Part 1 (Group): Re-enact a historical negotiation scenario through role play and imagined dialogue
As a group, choose a well-documented negotiation scenario from history. The scenario could be a business acquisition, a labor/management dispute, or a political disagreement-any situation that involved a negotiation process between two (or more) parties, whether or not the situation was settled successfully. After your group has decided on the scenario, each student should choose a role from among the various parties in the negotiation. For example, if your scenario is a U.S. baseball strike, different students would play the roles of the baseball players' union, the team owners, the baseball commissioner, the courts, etc. If there aren't enough roles for each student, then share role duties with another student.
Once you have chosen your roles, do some background research on your party's motives and interests in the negotiation. Then use the Small Group Discussion Board or Chat rooms to create an imagined dialogue between the various negotiating parties. Think about your party's feelings, motives, and interests, and present them by posting snippets of dialogue on the Small Group Discussion Board. Ask questions of your opponent. Hide information from your opponent if your party did so in real life. Propose and respond to settlements. Perhaps your party isn't even aware of his or her interests, in which case you can present this lack of awareness by being vague in your dialogue.
Part 2 (Group): Analyze the negotiation scenario
Divide the work among group members. Summarize and analyze the negotiation in a 3-5 page project. In your analysis be sure to address the following:
*Who were the parties?
*What was the final outcome?
*What were the alternatives to a negotiated agreement? Were the parties aware of these alternatives?
*What were each party's set of interests? Were the parties aware of their interests?
*How did the parties create or claim value?
*Indicate whether any party made any of the following cognitive mistakes in the negotiation:
*Assuming a fixed-pie perspective
*Lack of awareness of framing effects
*Nonrational escalation of conflict
*Negotiator overconfidence
*Negotiator egocentrism
*Anchoring
*Ignoring the cognition of others
*If cognitive mistakes were made, how did they affect the negotiation? How might the parties have acted differently?