Task: Re-enact and analyze a historical negotiation scenario
1. Part 1: Re-enact AOL/Time Warner Merger negotiation scenario through role play and imagined dialogue. The three parties are 1) AOL shareholders, 2) Time Warner shareholders, and 3) Consumer Union. First, do some background research on your party's motives and interests in the negotiation. Then create an imagined dialogue between the 3 negotiating parties. Think about each party's feelings, motives, and interests, and present them. Ask questions of each opponent. Hide information from each opponent if each party did so in real life. Propose and respond to settlements. It's ok if the dialogue isn't completely historically accurate. What matters most is that you present each party's known position and actions as fully and accurately as possible so that you have enough information to analyze during the second part of the project.
Example dialogue:
BASEBALL PLAYERS' UNION: The players have decided to strike because they aren't happy with their contracts.
STADIUM FOOD VENDORS: A strike might force the cancellation of the entire season! This could ruin my business!
FANS: You already earn extremely large salaries. What more could you want?
BASEBALL PLAYERS' UNION: Our terms are as follows: [terms X, Y, and Z]
TEAM OWNERS: Couldn't we finish this season and just keep negotiating?
BASEBALL COMMISSIONER: I propose the following: [settlement proposal X]
and so on.
2. Part 2 (Group): Analyze the negotiation scenario. Summarize and analyze the negotiation. In your analysis be sure to address the following 7 questions' answers:
1. Who were the parties?
2. What was the final outcome?
3. What were the alternatives to a negotiated agreement? Were the parties aware of these alternatives?
4. What were each party's set of interests? Were the parties aware of their interests?
5. How did the parties create or claim value?
6. 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
7. If cognitive mistakes were made, how did they affect the negotiation? How might the parties have acted differently?