978-0073530369 Syllabi Part 2

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-21

Reading:

• Walton and McKersie, excerpt from A Behavioral Theory of

Labor Negotiations (1965)

• LSBM< Section 8 (8-1 and 8-2 only).

Assignment: Prepare your role for Global Aeronautical Products

Simulation. Note: This simulation will be scored on the basis

of the scoring sheet in your role information. (Grade weight:

10%.)

WK 10 Managers as Mediators (Guest Speaker.)

• The Mediator’s role

• Analyzing Disputes

• Mediator techniques and attributes

• Mediation as a manager’s tool

• Franklin Brick Simulation. (Note, this simulation will be

started but not completed in class. Participants will need to

meet outside class to complete the simulation.)

Reading:

• LSBM, Section 13 (13-1 & 13-3 only).

• Goldberg, Green, & Sanders, pp 91-123, and 1987

Supplement, pp. 40-61

• Power Screen Negotiation will be introduced. (See heading

for “Mid–Term” below.)

Assignment #1: Due at the beginning of class: Report/Critique

of Global Aeronautical Products simulation. (See Appendix

#1, attached)

Assignment #2: Prepare your role for Franklin Brick Simulation.

TAKE HOME Mid-term Exam: The Powerscreen Negotiation

Assignment: During the Week of November 1 – 8, the class will

divide itself into three to five person groups. (You may want to

begin thinking about potential partners early.) Each group will

view the Powerscreen (Hackerstar) video together. Each group

will then prepare a 5-8-page paper (one paper for the group) that

identifies 5-8 concepts from the reading or class notes of this

course, and discuss the way in which the concept was illustrated

in the video.

There are three copies of the video that can be shared among the

class members. Please negotiate a time when groups can

assemble to view the video either on or off campus. More than

one group might view the video at one time. You may freely

discuss your reactions to the video with anyone, BUT the paper is

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-22

to be crafted only by the individuals in the group taking credit for

the assignment. (Grade weight: 10%. All group members will

receive the same grade unless, by negotiation and unanimous

consent, an alternative grading scheme is requested.)

WK 11 The Art of Advocacy: We are all advocates

• Advocacy: A sophisticated form of negotiation

• Some elements of advocacy

Reading:

• P. G. Zimbardo, “The Tactics and Ethics of Persuasion”, in B.

King and E. McGinnes (eds.), Attitudes, Conflicts, and Social

Change, (Academic Press, 1972), pp 81-99.

• I. Ajzen, “A New Paradigm in the Psychology of Persuasion,”

in Contemporary Psychology, V 32, N 12 (1987), pp 1009-

1010.

• D. E. Berlew, “How to Increase Your Influence,” in Lewicki, et

al. (eds.), Negotiation: Readings, Exercises & Cases (Irwin,

1993), Second Edition, pp 276-279.

Assignment #1: Submit your Powerscreen analysis.

Assignment #2: Bring a copy of your resume to class.

Assignment #3: You will be assigned to one of four roles for the

Ford Pinto problem: (1) Lee Iacocca, (2) Iacocca’s

Engineering Staff; (3) Iacocca’s Economist Staff; or (4) the

Mystery role. See your particular role sheet for your

assignment that is to be prepared before class. For roles 2,

3, & 4, you will need to meet or otherwise communicate with

each other in the preparation of your roles.

WK 12 Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures (Special Guest:

Prof. Kathryn Mercer, CWRU Law School)

• Binding versus non-binding authority

– litigation

– arbitration

– court-ordered (annexed) arbitration

• Private arbitration (rent-a-judge)

• Summary jury trial

• Advantages and disadvantages of ADR

Reading: Goldberg, Green, & Sander, op. cit., pp 149, 163-171,

189-196, 217-222, 240-242, 245-247, 264-267, 271-278, 285-

298.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-23

THANKSGIVING

(No Class)

WK 13 Ethics in Negotiation & The Lawyer-Client Relationship (Guest

Speaker)

Reading: LSBM, Section 7 (all)

Assignment: Prepare your role for Display Company v.

Computers to Go, Inc.

WK 14 Planning for Negotiations

• Planning as a source of Power

• Planning as a means of enhancing outcomes for all

participants

• Elements in the planning process

• Planning to deal with opponents who have not taken this

course

Reading: LSBM, Section 2 (all)

Assignment: Final date for Negotiation Analysis (Final Paper).

(Grade weight: 30%)

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-24

APPENDIX I

OUTLINE FOR REPORT/CRITIQUE OF NEGOTIATION SIMULATION

BACKGROUND

NOTE: Although six critiques are assigned for WEEKS 3 – 8, only FOUR (4)

must be completed to fulfill these assignments. Thus, if you are absent and miss a

particular simulation, you need not do anything to make it up. If you like, you may

actually write five or six critiques and I will disregard the two with the lower

scores. During the semester, you can check your grades using Blackboard

(presuming it works and I can figure out how to use it).

Each Report/Critique should be 4-5 pages, double-spaced, with adequate

margins for instructor comment. In simulations where you had more than two

parties involved, the critiques will be a bit longer. Please begin each critique with

the following:

A. What was the name of this simulation?

B. Who was (were) the other participants in the simulation? For each of the

other participants, evaluate his/her preparation for this simulation where:

• 0 = about as well prepared as you expected;

• +1 = better prepared than you expected;

• –1 = less well prepared than you expected.

C. Briefly summarize your settlement.

Suggested Outline for Simulation Critiques

The objective of the critique is to encourage your systematic thinking about how

the concepts developed in this course (class discussion and readings) were put to use (or

not put to use) in your experience. Any critique that provides evidence of such systematic

thinking will be acceptable. Note that the converse is also true. A critique that merely

describes what happened will be unacceptable. Analysis of the events in terms of the

concepts developed in class and in the reading is essential.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-25

BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS

1. What was your “BATNA” for this simulation? What was your “bottom

line” – the minimum you would have accepted from the other party (in concrete

terms)? At what point in the negotiations (if ever) did you make clear, or “come

clean” about, your bottom line? Did you ever reveal completely your “bottom

line”? (In negotiations with multiple team members, or in multiparty negotiations,

be sure to include all participants as “other parties“.)

2. What were the BATNAs of all other participants in your negotiations, if

you know? How did you know this, if you did? What was each of the other

parties’ bottom lines – the minimum that the other party (or parties) wanted you to

do (in concrete terms)? How did the other party make this clear to you? When

did it become clear – early, middle, later part of negotiation session? Describe

how other party came to tell you what he/she wanted, e.g., it was openly stated up

front; you were able to infer it from other comments, etc. (Again, consider all

participants as “other parties“.)

INTERESTS

3. What were your objectives (interests)? How did the other party’s “position”

(above) conflict with your interests? That is, why couldn’t you do what the other party

wanted?

4. What were the other party’s interests? Why did your position conflict with the

other party’s interests?

Objective criteria

5. Did either party attempt to interject objective standards or criteria as a basis

for determining the outcome? What were they? What effect did they have? If such

criteria were interjected, was the response (a) to show how such criteria were not

relevant to the instant dispute; (b) to interject other criteria with implications contrary to

the first set; (c) an open discussion of how to make the criteria acceptable to all parties;

(d) all of the above? Discuss. Be sure to indicate whether you thought the criteria were

merely a subterfuge to obtain a bargaining advantage, or truly an effort at integrative

bargaining or a “fair” outcome, and why you thought so.

Multiple issue negotiations

6. There will almost always be more than one issue in your negotiations. Was

an explicit understanding reached about what the specific issues were? Did the parties

try to deal with the issues one at a time? Were they settled one at a time; all at once; or

in several “packages“? Discuss how the packages were developed.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-26

INTANGIBLES

7. Describe any “commitment” behavior by you or the other party in your

negotiations. (See LSBM. Commitment behavior is an action that suggests a party is

taking a strong stand on a particular position. “If you can’t do ‘X’, I don’t believe we can

do business with each other,” would be a strong commitment statement.) What was

opponent’s reaction to the commitment behavior: (a) concession; (b) an equal and

opposite commitment; (c) ignoring the commitment; (d) other?

8. To what extent was “face saving” necessary in your negotiations? What

created the need for it – something in the context of the case description, or something

that happened during the negotiations themselves? Describe any “face saving”

behavior.

Other relevant considerations

The above outline is not intended to constrain your analysis. Please develop any

other ideas you have that are related to the reading and class discussions.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-27

APPENDIX II

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

P. Gerhart

Final Paper Suggestions

The final paper assignment is to describe and analyze the negotiation of a

conflict situation in which the student has been involved either as a participant or

eyewitness. A paper of 15-20 pages should be sufficient to (a) describe the event and

(b) demonstrate to the reader the level of your understanding of course concepts.

A suggested approach is to completely describe all the relevant facts in no more

than five pages. (If description does not take at least three pages, the event is probably

not of sufficient complexity for this assignment.) Then develop your analysis. Such an

approach will assure adequate attention to the analytical portion of the paper, which will

form the basis for its evaluation. As with the Reports/Critiques, a description alone is not

sufficient. It must be analyzed using terms developed in this course.

The following elements should be considered in most instances although this

suggested list should not be taken to be entirely prescriptive. Unique circumstances

may dictate an alternative approach to the paper.

1. Source of difference.

a. The difference or “conflict” must be bona fide, not just a misunderstanding.

b. When and how did you become aware of the difference?

c. When did the opponent become aware?

d. Describe the respective “interests” of you and the opponent.

2. Initiation of negotiation

a. Background on any relevant events before negotiations began.

b. Who initiated action leading to initial discussions?

c. Describe the circumstances of the initial meeting.

d. What were the initial stated positions of you; of your opponent?

e. If your “bottom line” position was different at the time, what was it?

f. If you suspect your opponent’s “bottom line” position was different at the time

negotiations began, what do you think it was?

3. Alternatives

a. Describe any alternatives you had to negotiating with your opponent including

your best alternative to a negotiated agreement.

b. Do the same for your opponent.

4. “Bars to Agreement”

a. Review the concepts that Carl Stevens labels “bars to agreement” as discussed

in class. (LAWS 351 students: you may omit this element or ask P. Gerhart for a

special handout not included in the syllabus for 351.)

b. During the pre-agreement period, what “bars to agreement” did you actually

experience?

c. What steps did you, your opponent, or someone else take to overcome them?

Refer to Stevens‘ discussion of these actions.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-28

5. Power vs. “Reason”

a. Discuss any source of power available to you and your opponent and the extent

to which it was used.

b. Discuss the “rationale” used by you and your opponent, if any.

6. Distributive/Integrative Elements (Creating/Claiming Value)

a. Describe the distributive elements (claiming behavior) in the dispute.

b. Discuss any effort by you or your opponent to discover integrative solutions

(create valve).

7. Outcome

Explain the outcome and how the above elements helped to shape it.

8. Evaluation

If you had it to do all over, knowing what you now do, would you have done

anything differently? What and why?

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-29

CONFLICT RESOLUTION: Negotiating For Success

OBHR 440-02, Fall 2001

Professor Rob Folger

OVERVIEW:

Changes in society, the global economy, and ways people work have made

negotiating skills more important than ever. The challenges are legion: dealing with

history’s most diverse work force, doing business with customers who tell you how to run

your business, negotiating with foreign counterparts—and more. These are not just

issues of corporate concern; they are also of increasing importance to your personal

success.

By participating in this course you will come to recognize the pervasiveness and

importance of negotiation. You will acquire a new repertoire of negotiating skills. You will

develop a systematic and positive approach to negotiating with colleagues, bosses,

clients, other stakeholders, and external groups of all kinds—in ways that equip you to

deal also with all kinds of conditions and circumstances.

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

This course aims to help you develop the negotiating skills needed to meet the

challenges facing today’s executives. The course integrates the experiential and

intellectual components of negotiation.

First, it will help you develop the sophistication to analyze bargaining and conflict

relationships—and to learn (through class discussion and self-assessment) about your

own individual bargaining style.

Second, this course uses various techniques to help you understand—

…the basic elements of negotiation;

…when to reach a deal and when to walk away;

…how to negotiate in teams;

…how to negotiate with multiple opponents; and

…how to handle international negotiations.

TEXTBOOKS:

(1) Lewicki, Saunders, Barry & Minton, Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases (4th

edition). Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003.

(2) Fisher, Ury, & Patton, Getting to Yes (2nd edition). New York: Penguin, 1991.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-30

STUDENT EVALUATION:

Component of Evaluation

1. Class participation 35 pts. = 23.33%

2. Three journal submissions (pass-fail)* 15 pts. = 10%

*1st due any time before, but not later than, 9/24;

2nd due any time before, but not later than, 10/15;

3rd due any time before, but not later than, 11/28

3. MIDTERM EXAM 50 pts. = 33.33%

4. Final Paper: Live negotiation (due noon, 12/15) 50 pts. = 33.33%

5. FINAL EXAM 50 pts. = 33.33%

Total 150 pts..= 100%

Explanation of Components

1. CLASS PARTICIPATION.

I expect each of you to participate in all the exercises and class discussions.

Evaluation of participation will be based on criteria that include the following:

a. Quality of preparation for the exercises, including familiarity with the

reading material and case material.

b. Quality of performance on the exercise (as a PROCESS, not outcome).

c. Quality of participation in the feedback and discussion sessions.

Your participation in the simulations, the debriefing process, and other class discussions

is essential to your learning as an individual and to the learning of the class as a whole.

You will inevitably learn as much from what your colleagues say (and from your own

attempts to wrestle with and articulate ideas) as from the readings and lectures.

Participation grades will be based on the quality of your ideas not the quantity. If you

miss a session, however, you will lose 7 points of your participation grade unless you

have notified me in advance, obtained a substitute for any negotiation (or arranged a

makeup), and provide evidence of legitimate emergency (e.g., signed doctor certificate)

[see further details below]. Obviously, poor attendance or unsatisfactory participation

can seriously impact your final grade. Any lack of attendance or poor participation will

also do more damage to your learning in this course than in almost any other.

Participation grade subdivisions of 35 percentage points

a) Attendance – 10 points;

b) Instructor evaluation of preparation and contributions to class discussions –

10 points;

c) Observer evaluations of preparation, strategy and tactics – 10 points

d) Reputation index – 5 points

a) Attendance: Students are expected to participate in all negotiation exercises.

Because negotiations are central to the course, there is a rigid attendance policy. This

policy is to ensure that students who come to class prepared to negotiate will never find

themselves without a negotiation partner. The policy is:

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-31

• You may miss TWO negotiation exercises without penalty IF you provide the

instructor with advance written notice 24 hours before the negotiation is to occur

AND make arrangements for a substitute. For each negotiation exercise there will

be a subset of individuals assigned to the role of observers, and you may ask one of

these individuals to take over your role. It is your responsibility to provide this

individual with the necessary case information and materials and to inform the

instructor of who your replacement will be. You may notify me in writing or by e-mail.

Be sure this note includes the date you will be absent and the name of the person

who will be replacing you. The note should give the reason for your absence—

medical excuses, job-related travel, or interviews are the only acceptable excuses for

missing an exercise. If in conjunction with any miss, you do not ensure that there is

a substitute, you will lose 7 points from your participation grade.

• If you miss a third exercise, you will lose 7 points from your participation grade and 7

points for each subsequent miss.

• An alternative procedure to providing a substitute is to reschedule the negotiation

outside of class period if your partner(s) is (are) willing and able to do so. This

alternative requires instructor notification and you must still confirm the arrangement

in writing. The outside negotiation should occur before the debriefing of the case and

you are responsible for turning in the results of your negotiation. A rescheduled

negotiation does not count as a miss.

• At some points during the semester you may be assigned to be an observer of

others’ negotiations. There are aspects and dynamics of negotiations that are

difficult to recognize when you are involved in the bargaining process. Thus, it is a

useful exercise to observe and learn from the strategies, tactics and interactions of

others. If you are assigned as an observer you are expected to attend the

negotiation session (i.e., you are not excused from the exercise). Observers will be

expected to provide feedback from their observations in the debrief session and to fill

out observer evaluations.

b) Instructor evaluation of preparation, and contributions to classroom

discussion: Participation includes full preparation for negotiation role-plays.

Preparation includes doing all assigned reading and having complete familiarity with the

role assigned to you. You should have planned a strategy before class. At times you

will need to meet with your negotiation partner or group to plan a strategy outside of

class. Observed lack of preparation for an exercise will be treated as an absence for that

exercise, as will late arrivals that delay negotiations. TARDINESS THAT DISRUPTS

THE START OF A NEGOTIATION IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.

Students are advised to take the role-plays seriously. You are encouraged to be

creative, to try new strategies, and to learn from your mistakes. Note that you will NOT

be graded on the outcomes of your negotiation exercises; rather, you will be evaluated

on how well prepared you are and on your use of appropriate strategies and tactics.

Roles and scenarios assigned to you for simulations are CONFIDENTIAL and should

not be shared or discussed with anyone until after the simulation. It is unethical either to

share or to seek information about another role in advance of participating in a

simulation. If you have questions about the roles or the instructions you should ask the

professor.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-32

Participation in discussions is a very important part of the learning process in this

course. After each negotiation exercise a debriefing session will include sharing

information about results, sharing information about negotiating strategies attempted,

and sharing reactions to the process. All students are expected to contribute to these

discussions (including observers). You will be evaluated on the quality, rather than

quantity, of your contributions and insights. Speak up when you disagree with a point of

view that another student or I have expressed. Explain the invalidity of the view. Always

make your critiques specific.

c) Observer Evaluations: The best person to assess how prepared you are for the

negotiation is an observer who watches your negotiation. You will be observed by a peer

two or three times during the course. You will also be asked to observe another once or

twice. Your points here will be based on others assessments of you and the quality of

your assessments of others.

d) Reputation Index: Your reputation as a fair, effective, and trustworthy negotiator is

an important asset in real-world business dealings. Reputations have a habit of

spreading within and among organizations, and your future relationships depend on how

others perceive you through your past behavior. By the end of the course you will have

negotiated with a number of your classmates, received feedback from some, and heard

about the performance of others. Based on these experiences, you will be asked to

evaluate the reputation of your classmates as negotiators and as givers of feedback.

The index, which is a proxy for the long-term effects of reputation on one’s options in

negotiation, recognizes those individuals who develop a reputation as trustworthy and

effective negotiators, and who, through their feedback, contribute to the value of your

experience in this course.

At the end of the semester, your classmates will also be evaluating your reputation as a

fair, effective, and trustworthy negotiator, based on their experience with you over the

semester.

In rating others, you will use the following scale (so keep it in mind):

0 = not at all fair, effective, trustworthy; through 10 = very fair, effective, trustworthy

Ratings of all your classmates (with N/A indicated when you feel you just don’t have

enough information even to make a judgment) are due on the last regular class day.

2. JOURNAL.

During the course, each student is expected to maintain a journal describing

his/her role experiences and reflecting on learning experiences as a negotiator. Keeping

a journal encourages reflection on—and analysis of—the learning-by-experience

simulations of negotiation we conduct in class. Your comments also give me a sense of

your individual progress, as well as some insight into your strengths and weaknesses as

a negotiator. Your task is to describe your reactions, perceptions, impressions, or

significant insights gained from participation in (or reflection on) the simulations.

Examples of some of the types of points I encourage you to address include the

following:

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-33

a. what you expected in the situation;

b. how you prepared for the negotiation;

c. how you and others in the group behaved;

d. what you learned about your skills; and

e. what you would do differently the next time around.

I regard the JOURNAL (which can be submitted in any form, such as simply on several

sheets of paper stapled together) as a confidential communication between you and me.

As a result, I expect you to be specific in identifying other people (by name) and their

behavior in describing your reactions to the negotiation simulations. I’ll collect journals

three times during the course—at the start of class 7; at the start of class 13; and at the

start of class 25. Each of those journal entries must include discussion of TWO of the

preceding three negotiation exercises, so you can turn your journal in early if you do the

first two. Example: You can turn in all three parts of your journal early if you do Gas

Station and Used Car for the first journal; Tendley and New Recruit for the second; and

Pakistani Prunes plus Active listening for the third.

Your analyses of the two exercises (for each submitted journal entry) should be

reflective and outline the main learning points of a specific negotiation exercise. The

paper should not exceed 4 pages. The analysis should not be a transcript of every detail

of the negotiation. Instead, the paper should apply your own insights and what you have

learned through lectures and readings to the particular negotiation you chose to analyze.

Each paper should begin by stating which role you played in the negotiation. After a

brief summary of the negotiation you should address the following:

1. Analysis: How did you prepare? What strategies did you use? Why did (or didn’t) a

strategy work well? (note emphasis on the why). What did you overlook? What was the

consequence? What, if anything, surprised you about your behavior? How would you do

things differently? How might you improve in the future? What did you learn about

yourself? About the other?

2. Outcome: What was the outcome? What would have improved the outcome?

3. What theories, concepts, or principles from the readings or from class discussions

are useful in understanding the dynamics of this particular negotiation? Give citations to

readings where appropriate.

Note that your grade for these journal entries are on a PASS-FAIL basis; yet, it is

possible to fail by not following instructions—that is, I expect to see an indication of

how well you reflected upon and analyzed the negotiation interaction and your

performance. In considering whether a journal entry has failed to follow instructions, I

look for:

• Understanding: Demonstrating that you know the material learned in the course by

drawing on the relevant concepts and lessons from both the readings and lectures.

These should be cited in the text of your paper.

Sample Syllabi and Course Outlines

1-34

• Criticality: When examining anyone’s behavior, be critical. This means not only

determining how a behavior was effective or ineffective and why, but also realizing

the inherent tradeoffs of actions taken. Every choice is based on assumptions

(which may be right or wrong) and has future implications. What were they?

• Takeaways: Identifying basic points or ideas drawn from the exercise that you will

be able to generalize to other negotiation situations.

Journal entries are always due at the beginning of class on the designated last days for

submitting them (i.e., classes 7, 13 & 25—or earlier).

3. LIVE NEGOTIATION for FINAL PAPER.

Sometime during the course, you must actually go out and conduct a live

negotiation. The substance of this negotiation may be anything of value and a major

purchase, something related to a job or employment search, relations with peers or

coworkers, etc.

The following rules apply for the live negotiation (and be sure to check with me if

there is any doubt in your mind—at all—about whether the negotiation you have chosen

fits the criteria suitably, because turning in an unacceptable “live negotiation” paper will

cost points for not paying attention to instructions):

a. You must negotiate for something nontrivial (i.e., you should care how the

negotiation turns out).

b. The opponent(s) may not be another student in this class, the instructor,

or one of your parents.

c. The opponent(s) must not be aware either before or during the

negotiation that it will be used to satisfy course requirements.

d. You must articulate (privately, in writing) a strategy beforehand.

e. If at all possible, you should try to interview your opponent and/or

observers about the negotiation after it is over.

Students must write a final paper on the live negotiation. The paper must be no

longer than 10 double-spaced (typed) pages. Your paper should describe your reactions,

perceptions, impressions, and significant insights gained from participation in (and

reflection on) the negotiation. You may talk about yourself or the behavior of other

people. I encourage you to address such points as the following: