Session
Season
a) Understanding the impact of role plays & simulations for conflict management
Many educational theorists believe that learning is context-dependent. In other words, the nature of a student’s learning depends on the context in which the learning takes place. From this perspective, authentic activities—or learning activities that re-create as closely as possible the key dynamics and challenges of real-world activities—are critical to making learning relevant.
But what does it mean to make a negotiation exercise “authentic”? One approach is to select exercises in which the parties, issues, and factual contexts replicate as closely as possible the negotiations with which participants are familiar. This is most easily done with a relatively homogenous participant group-for instance, litigation attorneys, middle-school teachers, environmental activists, financial services sales representatives, or congressional representatives—who are likely to share some common negotiation experiences.
b) How exercises, cases and coaching can make you a better negotiator In the January 2013 issue of Negotiation Journal, George Mason University professor Daniel Druckman and Creighton University Law School professor Noam Ebner discuss the benefits and drawbacks of simulations as a learning tool. Reviewing social science research, they find that engaging in simulations improves students’ motivation and retention of key concepts that have already been taught in lectures and classroom discussions. Thus, classes that combine simulations with more traditional classroom methods may maximize learning.
c) Make the most of online negotiations While no communication medium is as rich in social cues as face-to-face meetings, some are richer than others. On the phone, we can read a lot into our counterpart’s tone of voice and how quickly they get down to business. On a video conference, we can assess the other party’s receptiveness to a proposal from their smile or, conversely, their crossed arms and frown. Emails and texts tend to be “impoverished” forms of communication because they lack nonverbal and visual cues, though emojis can help.Communication media also vary in their synchronicity, or the degree to which people can be engaged in the same activity at the same time. Phone calls, conference calls, and videoconferences—and, to some extent, text messages—allow us to carry on a continuous conversation. By contrast, emails (and sometimes texts) tend to extend the communication process because of delays between messages, note Swaab and Galinsky.
d) (video) Teaching Simulations Online: Q&A with David Seibel PON Affiliated Faculty member, and experienced online negotiation teacher, David Seibel presents tips and tricks for teaching with role-play simulations online.
e) Dana Caspersen’s 17 principles of conflict resolution Summary Conflicts trigger our deepest emotions. Just watch two young children battle over the same toy. Filled with sheer rage, they each grab at the toy, and each other, until one of them prevails (or the toy breaks). Such conflicts set the stage for all of our adult struggles. The words we use may become more sophisticated, but the underlying feelings remain strikingly similar.The key feature of the new Dana Caspersen’s book, Changing the Conversation: The 17 Principles of Conflict Resolution, in my opinion, is its emphasis on these underlying emotions. This graphically-oriented how-to book takes the reader through her 17 principles in a way that allows you to understand each principle, its “anti-principle,” its focus, specific examples, a way to put it into practice, and the choice it presents. Drawing from examples that range from relationships to office politics to parenting, Caspersen gives you the chance to understand what’s behind life’s everyday conflicts and how best, in turn, to consider handling them.
The group will be divided into pairs. choosing one of the following cases:
- PowerScreen Case (High complexity)
- (Video) The HackerStar Negotiation
A realistic video depicting the use of principled negotiation to prepare for and negotiate a bitter business dispute. Features Getting to YES co-author Roger Fisher.
The HackerStar video is based on the PowerScreen Negotiation Role-Play Simulation, and can be used alongside the simulation. Both the video and role-play are available from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center
- (Video) The HackerStar Negotiation
- ParkerGibson Case (low complexity)
- Real Estate Role-Play: Parker-Gibson
Two-party, single-issue distributive negotiation between two neighbors regarding the potential sale of a vacant lot; refinement of Appleton-Baker
- Real Estate Role-Play: Parker-Gibson
(00:00:00) Juan Carlos: Really fun experience to see how this exercise went. It's really funny because everyone was at first really lost and first everyone was trying to push for their own interest.
Hey everyone, we just have one group missing that they still working on the, on the agreement, but it was very funny to see that at first, everyone was only defending their interest or their part interest. Then after a time, all of the groups were talking about joint interest and also talked about feelings.
I loved that at certain point, all of the groups talked about having an apology between the parts involved and also trying to see deeper into the conflict. Like not only having the information that is on top and the really basic information, but trying to, to deeper into what caused the, what caused the conflict.
Also a lot of the groups about like, having an agreement to have nonviolent communication, because they were calling their names one another and they were not like having a good communication.
It was really nice to see like how everybody at the end also talked about the feelings of the parts and how can like they benefit. I want hear from you, what was your experience? There were five groups I am gonna go in order. I am going go first with the group of Sam. How did you go? Did you make an agreement?
(00:02:15) Speaker 1: Yes, I can lead. Then I can the word to the part, but we have agreed to integrate the Mr. Gates that showed interest for the new product that hacker has been developing, integrate him in the company and lead the marketing and sales area of the company.
That way we solve the problem of letting our R and D go away, because it will come back to the company will be part of the company and try to, and try to solve the issues that have lead to the conflict, defining the boundaries of work for R and D in future. and basically that's the agreement that we've reached. I can give her to the other part.
(00:03:15) Speaker 2: Yeah, we are happy with, with that because we, our client actually is more aligned, he never wanted to go out of the company, what he actually wanted was to have a more active part in the research and development, which he's happy with letting star Mr. Gates take the other part that he's not that interested.
(00:04:16) Juan Carlos: One question to you guys. Did you talk about changing or restructuring the employment agreement?
(00:04:28) Speaker 1: We talked about defining the boundaries. Go ahead, Sam.
(00:04:36) Speaker 2: Exactly. we talked about having a defined budget and we didn't went very much into, into that, but San was saying that it's, it's important in order to work in the future.
(00:04:51) Juan Carlos: Yes. Its important option to rewrite employment agreement to avoid future disputes because maybe you can solve this dispute, but it arises again. We can try to like avoid having the same dispute in the future. Also including some of these things into new agreement. The question that I am going to make to you is what were the feelings that you identified from each of the parts?
(00:05:45) Speaker 4: Yeah. I have some notes here that I'll read. We came to an agreement. Yeah. This was quite the process. It got very heated, there was a lot of name calling at the beginning.
That was one of the first things we came to is we both parties had to agree to come to a level of professionalism and maturity and no more name calling and mutual respect. I'll read what we have here.
We offer an investment deal to gates. Hacker requires that the team have a dedicated marketing and sales person. Hacker also requires a recognition of mistakes and attribution that the business side was not properly executed.
That hacker gets creative credit for the production power screen. Hacker will have a research and development role from now on. Hacker will engage with maturity and professionalism. Hacker will also receive an increase in royalties.
As for feelings, I can say it was quite heated. I think the majority, the bulk of this case is about feelings. Particularly me and Tamara were representing hacker. We could see in the agreement there that he wasn't the finances, weren't his first goal. His first mission was to just have proper recognition for what he had created. I think that was a really big part of it.
(00:07:10) Juan Carlos: Yes. Feelings are, I wouldn't say always, but most of the times key to solving this because as we saw in earlier sessions, when people don't feel recognized or feel that their feelings are being ignored or they they're being hurt, they tend to close or to react irrationally just to defend themselves.
I think that the position of hacker like, "Sue me" that is just a position that he took because of defend himself. But it was not like the most rational decision.
If we Sue this case, it's gonna be very complex and both of the parts have, have a good point in, in the, in the argument, but there is also an employment agreement. It's a case, but it shows how sometimes what we need to reach a better solution is just to communicate.
Sometimes, even though that the direct parts involved are not having the dialogue, maybe the two third parts that are professional professionally responsible can like make an agreement for, for, for when two parts are having communication issues. I wanna know if TA have to say something,
(00:08:58) Speaker 5: I grew up a lot during that call. I'll be honest. People kept dropping in and I kept telling the star side of the story and maybe I was being a little emotional about it. I learned to keep a calm head I went to the balcony and so we could build the bridge and, yeah, that was my side.
I think we just, we had to kind of rush it near the end. We needed more time really to debate the finer points. But I think we can come around to a place where both parties can be like civil. I do worry about like the long term success of staying together. I feel like we might need to add like extra relationship counseling of some sort, but we didn't get to that. We didn't really get to discuss it
(00:10:40) Juan Carlos: How did you go, Han?
(00:10:48) Speaker 6: I think we got to make an agreement. We decided to do a joint recommendation from both the lawyers to the client in which they should appreciate the common ground and the fundamental thing that the products work and that have market fit and that they can continue be successful.
We said they should not end the company. They should provide the rules. Even if an employee works over time after hours, that continues being an intellectual property of the company. This case doesn't present again, but we also included an apology from star to hacker for not recognizing the powerscreen potentials in the beginning.
We offered a hacker at 25, or we think both group of lawyers, we think that hacker should get at 25% of the royalties. Yeah, I think that, that was it. I don't know if Livia Matt went add something else.
(00:12:05) Speaker 9: I thought it was interesting by listening to everyone's cases, how, what it was so given at first that made us not want to push that much. She was like, oh yeah, that sounds great, actually. Then I'm thinking now, if there was more of a push, if that would have incentivized, the more fair and like very thought out solution should come up.
(00:12:56) Juan Carlos: One question to you guys on the restraints of on choice, did you get to think what was going to be the most common criticism you may receive on the agreement?
(00:13:13) Speaker 6: I think we didn't actually get there, but if maybe the easier criticism would be that we gave too much royalties to hack. Maybe 15% of 20% would've been enough, but yeah, we didn't really get that that far.
(00:13:40) Juan Carlos: It, it is something that sometimes we miss, but it's, it's very important to give solidity to our, to our ideas, to have this quick re to prepare a quick response to the most common criticism.
If people tell you, Hey, you gave too much. Maybe you can say, okay, but he he's my friend. I wanted to continue the relationship rather than losing a relationship with my friend, just because of money.
That is a quick response that you can say to people when they tell you, Hey, you made a bad agreement and you say, no, the agreement wasn't just for money. I wanted to keep my relationship and keep my company. yes, it's important.
(00:14:54) Speaker 11 The, yeah. Oh, sorry. I was, I was, I was waiting for ddan because he kinda worded it the best for our proposal ideas to hacker.
(00:15:06) Speaker 12 I had to have some notes. We had, we didn't maybe get quite as far along as some of the groups, but we have a couple potential options. One is to propose a buyout and then admit that we didn't acknowledge the value of the product, but that our need to properly market existing products interfered with our ability to appreciate it.
If we go forward together that hacker could have full creative control of development, as long as our client Stanley could have full control of business operations, because that was that hacker was sort of, roadblocking some of the business operations and just let him hack cuz that's what he loves.
If we can't come to an agreement, then just let the venture capital buy out and give up control, but get paid. But I don't think that's what hacker wants
(00:16:48)
Speaker 13 Yeah. I guess our group, we were pretty neutral in our approach. Maybe a little too neutral, but yeah, we weren't sure if they could continue in the same house or not, we were maybe a bit doubtful that the tensions would be solved, but yeah, we saw, okay, if we can't live in the same house, then some, somebody might have to buy the other person out and go their separate ways.
We were trying to get to the core needs, which like another group said was like, the acknowledgement was so big. Like you said, Juan, maybe it doesn't need to go as far as a lawsuit, just sometimes people want to feel heard and acknowledged and the communication wasn't there.
(00:17:40) Juan Carlos: Yes. This shows that there is not one way to solve this conflict. A buyout is also like a possible, a possible exit to the conflict and it's not bad. It's not really bad, but on this, like, like this tool that like, what if the, what if I say no? What if the other part says no to, to that proposal, you're going to go to, to litigation or what or what? Because it's also really important always to ask ourselves what if the other part says, no,
(00:18:32) Speaker 13 Yeah, this was another thing we identified was in this case. I don't think either party would want to go to litigation. Like it's not such a crazy, huge issue. It would be bad for both parties and very expensive.
(00:18:56) Juan Carlos: Okay. I am going with the last group that is with decentralized and RA. How did you guys go just to, to, to have this last group?
(00:19:14) Speaker 14: Yeah. I mean, we had a nice discussion just, but basically on the merits and the inherent justice issues at stake, then we tried to analyze the strength and weaknesses of both sides and came to conclusion that there were each side was gonna come in with thinking fully to their strength.
I think then we tried to see some of the potential weaknesses that if it went to litigation or arbitration, that it creates sort of an uncertainty for either party.
To mitigate that uncertainty, we were looking then for common solutions and we discussed at least what what could be shared, sort of like if you're thinking about a divorce, what then is the joint custody? Is it a creative commons license of the software that was developed?
The parties can part ways more amicably and the competition was lonely limited maybe to a year. You make very clear in the settlement agreement as to what the, sort of the terms of divorce are, what the sharing of that software could look like only what was developed at that moment, sort of a shared use, and then maybe moving on. But this is a bit where we've, this is where this is at least my one view. Maybe other colleagues wanna share views. Thank you.
(00:20:49) Speaker 15: Yeah. It didn't seem like in spite of being Star's attorney reading through the employment agreement carefully, I think he should have had me draft it and not whatever fly by night guy he had do it. It doesn't say anything about intellectual property in the agreement.
It was really difficult for me to negotiate heavily for him. What we did manage to come away with was that since my client is so incredibly unhappy with making a profit in software his first four years in business and thinks that he should be like mooning with it and thinks that somehow two products are enough in four years.
You can tell I'm a little prejudice here that I was going to talk with my client and convince him that he should be happy with having the rights to use the latest software that hacker had developed.
We weren't even sure if it fell into the, if it was even covered under the employment agreement, because it had to do with software controlling other devices or something.
I don't have the exact wording in front of me. We don't even know if that's what the software is, but that I would convince my client to be happy with the right, to use that software and point out that he'll be able to use it as part of a suite of software that he already has from hacker.
That hacker won't have the rights to the two pieces of software he already has, and that he should drop the noncompete and just walk away from it and stay friends and let hacker hack that. That's me trying to convince my client to do this. I mean, he's welcome to take it to court, but I don't think that his employment agreement is well drafted.
(00:22:43) Juan Carlos: Okay. Now I hope everyone has enjoyed this exercise. This, this role plays are really important into the formation and the training of mediators. The idea of graviton is to be able to do this exact same work that we did today. Like maybe if there are two people that are having a conflict and that they don't have a good communication between themselves, we, as gravitons representing them, can like get into agreements and propose things to benefit the best of them all and to like calm and keep to help people keep calm and building bridges, to like make good decisions and, and good negotiations and foster the wellbeing of our community.