5. Limit assessors to those who have only had direct experience
6. Broader peer voting on a more generalized set of criteria near end of
course
For information on a specific peer assessment tool that has received some testing
and validation, see Peter Coleman and Ying Ying Joanne Lim, “A Systematic Approach
to Evaluating the Effects of Collaborative Negotiation Training on Individuals and
Groups”, Negotiation Journal, October 2001, pp. 363-392.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-9
SAMPLE REPUTATION INDEX
(Prof. Roy Lewicki, Ohio State University)
This questionnaire concerns the reputation garnered by students during the
semester in Managerial Negotiations. Please follow the instructions closely. You
must return this questionnaire with your name on it, even if you choose to make
no further marks.
On the next page, you will find a list of all the students in the course. Do the
following:
1. Write your own name in the upper right hand corner.
2. In the first column after the names, “check” all of the people who were either a
partner and/or an opponent in the class exercises and two graded role-plays OR
were members of your Small Discussion Group. These are the people with whom
you had “direct experience”.
3. In the second column after the names, regardless of whether you had direct
negotiation experience or not, circle “G” for up to 7 people who you think have
developed good negotiating reputations. You may circle any number of names
up to 7. Good bargaining reputations are gained by displaying honesty,
competence, trustworthiness, integrity and so on.
4. In the third column after the names, regardless of whether you had direct
negotiation experience with them or not, circle “B” for up to 7 people who you
think have developed bad negotiating reputations. You may circle any number of
names up to 7. Bad bargaining reputations are gained by displaying dishonesty,
incompetence, lack of trustworthiness or integrity, and so on.
For every “B” you give, you must make comments about why you are
giving that “B.” This information may be summarized and passed along to
that person if they ask for clarification. Your identity will not be disclosed if
this information is passed along.
These ratings will be summarized for each individual and count for up to 20
points, or 10% of your grade.
5. You can also gain extra credit in your class participation for contributing to
others’ learning through good feedback, insightful participation or other actions
(intended or otherwise) that help people learn. In the fourth column, circle “C” for
up to five classmates (not including yourself) who have contributed substantially
to your learning in this course.
6. Make any comments you wish to support your marks in the final column.
Structuring the Negotiation Course
1-10
7. Return this questionnaire to Professor xxx by the designated date. Failure to
receive your questionnaire will result in an incomplete in this assignment.
Name _______________________
Managerial Negotiations
Reputation Index D=Direct Experience
G=Good Reputation
B=Bad Reputation
C=Contributed to Learning
Comments are required if “B” is circled
Name D G B C Comments
ALICE ABLE ___ G B C _______________________
BOB BAKER ___ G B C _______________________
CHARLIE CROWE ___ G B C _______________________
DEPUTY DOG ___ G B C _______________________
ETC.