Menno Simons College is a college of Canadian Mennonite University and affiliated with the University of Winnipeg

Course: Negotiation Theory and Practice

Negotiation Theory and Practice: [ Syllabus ] - [ Jan. 3: Introduction ] - [ Jan. 10: Interests ] - [ Jan. 17: Alternatives ] - [ Jan 24: Context ] - [ Jan. 31: Styles ] - [ Feb. 7: Mid-term Test ] - [ Feb. 14: Persuasion ] - [ Feb. 21: Spring Break ] - [ Feb. 28: Framing ] - [ Mar. 6: Agents and Crises ] - [ Mar. 13: International ] - [ Mar. 20: Multilateral ] - [ Mar. 27: Extra time and Review ] - [ April 10: Final Test ] - [ ? (Time Permitting: Judgement ? ] - [ Test Answer Samples ] - [ Grading Rubrics ]

Syllabus

Menno Simons College in Affiliation with the University of Winnipeg

Course: Negotiation Theory and Practice

Course Number: 61.2431/3-050

Classroom: 3C30

Meeting Times: This accredited university course meets Thursdays 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. from January 3, 2008 until March 27, 2008.

Materials fee: There is no materials fee.

Instructor: Cory Lewis, C.A.E., B.A., LL B., LL.M., Barrister & Solicitor, Phone: 222-6656, e-mail: cory@havenport.com

1. Course Description and Topics: Learners in this course read and discuss articles about, and participate in and then discuss negotiation exercises involving, the following topics: interests; alternatives; context; styles; persuasion; framing; agents; crises; international negotiations, multilateral negotiations; judgement.

2. Some topics listed on this course outline may not be covered.

3. Equipment authorized to use during tests and exams are: pens with only either blue or black ink. Pencils and pens with ink of other colors are not allowed.

4. & 5.

Evaluation Method:

10% - active participation during class discussions & simulation preparations, simulations and debriefs. These grades are determined as follows: (a) I keep a class register and simply mark every time you are present for each of these. I also record particularly helpful or interesting contributions to class discussions. (b) During some classes I may ask you to individually or group brainstorm and/or do a mindmap for a topic or prepare in written form for a simulation. If so, and I request that they be handed in for grading, they will be graded on thoroughness, elaboration, articulation and correctness.

30% - mid term test on February 7, 2008 based on materials covered prior to the mid-term test.

30% final test on material covered after the mid term test. The 30% final test will be held on April 10, 2008 which is the date scheduled by the University for the final exam.

15% Simulation: Design your own negotiation simulation similar to the ones we do in class. It must have at least two parties with a set of general instructions common to the parties and separate confidential instructions to each party. Design it to deliberately cause the people doing the simulation to learn one or more points about negotiation. In other words, the fact situation should be one in which the role players learn or practice through experience one or more points about negotiation. Also hand in an explanation of the points the role players are to learn from the simulation that includes an explanation of which parts of the facts or how they were expected to play out during the role play were to cause the role players to learn the selected points about negotiation. It should be approximately 1500 words in length. Due on or before April 10, 2008.

15% You are to document your experience in two of the simulations. Each is to be approximately 1,200 words in length. Each is to cite at least two separate original sources. Due on or before April 10, 2008.

Include as many as possible of the following:

A description of what you consider to be the significant events during the negotiation. As I have read the simulation, you should not repeat the simulation’s facts, except as necessary to describe the significant events.
description and explanation of the relationships between:

your experience and the course materials or other sources;
your experience and the behaviour of the other party;
the behaviour of the other party and the course materials or other sources;
your behaviour and the course materials or other sources.

You are to describe what you learned about your personal negotiation tendencies.
You are to describe what you learned about the other party’s personal negotiation tendencies.
You are to describe what you would consider doing differently if you were able to repeat the experience.
You are to compare and contrast this experience with one you have had outside the classroom.

Desirable elements of journal entries include:

Relating the experience to topics covered in the course, or which you have learned elsewhere;
Compliance with the general paper rubrics. These rubrics use different percentages and grades than, but are based upon: Tewksbury, B. Grading Rubrics. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Science Education Resource Center at Carlton College Web site: http://serc.carleton.edu/files/NAGTWorkshops/coursedesign/tutorial/rubricsgeneralexamples.doc

Simulation and Experience Documentation Format

typed or word processed (ie. neither handwritten nor printed by hand) in 10, 11 or 12 point type with black ink. Images may be in additional colors.

student numbers only

on white or recycled paper

Each Experience Documentation must cite at least two separate original sources.

Retain a printed version (not only a version on your computer) in case I lose the one you submit.

If the contents of more than one simulation or documented experience too closely resemble one another, then those learners from this class responsible for the assignments with too similar contents will be required to submit original replacement assignments. If this situation arises, the above procedure will eliminate any need to investigate or consider whether the situation arose from mere coincidence rather than some other source. If such a situation arises from plagiarism, then the above procedure punishes the plagiarist for plagiarizing and, if the plagiarized party is in this class, then the plagiarized party for using inadequate security for her or his intellectual property. If such a situation arises from mere coincidence then while preparing the original replacement assignments the authors may feel welcome to, during their breaks, reflect upon the unpredictability of fate.

Grading Levels for

Legal Systems and Alternative Dispute Resolution Course

&

Negotiation Theory and Practice Course


SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION	Numerical Equivalent	Letter Grade
Excellent	90 - 100	A+
Excellent	85 - 89	A
Excellent	80 - 84	A-
Superior	75 - 79	B+
Superior	70 - 74	B
Slightly Above Average	65 - 69	C+
Average	60 - 64	C
Marginal	50 - 59	D
Failure	0 - 49	F

6. The final date for voluntary withdrawal without academic penalty is February 29, 2008. If you are considering withdrawing, please feel welcome to speak with me prior to making your decision to learn whether there is any way that I can help.

7. The final test is on April 10, 2008 and the simulation and guide are due on the same day as the final test.

8. Please see the appropriate items in section VII of the calendar dealing with Senate information on appeals, withdrawal dates, and academic misconduct such as plagiarism and cheating. There are also consequences listed below for submission of papers too closely resembling other papers.

9. The amount of reading expected in the class will be approximately 60 - 70 pages per week. A detailed list of readings, where possible with links to the readings, is available on the course web page at http://www.havenport.com/msc/negot.htm.

Some of the course articles have been made available through electronic reserve so you may read them from home via the computer. To do so access to the University of Winnipeg Cybrary Page here . You will need the 14 digit number on your library card and a PIN. If you don't have a PIN click on "Your Library Record" for instructions for getting one. When you get your PIN return to the Cybrary page, click on Reserve Materials, Search for "lewis", then click on course number 2431. Other course articles are available online from the journals available via the University of Winnipeg online Cybrary. The articles are in pdf format so you will need pdf reader software. You may already have adobe acrobat which works.

10. Work submitted for evaluation, other than tests and assignments done during class meetings, must be typed or word processed (ie. neither handwritten nor printed by hand) in 10, 11 or 12 point type with black ink. Images may be in additional colors.

11. I reserve the right to ask all or any particular student or students for identification when writing a test or examination, therefore, assume that you will be asked for identification.

12. Students with documented disabilities requiring academic accommodations for tests/exams or during lectures/laboratories are encouraged to contact the Coordinator of Disability Services at 786-9771 to discuss appropriate options.

13. As I do not work at the University, I do not keep office hours there. Please feel welcome to telephone or e-mail any time you wish to contact me or arrange a meeting. Telephone usually reaches me quicker than e-mail.

14. A Note about Menno Simons College

This course is offered by Menno Simons College in affiliation with the University of Winnipeg. Menno Simons College (MSC) coordinates interdisciplinary programs and offers courses in International Development Studies and Conflict Resolution Studies in cooperation with several University of Winnipeg departments.

All courses offered by MSC are subject to University of Winnipeg Senate approval and policies, and are open to all University of Winnipeg students.

Menno Simons College was established at the University of Winnipeg in 1989 to develop programs based on the needs of our time and on the distinctive contributions that the Mennonite community can bring to these areas.

Menno Simons College is part of Canadian Mennonite University. Additional information about MSC and the MSC Student Association activities is available from the MSC office at 210-520 Portage Avenue.

15. Menno Simons College encourages all Conflict Resolution Studies students to take up any disputes regarding grades, first with your instructor, then the Conflict Resolution Studies Coordinator, then the chair of the Menno Simons College departmental review committee, then the University of Winnipeg Appeals Committee (if we cannot come to a satisfactory resolution).

16. If work is not submitted at least a week before the date I am to submit the grades to the University, the work submitted wont be included in the grades submitted to the University unless unexpectedly I am able to free up time in my schedule to grade the work.

17. Teaching Methods: Class meetings will be used for group discussion of the course readings, preparation for the negotiation exercises, participation in the negotiation exercises, and post participation discussion of the negotiation exercises. Hopefully learning will occur through: preparatory readings prior to the meetings, synthesis of preparatory readings and learners' existing knowledge, discussions during the meetings, participation in the negotiation exercises, post participation discussion of the negotiation exercises, preparation of a simulation and a guide relating to Negotiation Theory and Practice.

18. Required materials: None. Readings are available on paper reserve or E-reserve or online.

19. Assignments: The reading for the class discussions usually involves research articles as shown on the reading list.

20. Negotiation Simulations: The practical element of the course involves your participation in a number of negotiation simulations. The simulations have been selected because they have been used successfully in a number of negotiation programs. Participation in the simulations allows you to practice the skills which you have been learning. Each simulation has information which is received by all parties to the negotiation and other information which is confidential and different for each party. One benefit of these simulations is in engaging in these negotiations in as similar to a real world setting as we can establish in the classroom. This includes the fact that you do not know the nature of the other party's confidential information, just like in real life. Another benefit is in learning to handle these situations in real time as expected and unexpected events occur during the negotiations. You would eliminate these benefits to yourself if you were to seek to learn the nature of the other party's confidential information prior to engaging in the negotiation or if you were to learn what outcomes and learning others experienced by participating in the simulations previously. So, to get the full benefit of the course, don't discuss the simulations with people who have not yet taken the course (they may take it in the future), don't discuss the simulations with people who have taken the course previously (you are here to maximize your education, not to take shortcuts which will prevent you from gaining the experience and learning to be gained by participating in the negotiations in real time). If you come across information on the Internet or elsewhere which discusses the simulations used in the course, refrain from reading it. In the course you are not graded for the outcomes you achieve in the negotiation simulations. This is to allow you to experiment with different techniques here in a learning environment rather than in the real world where your outcomes may have more significant consequences.

To prepare for and learn from each simulation use, or create, the preparation and analysis tool of your choice. If you don't have one and don't want to build one which you can use, then you could use as a start the one below. It borrows from some of the ideas of Roger Fisher and others at the Project on Negotiation.

21. Negotiation Preparation possibilities:

As preparation for each simulation organize your thoughts in written form for the following considerations:

Consider each parties' perceptions of and resources regarding

relationships with each other and with others

communication with each other and with others

positions

interests

options

best alternative to negotiated agreements

legitimacy

commitment

Design the wording of a proposal which you think may be acceptable to each party.

For each of the proposal's elements, list the beneficial and detrimental consequences as you expect the other party to perceive them if the proposal is agreed to and if it is not.

After the fact analysis

Compare your preparatory predictions with your experience during the negotiation.

Lessons learned

Record any prescriptions you can draw from this experience.

This outline is available online at http://www.havenport.com/msc/negot.htm

Introduction

Read the following materials and do the following things:

An article on Negotiation by Chris Honeyman at http://www.crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_negotiation.jsp

1. Describe situations in which Mr. Honeyman’s statement thatnegotiation “is the conflict resolution mechanism which cannot reach a conclusion without agreement of the parties involved” would be correctand situations in which it would not be correct and explain why.

Tanya Glasser's Book Summary of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury at http://www.crinfo.com/booksummary/10204/

1. Outline the four principles Glasser writes are prescribed in Getting to Yes.

Maiese, Michelle. "Negotiation." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgessand Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado,Boulder. Posted: October 2003 at http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/negotiation/.

1. Explain the relationships between the following ideas:

Positive interdependence
Negative interdependence
Competitive approaches
Cooperative approaches
Creating value
Claiming value

2. Discuss situations in which the “Negotiator’s Dilemna” exits and ones in which it does not.

3. Discuss Maiese’s statement, “But making threats is a costly and dangerous way of trying to exert influence.”

4. Define “Batna”.

Interests

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Conflict Research Consortium's article "Confusing Interests (What YouReally Want) with Positions (What You Say You Want)" at http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/intpos-p.htm

Distinguish betwen interests and positions.

The measure of negotiation, David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius,Negotiation Journal, Volume 2, Number 1, January 1986 available via E-reservein the cybrary and also on reserve in the text Negotiation Theory andPractice.

Compare and contrast interests, issues, and positions.
Distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic interests for processes and relationships.
Describe methods for identifying others' interests.
Describe methods of assessing interests for the purposes of making tradeoffs among interests.
Describe factors to consider when deciding whether to focus on interests or issues.

Conflict Research Consortium Staff's Article Summary of "Interests vs.Positions: A Critique of the Distinction" by Chris Provis at http://www.crinfo.org/articlesummary/10471/

Distinguish between objective interests and subjective interests.
Should a party attempt to satisfy the other party’s objective interests or subjective interests during a negotiation?
Describe how positions facilitate concessions.

Maiese, Michelle. "Interests, Positions, Needs, and Values." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: August 2004 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interests/.

Explain the following assertion and in which contexts you would agree and disagree with it: “…focusing on interests can resolve the problems underlying a dispute more effectively than focusing on rights or power. [1] This is because reconciling interests tends to generate a higher level of mutual satisfaction, better relationships, and lower transaction costs than resorting to rights or power contests.”
Distinguish between situations in which dealing with positions may be favourable to dealing with interests and other non-positions.

Alternatives

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Heidi Burgess' article on Batna at http://www.crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_batna.jsp

Define alternatives.
Why is it important to know the other party's Batna?

Spangler, Brad. "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)."Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict ResearchConsortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 at http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna/.

What is an "Eatna"?
Previously we distinguished between objective and subject interests. Now distinguish between subjective and objective alternatives.
Why is the difference between subjective and objective alternatives relevant?
Explain how third parties may assist in assessing parties' alternatives and why employing third parties may be necessary.

The power of alternatives or the limits to negotiation, David A. Lax andJames K. Sebenius. On E-Reserve and in the text Negotiation Theory and Practice on paper reserve. An article by the same authors containing examples is at David A Lax, James K Sebenius. 2004. How no-deal options can drive great deals: When actions away from the table eclipse face-to-face negotiation. Ivey Business Journal Online (July 1): 1. http://www.proquest.com.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/ (accessed October 14, 2007).

Distinguish between alternatives and options.
Explain the implications of alternatives for negotiator skill and options.
Explain the significance of timing for, and the risks of, credibly committing to a position.
Explain the relevance of alternatives after an agreement is reached.

Spangler, Brad. "Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)." BeyondIntractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict ResearchConsortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/zopa/.

Explain how one compares possible options for agreement with party X with alternatives made up of possible options for agreement with party Y.
Now do the same assuming more than one interest is involved in each negotiation. For example, the negotiation with X involves purchase and possession of a red bicycle with high handle bars and banana seat and possession between two and three weeks from today for between $50 and $75 (depending upon possession date with the earlier being the more expensive) and a future relationship with X and the negotiation with Y involves a purple bicycle with comfort bars and seat and possession between two and a half and four weeks from today for between $40 and $55 (depending upon possession date with the earlier being the more expensive) and a future relationship with Y.
Now do the same assuming you must choose between obtaining apples from B or grapes from C or chocolate from D. Each of three offering a different possession date and each of the three offering a different price for similar quantities. Assume that each of the three other people offers you the most favourable term on only one of the three criteria (product, price, possession).

Context

In this section it is important to keep in mind distinctions between the objective context, the subjective perception of the context, and behaviours during the negotiation. Sometimes the authors of the following articles jump between the three without clearly distinguishing the jump.

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Spangler, Brad. "Positive-Sum, Zero-Sum, and Negative-Sum Situations." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sum/.

Describe situations that would be objectively one or other of Positive-Sum, Zero-Sum or Negative-Sum and not susceptable of being converted to one of the other situations.
Explain how to convert a situation of each type to a situation of each other type.

Compare and contrast:

Goals of positive interdependence
Goals of negative interdependence
Zero-sum situations
Positive sum situations
Negative sum situations

Spangler, Brad. "Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose Situations." BeyondIntractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict ResearchConsortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/win-lose/.

Compare and contrast each of Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose situations with the most closely related of Positive sum, Negative sum and Zero sum situations.
Is there some confusion in the literature between objective context and subjective context (as objective and subjective were considered with interests and alternatives)?
Is there some confusion regarding whether what is being considered is what is objectively possible in the context or the participants' sujective appraisal of their outcomes or behaviours during the negotiation?

Chris Honeyman's article on Distributive Bargaining at http://www.crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_distributive_bargaining.jspand and Spangler, Brad. "Distributive Bargaining." Beyond Intractability.Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, Universityof Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_bargaining/.

Is it possible to distinguish between distributive bargaining and claiming value.
Distinguish between a distributive bargaining strategy and a zero sum context.
Discuss the relevance of subjective perception to context.
Are there any objectively distributive bargaining situations?

Spangler, Brad. "Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining." BeyondIntractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict ResearchConsortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-based_bargaining/.

Is it possible to distinguish between integrative bargaining and creating value.
Distinguish between an integrative bargaining strategy and a positive sum context.
Discuss the relevance of subjective perception to context.

Styles

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Spangler, Brad. "Competitive and Cooperative Approaches to Conflict." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/competitive_cooperative_frames/.

Which of the following are your most commonly used styles:
- A competing style -- high on assertiveness and low on cooperativeness.
- An accommodating style -- low on assertiveness and high on cooperativeness.
- An avoiding style -- low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
- A collaborating style -- high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
- A compromising style -- moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness
Are your negotiations more often cooperative or competitive?
List three negotiations you have had where cooperative behaviours were more relevant than competitive behaviours.
List three negotiations you have had where competitive behaviours were more relevant than cooperative behaviours.

Hard bargaining: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/hardbarc.htmand Soft bargaining: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/softbarg.htm

If you know how to use hard bargaining skills and you are negotiating with a soft bargainer, what factors would you consider when deciding whether to use your hard bargaining skills?

Chris Honeyman's article on Integrative Bargaining at http://www.crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_integrative_bargaining.jsp

Would you share the lowest price you would accept to sell prior to learning the highest or lowest price they are willing to pay, and if so, why?
List a few ways you could avoid disclosing your best price when the other side asks you, "What is your best price"?
Explain the utility of relatively insignificant initial disclosures.

Book Summary of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In byRoger Fisher and William Ury at http://www.crinfo.com/booksummary/10204/

Why would a negotiator generate an option that he or she believes would not serve his or her interests?
If negotiation's purpose is to allow parties to trade things to get what they want, why would a negotiator be willing to use objective criteria if they do not help the negotiator get what the negotiator wants?
Why would a party maintaining a position during the negotiation swich to a different position when a third party is brought in to use the "single text" approach?

Principled negotiation: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/pricneg.htm

Why would cultures that emphasize relationships find principled negotiation less useful?

Article Summary of "The Role of Power and Principle in Getting to Yes" byWilliam McCarthy at http://www.crinfo.com/articlesummary/10384/

Discuss whether you believe Sir William's thoughts regarding trust would apply in contexts in which the negotiators would be unlikely to meet again.
What could be used as a substitute for trust?
What is to be done when the sides have differing opinions relating to what would be in the community's interest?
List contexts you think would also benefit from Sir William's doubt about the undesireability of opening with extreme positions.
What role do you think the ability to confer benefits or punishment plays in negotiation?
Is there one most right way to negotiate?

Distributive: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/distbarg.htm

Which types of negotiations have most of yours been?

Spangler, Brad. "Positional Bargaining." Beyond Intractability. Eds. GuyBurgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/positional_bargaining/.

Attempt to distinguish between distributive bargaining and positional bargaining?
Describe situations in which positional bargaining may be preferable to negotiating about interests.

Mid-term Test

The test will cover the material up to the date of the test.

Persuasion

1. The journal articles referred to below may be read for general understanding. The conclusions are of particular interest. You do not need to learn the statistical analysis material. We will rely on their appearance in peer reviewed journals to assume their numbers add up.

2. Some have had difficulty finding the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. The following process has worked for some:

uwinnipeg.ca - students - current students - library

find - uwinnipeg journals - title search and browse

under Browse journals by title, select J

click on the jou - jou link that is sixth from the end of the jou - jou links

scroll about two-thirds down the page

click on Business Cource Premier - EBSCO

If you logged on to mycybrary above, you should see a page saying you may be able to connect without loggin in again and asking you to click to continue to your destination. Click on the link.

When you do it may ask you for your barcode and e-mail address. Provide them.

On the right is a list of years of the journal. Click on the desired year, you should see a list of volumes or issues from that year. Then click on the desired volume and issue. You should see a list of articles from that issue. Then click on the pdf full text of the desired article.

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Dugan, Máire A.. "Persuasion." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/persuasion/.

Describe Cialdini's six principles of influence.
Describe Professor Louis Kriesberg's five ways to influence another to move toward resolving a dispute.
Describe how appeals to emotion, data and logic, and conscience differ from Professor Cialdini's six principles and Professor Kriesberg's five ways to influence.

See also Kelton Rhodes' "Introduction to Influence," in footnote 1 to the above article.

Make up examples of each of Marwell & Schmitt's Taxonomy of 16 influence tactics

Smooth Operators: Reflections on Sales Representatives' Influence Expressions. Whittler, Tommy E.. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Spring96, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p53-56, 4p; available via the cybrary at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9606162163&site=ehost-live

Eliciting Consumer Choice Heuristics: Sales Representatives' Persuasion Strategies, Whittler, Tommy E. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Fall94, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p41-53, 15p available via the cybrary at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9412222440&site=ehost-live (Particularly the abstract and page 44)

Explain “priming”, heuristics and how they may be used.
List some common heuristics.

Conflict Research Consortium Staff's Article Summary of "Persuasion in Negotiations and Conflict Situations" by Shelly L. Chaiken, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Charles M. Judd at http://www.crinfo.org/articlesummary/10105/

Discuss the utility of being conscious of systemic and heuristic processes.

The Persuasive Effect of Salesperson Credibility: Conceptual and Empirical Examination, Sharma, Arun. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Fall90, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p71, 10p at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6654832&site=ehost-live

Describe the possible effects of credibility on persuasion and how to create credibility.

Using Trust-Transference As A Persuasion Technique: An Empirical Field Investigation, Milliman, Ronald E.; Fugate, Douglas L.. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Aug88, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p1, 7p at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6654026&site=ehost-live

Explain trust transference as a persuasive technique.

The preceding article refers to Funkhauser’s Action Theory of Persuasion. If you want to see what they are writing about, you may read this: A Practical Theory of Persuasion Based on Behavioral Science Approaches. Funkhouser, G. Ray. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Nov84, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p17, 9p, at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6291584&site=ehost-live

Spring Break

The class will not meet during the spring break.

Framing

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Kaufman, Sanda, Michael Elliott and Deborah Shmueli. "Frames, Framing and Reframing." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing/.

Explain what frames are.
List three examples of your understandings of situations and the frames leading you to those understandings, then describe three alternative frames and understandings of the situtations which may be held by others.

Complete the preceding two questions before reading the following two questions.

Discuss, with your reasons, whether you think the terms "frame" and "framing" have any independent meaning or whether, alternatively, they are simply fuzzy lables being applied to many different behaviours and, if so, what are some of those behaviours.

Now draft the strongest argument you can opposing the position you took on the preceding question.

Spangler, Brad. "Reframing." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: November 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/joint_reframing/.

Do a search engine search for something such as "reframing examples -picture -art"

Describe, with examples, some reframing techniques.

LeBaron, Michelle. "Cultural and Worldview Frames." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: August 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cultural_frames/.

Discuss whether one's "worldview" is a "frame".

If you are interested in this topic, there is additional information regarding frames at CRInfo resource page on Framing at http://www.crinfo.org/action/browse.jsp?nid=2115 and at the CRInfo resource page on Frames, Framing and Reframing at http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/action/essays.jsp?nid=2110

Agents and Crises

Agents

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

List and explain benefits of using agents.
List and explain detriments of using agents.
List and explain four issues to be considered when relating internal negotiations to external negotiations.

Preparatory Materials:

When Should We Use Agents, Rubin & Sander in Lewicki, Roy J., David M. Saunders, and John W. Minton. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Second edition. Columbus, OH: Richard D. Irwin, 1993. On E-reserve.
Negotiating Inside Out, Roger Fisher. On E-reserve.

Crises

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

List and explain four factors commonly present in crises.
Describe strategies for creating and/or dealing with crises.

Preparatory Materials:

Anatomy of a Crises by William Ury & Richard Smoke on e-reserve.
Article summary of Anatomy of a Crises at http://www.crinfo.com/articlesummary/10595/

International

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Describe six common factors in international deals.
Describe 10 ways culture affects negotiation style.

Preparatory Materials:

Making Deals in Strange Places: "A Beginner's Guide to International Business Negotiations" by Jeswald Salacuse, in Lewicki, Roy J., David M. Saunders, and John W. Minton. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Second edition. Columbus, OH: Richard D. Irwin, 1993. On E-reserve.
Article Summary of "A Beginner's Guide to International Business Negotiations" by Jeswald Salacuse at http://www.crinfo.org/articlesummary/10512/
Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results, Jeswald W. Salacuse, Negotiation Journal, Volume 14, Number 3, July 1998. Available via the cybrary.
LeBaron, Michelle. "Culture-Based Negotiation Styles." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_negotiation/.

Multilateral

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Explain the relevance of participation, coalitions, agenda development and role differentiation to multilateral negotiations.
Describe the role of asymmetry of interests and priorities, trust and risk in multilateral negotiations.
Describe the consequences of requiring unanimity for international multilateral treaty negotiations.

Preparatory Materials:

Burgess, Guy and Michelle Maiese. "Complexity." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2004 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/complexity/.
Multilateral negotiation: An analytic approach, Saadia Touval, Negotiation Journal, Volume 5, Number 2, April 1989. Available via the cybrary.
Low-Power Contributions in Multilateral Negotiations: A Framework Analysis, Mary Jo Larson, Negotiation Journal, Volume 19, Number 2, April 2003. Available via the cybrary.

Extra time and Review

The multi-lateral simulation often takes more than one class. Consequently, we have left a class here in case it does so again. On Thursday we will review for the final test.

Preparatory Materials:

None

Final Test

The material covered since the mid-term test is eligible for testing on the final test.

Judgement

If time permits, we may consider some of the following material regarding negotiator judgement.

What you should be able to do after considering the preparatory materials:

Describe common irrational behaviours of negotiators.
Explain ways you might exploit or protect yourself from irrational behaviours of negotiators.
Compare the dichotomy between cooperation and competition (Judgemental Biases)with the work on creating and claiming. (Judgemental Biases)

Preparatory Materials:

Why Negotiations Go Wrong, Max H. Bazerman, in Lewicki, Roy J., David M. Saunders, and John W. Minton. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Second edition. Columbus, OH: Richard D. Irwin, 1993. A different version of this article titled, Negotiator Judgement, is both on E-reserve and in the Negotiation Theory and Practice text on paper reserve.
Article Summary of "Judgmental Biases in Conflict Resolution and How to Overcome Them" by Leigh Thompson and Janice Nadler at http://www.crinfo.com/articlesummary/10574/
HEURISTICS AND BIASES AT THE BARGAINING TABLE, Marquette Law Review, Apr2004 Special Issue, Vol. 87 Issue 4, p795-808, 14p at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca.libproxy.uwinnipeg.ca/proxy.cfm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=12761698&site=ehost-live
Maiese, Michelle. "Limits of Rationality." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2005 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/limits_of_rationality/.

Test Anwer Samples

The following former test question and two submitted answers are offered so you may learn the differences between the two types of answers. Notice the greater detail, more drawing of distinctions, use of concrete examples, and more articulate nature of the 9ish answer compared to the 6ish answer.

The question was: Distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic interests for processes, relationships and principles.

The following was a 9ish answer when written before the current grading rubric was implemented. It would score lower now because it omits the 20% for evidence of independent thought. Read the short answer grading rubric.

Instrumental interests relate to the future in that they are concerned with anticipated future negotiations. Intrinsic interests are not.

Process:

A negotiator may have an instrumental interest relating to process. For example, the negotiator may seek an agreement that negotiations will occur face to face or alternatively through agents in the expectation that the agreement will affect the process used in future negotiations.

A negotiator may have an intrinsic interest relating to process. For example, the negotiator may be confrontational in person without regard to how the process would affect the process used in future negotiations.

Relationship:

A negotiator may have an instrumental interest relating to relationship. For example, if during a divorce negotiation, the negotiator knows they will have to deal with the spouse in the future while exchanging possession of children, the negotiator may wish to keep the relationship as cooperative as possible during the present negotiations. Conversely, if there are no children involved, the negotiator may want to eliminate any possibility of any future relationship with the other spouse, in which case, the relationship issues may be handled in the way thought to result in the best outcome during the present negotiation without concern for future negotiations. Similarly, if a product sold is one that requires ongoing maintenance or repeated sales, relationship interests regarding trust and confidence may be more instrumental than intrinsic. However, if the seller is a door to door salesperson, making a one time sale of kitchen pots and pans, relationship interests regarding trust and confidence may be more intrinsic than instrumental. In fact, one side may have the intrinsic relationship interest of terminating the relationship as quickly as possible, either because she does not want to purchase or because she concludes that no sale is likely to the particular homeowner.

Principle:

If a seller may have an instrumental interest in establishing the principle of a 10% commission if, even though that is underpayment for the initial sale, the subsequent ongoing maintenance involves little time and attention yet automatically occurs. The reason would be that over time the 10% commissions on very little maintenance effort will exceed a larger intrinsic commission on the initial sale.

On the other hand, if the seller was cash short, establishing the principle of a 30% commission on the initial sale and only 2% on subsequent sales may be more appealing.

The following was a 6ish answer when written before the current grading rubric was implemented. It would score fewer points now. Read the short answer grading rubric.

Intrinsic: These involve the present. Regarding relationships, people will do what they feel is right for right now. Intrinsic is something people feel personally during the negotiation. It does not focus on the future relationship, only on the relationship at the moment. However, it the future relationship will probably be affected. Intrinsic interests are personal relationship interests.

Instrumental relationships concern other people too. It concerns the future relationship as seen by both parties. Unlike intrinsic, this is not only about oneself.

Intrinsic interests focus on the particular negotiation’s process. That a negotiation goes as a person things it should is what he person wants to know and feel.

Instrumental focuses on the entire negotiation and future negotiations. A negotiator should make sure a negotiation process is working in a desired way.

Grading Rubrics

Below on this web page are two grading rubrics. One for short answers such as are often required on tests and another for written papers such as are required to be prepared outside of formal meetings and handed in for grades.

Immediately below are links to pdf documents of the same rubrics for ease of printing. You will need a pdf reader such as Adobe Acrobat to read them.

For use on test papers pdf: Short Answer Rubric

For use on test papers pdf: Written Paper Rubric

Short Answer Grading Rubric

Correctness is an assumed threshold. If the answer is clearly incorrect and unsupported, you may receive no marks for the answer or reduced marks according to the significance of the incorrectness. Assuming everything in the answer is correct or well supported, the answers will be graded with these percentages

Completeness and thoroughness 60%

Use of clear examples where appropriate 20%

Evidence of independent thought beyond recitation of course content. Ex. Discussion of broader implications, relationships between one or more course topics not expressly addressed during the course, or similarities or differences with non-course material. 20%

Each of the above will be evaluated according to the following subjective criteria to assign the following numerical equivalents:


SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION	Numerical Equivalent	Letter Grade
Excellent	90 - 100	A+
Excellent	85 - 89	A
Excellent	80 - 84	A-
Superior	75 - 79	B+
Superior	70 - 74	B
Slightly Above Average	65 - 69	C+
Average	60 - 64	C
Marginal	50 - 59	D
Failure	0 - 49	F

Written Paper Rubric


Content criteria 70%	approximate grade
outstanding explanation with superior supporting information; unusual insights and flashes of brilliance; creative and original analyses and thoughts; goes well beyond minimum required for assignment.	85 - 100
good solid job on explanation, with excellent support from examples, data, figures, etc.; excellent reasoning, or excellent explanations; goes beyond the minimum required for the assignment.	70 - 84
satisfactory job; does what the assignment asks; decent reasoning or explanations; decent support by data, examples, figures, etc.	60 - 69
decent explanation but too general or some inaccuracies or flaws in reasoning or coverage is accurate but cursory and does not meet the minimum required for a complete answer.	50 - 59
doesn’t effectively address assignment; fails to support assertions with data or examples; unclear explanations; inadequate understanding; major flaws in reasoning or explanations. Or answer missing or does not answer the question.	0 - 49
Writing Criteria 30%	approximate grade
as below, but also has a sense of style, going beyond grammatical correctness to real readability.	85 - 100
excellent paper/paragraph organization, interesting sentences, good grammar, very few spelling errors, does not read like a first draft.	70 - 84
decent organization; serviceable prose; reads like a first draft; a paper with excellent writing will still earn in this level if it contains spelling errors and is clearly not proofread or has incorrect citation.	60 - 69
disorganized; awkward sentence structure; poor grammar; poor spelling; incorrect citation.	50 - 59
similar problems to above, but worse.	0 - 49