国际商务谈判精要（原书第7版）2-Lewicki-EON7e-IM-StructuringtheNegotiationCourse

-

-

PAGE

Copyright©McGraw-HillEducation.Allrightsreserved.NoreproductionordistributionwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofMcGraw-HillEducation

pg.

structuringthenegotiationcourse

NEGOTIATION7e

LEWICKI▪BARRY▪SAUNDERS

Intalkingwithmanyinstructorsaboutthewaysthattheydesignandteachcoursesinnegotiation,weknowthatthereareasmanydifferentcoursedesignsasthereareinstructors!Asaresult,weonlyofferheresomegeneralguidelinestoinstructorsaboutthefactorsthatshouldbetakenintoconsiderationindesigningandstructuringacourse.ManyoftheseguidelinesandsuggestionswereidentifiedinthepreviousNegotiationJournalarticle;wewillbrieflyreviewthemhere.

1.ClassSize.Instructorsdifferontheirabilitytomanagevariousgroupsinexperientiallearningactivities.Goodexperientiallearningrequiresaclassroomofmoderatesize--i.e.bigenoughtoconductmultiplerole-playsthatwillproducedifferentresults,smallenoughtoorchestratetheexperienceinalimitedtime.Werecommendaminimumclasssizeof16,andamaximumclasssizeof36-40.However,someofushavetaughttheseactivitiestogroupsof60ormore.Inlargerclasses,tightorchestrationofactivitiesisamustinordertonotwastetimedistributingmaterials,etc.

2.Facilities.Role-playingwithmultipleteamsnegotiatingsimultaneouslyrequiresthateachteamhavearoomorplacetomeet,andthatadditionalspaceisavailableforoneorbothteamstocaucus(lounges,hallways,cafeteria,etc.).Thus,itismostdesirabletohaveseveralbreakoutroomsavailableneartheclassroomfornegotiationandcaucusing.Itwillbealmostimpossibletoconductthisclassinafixedseatauditoriumwithnooptionsforbreakoutspace.Someinstructorsprefertoteachthiscourseatnightwhentheycanhaveaccesstolotsofemptyclassroomsthatarefullduringthedaytime.Othersassignrole-playstobedoneoutsideofclass.Ifinanydoubt,movetheclasstoaplacewhereextraroomsorflexibleseatingareavailable.

3.ClassHours.Itisverydifficulttoteachthisclassinanumberofshortclassperiods.50-60minuteclassesdonotallowstudentstoprepareforandcarryoutanexercise;spanningtheexercisesovertwodaysfrequentlytakesthe“life”outofthem.WerecommendthatyouschedulethisclassforATLEAST75minutes.Longerclasstimesaregenerallypreferred(90-100minutes),andsomeinstructorsevenpreferone3-4hourclassperiodonceaweek.Whilethefatiguefactorishigh,thelongerclassallowsformaximumflexibilityincarryingoutrole-plays,discussingthem,andintegratingthemwithconceptualmaterial.

4.SequencingofContent.Thisisamatterofchoiceamonginstructors.Theissueboilsdowntoonequestion:isitmoreadvantageousforstudentstoreadtheoryandhearlecturesaboutatopic(e.g.integrativebargaining)beforeexperiencingitinarole-play,orisitbettertodotherole-playfirst?Instructorsdifferonthisquestion,andwesuggestthatyouexperimentwithbothformats.

5.AssignmentEvaluationandGrading.Instructorshaveusedavarietyofdifferentlearningvehiclesincoursesonnegotiation.Wemakethefollowingsuggestions:

•Examinations.Werecommendessayorcase-analysisexaminations.Essayexamsmaybeusedtotestunderstandingandapplicationofconceptspresentedinthetextandinclass.Case-analysisexaminationsshouldassessthenegotiationandconflictdynamicsofaselectedcase,andperhapsapplicationoftheoriesandapproaches.SeveralofthecasesintheReadingsvolumemakeexcellentexamcases.However,theLewickiet.al.booksdoprovideshortanswertestbanksforthetextbookandEssentialsbook.

•Quizzes.Inspiteofthefirststatementaboutexaminations,someofusdouseshortanswerquizzestoassurethatstudentsdothereadings.ThereisnotestbankfortheReadingsvolume,butatestbankhasbeendevelopedfortheaccompanyingNegotiationtextandEssentialsvolume.SeetheInstructorsManualforspecialinstructionsonhowtoassurethatstudentsdonotwidelydistributethesequizzesamongtheirclassmatesand‘cheat’.

•Termpapers.Wehavefrequentlygivenstudentsanumberofoptionsforatermpaperassignment:

>Researchingandanalyzinganegotiationasreportedinthemedia--e.g.alabor-managementdispute,mergeroracquisitiontalks,internationalnegotiations,majorbusinessdeals,etc.Thereareanunlimitednumberoftopicstobetakenfromhistory,politics,laborrelations,businessandinternationalaffairs.

>Researchingandanalyzinganegotiator--e.g.adiplomat,alaborleader,headofstate,orsomeonethestudentcangetinformationon.Actualinterviewswithcardealers,realestatesalespeople,insuranceadjusters,purchasingagents,etc.oftenprovideinterestingexperiences.

>Preparingapaperthatsummarizesastreamofresearchinoneofthemanyareasofnegotiation--e.g.theeffectivenessofthreats,facesaving,strategiesofdeterrence,effectivenessofthirdparties,etc.Topicscanbegeneratedfromtheresearch-orientedtextbooksandjournals.

>Writinga“personalcase,”basedonastudent'sownnegotiatingexperience.Studentsshouldwriteacasethatdescribestheirexperience,andthenanalyzethatcase.Becausestudentsarefrequentlystill“myopic”abouttheirowneffectivenessorineffectivenessasnegotiators,wefrequentlyencouragestudentsnottoselectthisoptionunlesstheycangetsomeone'sviewotherthantheirownabouttheeventsandhowtheytranspired.

>Actually,negotiatingwithsomeoneforsomethingofpersonalvalue,andthenwritingapaperonit.Insteadofdescribingapastexperience,studentscanalsobeaskedtoplanandexecuteanactualnegotiationduringthespanofthecourse,andthenwriteapaperonit.Thepapercanentailtheactualplanningforthenegotiation,theexecutionofthenegotiation,reportofresults,post-hocinterviewsandanalysis,integratingtheory,models,etc.Studentshavedonesomewonderfulprojects:negotiatingagradechangewithafacultymember,resolvingaconflictwitharoommate,parent,spouseorfriend,negotiatinganewjobassignment,salaryorworkingconditionswithanemployer,buyingautomobiles,furnitureandsportinggoods,etc.

>Writingarole-play.Finally,studentsmaycombinepersonalnegotiatingexperiencewithhistoricalresearchtowritearole-playscenarioratherthanacaseordescription.Theserole-playscanbetriedintheclassroomandusedinfutureclasses.

•PersonalApplicationPapersorDiary.Theseassignmentsencouragestudentstoreflectuponasimulationorrole-play,andtoabstractthekeylearningpointsoutofthatevent.Wegenerallyeitherrequirestudentstokeepaweeklyjournalthatisperiodicallycollectedandreviewed,orassign4to5applicationpapersinaterm.Hereisasamplefromoneofourcourseoutlines:

“Thepurposeofthepaperistoencourageareflectionandanalysisprocessonthe'learningbyexperience'simulations;thepaperalsogivestheinstructorasenseofyourindividualprogress,andyourstrengthsandweaknessesasanegotiator.Yourtaskinthispaperistodescribeyourreactions,perceptions,impressionsorsignificantinsightsgainedfromparticipationinorreflectiononthesimulation.Youmaytalkaboutyourself,orthebehaviorofotherpeople,andmaywanttoaddresssomeorallofthefollowingpoints:

1.Briefly,whathappenedinthesimulation,role-play(or'real-lifenegotiation')--thatis,provideabriefoverviewofthekeyevents.

2.Whatdidyoulearnaboutyourselffromthisexperience?

2.Whatdidyoulearnaboutthebehaviorofothersfromthisexperience?

4.Howdoesthisexperiencecomparetoothersthatyouhavehadinsimilarorcomparablecircumstances?

5.Whatdidyoulearnaboutbargainingorconflictfromthissituation?

6.Howdotheconceptsinlecturesorreadingsenrichyourunderstandingoftheprocessofnegotiation,itsoutcomeoryourownnegotiationstyle?

7.Whatwouldyoudothesameordodifferentlyinthefuture,orhowwouldyouliketobehaveinordertoperformmoreeffectively?

Eachpaperwillberead,commentedon,graded,andreturnedtoyou.Thepurposeofthegradesistoencouragethoughtfulanalysisandunderstandingofthesimulations,andtoencourageuseoftheoryandresearchpresentedinreadings,andlectures.Agoodshortpaperisonewhichtriestostepbackfromasimulatedbargainingsituation,identifieskeyeventsandprocesses,usesreadingsorlecturematerialtohelpstructuretheanalysis,andiswellwritten.Alloftheseguidelinesarejustthat--guidelines.Outstandingpapershavefrequentlybeenwritteninthepastthatdonotcloselyconformtothisformat.”

•SummaryPersonalNegotiationAssessmentPaper(EndofCourse)

Whethertheshortpapersareusedornot,studentsmayalsobeaskedtowriteasummaryself-evaluationpaperattheendofthecourse.Thesepapersareusually8-10pagesinlength.Weaskstudentstocomprehensivelyaddresstheirnegotiatingstyleandeffectiveness(strengths,weaknesses,opportunities,threats,futurelearningagenda,etc.),integratingreadingsandactivitiesthathaveoccurredduringtheacademicsemester.Studentsmightaddresssomeorallofthefollowingpoints:

1.DoIenjoybargaining?DoIenjoybeinginsituationsofconflict,and/ordoIenjoyattemptingtopersuadeotherstomypointofview?Why?

2.Doothersseemeasagoodbargainer?AmIseenasstrongorweak?AmIperceivedasonewhogivesineasily,orholdsouttoolong,orknowswhentomakeconcessionsandtradeoffs?

3.HowdoIseemyselfinrelationtothequestionin(2)above?

4.HoweffectiveamIatpersuadingothers?Howeffectivearemyverbalskillstoarguemypoints?

5.AtwhattimedoIfeelmostcompetentinbargaining?Leastcompetent?

6.HowdoIrespondwhenIholdthepowerinasituation?HowdoIrespondwhenIhavelittleornopowerinasituation?

7.Overall,whataremymajorstrengthsandweaknessesasanegotiator,andwhatkindoflearninggoalsmustIsetformyselfforthefuture?

Wehavehadgoodexperiencewithpersonallearningpapersandjournals,andsummarypapersonpersonallearninganddevelopment.Manystudentslikethem--butsomedon't,anditshowsintheamountoftimeandefforttheygivetotheactivity.Twocautionarynotesaboutusingdiaries,journalsandlearningsummaries:

[1]Theyaretimeconsumingtoread.Evaluationforeachstudenttakessignificantlylongerthangradinganexam.Inaddition,individualfeedbacktostudents--writtenorverbal--isalsoverytimeconsuming.

[2]Gradingandevaluationofjournals,bynecessity,isareasonablysubjectiveprocess.Asaresult,whiletheinstructorwillbeabletodiscriminatedifferencesintheconscientiousnesspaidbythestudenttothejournal-writingtask,thedetailednatureofentries,andlevelofstudentinsightandpersonallearningthatmaybeoccurring,itmaybeverydifficulttoexplainandjustifysuchdifferences(andtherelatedgrade)tostudents.Ifyou,and/oryourstudents,haveastrongneedforobjectivityingrading,usingjournalscancreateaproblem.

•Gradednegotiation.Lastly,wehaveoftengradedstudentsontheoutcomesofseveralnegotiations.Oneclearconsequenceofthispracticeisthatitraisesthecompetitivenessofthesimulationsconsiderably;butitalsoforcesstudentstoevaluatetheirpositionscarefullyandtaketheprocessseriously.Anexampleofoneformatforusinggradednegotiationsisasfollows:

GradedNegotiations.Threerole-playswillbeconductedoutsideofclass.Byvirtueofapointschemeassignedtoparticularvariationsinsettlements,negotiatorswillbeevaluatedonthesettlementstheyachieve.Theprocedurewillbasicallyoperateasfollows:

1.Roleswillbeassigned,andthenegotiationsexplainedattheendofaparticularclassperiod.Studentswillbeassignedtooneortwopersonteams,andopponentsspecified.

2.Studentswillhaveanentireweektoarrangeanegotiationwiththeiropponentandarriveatasettlement.

3.Resultsofnegotiationaredueinwritingtotheinstructorbyaspecifieddeadline.Failuretomeetthedeadlinewillresultinapenalty.

4.Teamswillbeassignedgradepointsbasedonthequalityoftheirsolutionascomparedtoallotherteamsplayingthatsameposition.

5.Allmembersofateamwillbeassignedthesamegradepointsfortheexerciseunlessappealedtotheinstructor.Appealsmustbespecifiedinwritingnolaterthan24hoursafterthenegotiationresultsaresubmitted.

Therewillbethreerole-plays,andtheyareweightedintheircontributiontothefinalgrade.Role-plays1and2willbeworthx%apiece,andRole-play#3willbeworthy%.”

Ifaninstructorisgoingtousegradednegotiations,wesuggestthefollowingrulesofthumb:

•Gradednegotiationsshouldcomprisenomorethan1/3ofthetotalcoursegrade.

•Thereshouldbeseveralgradednegotiations.

•Agreementsarrivedatbythestudentsshouldbesubmittedtoyouintheirhandwritingandsignedbybothsides,sothatthereisnodisagreementastowhatwasagreedto.

•Inpurelydistributivenegotiations,studentsreceivingthebestpackageoneachsideshouldbegiventhebestgrades.Thus,inabuyer/sellernegotiation,thebestbuyeroutcomeandthebestselleroutcomegetthetopgrade,andothersaregradedrelativetothetopineachgroup.

•Insimulationsthatemphasizeintegrativenegotiations,studentsshouldbegradedbasedonthebestcooperative,innovativejointagreementthatisderived.Studentjudgesmaybeusedasanaidtodeterminewhatarethe“best”solutions.STUDENTSSHOULDBETOLDWHETHERTHEYWILLHAVEANEGOTIATIONGRADEDBYDISTRIBUTIVEORINTEGRATIVECRITERIA.

•Unlessyousetupexplicitcriteriatodoso,studentsshouldnotbejudgedontheirbehaviorinthenegotiations,butontheresultstheyachieve.Ifyouthinkyouareabletojudge“better”or“worse”negotiatorperformance,wewouldbepleasedtolearnoftheschemeyoudeveloporusetodothis.

•Inevaluatingnegotiationoutcomesandassigninggrades--particularlyintegrativenegotiations--wehavefrequentlybeenchallengedbystudentsastothevalidityofourevaluationcriteria.Bepreparedtodefendthecriteriayouuseifyouemploythismethod.Wehavealsofoundithelpfultodelegateasmallgroupofstudentstobean“appealspanel”forhearinggradegrievancesongradednegotiations,and/ortodevelopthecriteriaforevaluatingtheresultsofeachscenario.Thus,forexample,asmallgroupofstudentscouldbeaskednottodotherole-play,butinsteadtodevelopthecriteriabywhichothers'solutionswillbejudged.

•Wehaveexperimentedwithcombiningthegradednegotiationandananalysispaperonthenegotiation.Thus,partofthegradeisassignedbasedontheactualoutcomeachievedinthegradedrole-play,whileanotherpartofthegradeisbasedonthequalityofananalysispaperontheevent.Thiscombinestwotypesofassignmentsintoone,andcreatestheopportunityforstudentswithgoodnegotiatingskillsbutpoorwriting/analysisskills(andviceversa)toperformwell.

Insummary,gradingnegotiationscanbeacreativealternativetoreadingpapersandcorrectingexams.However,themorecompetitivetheclassroomenvironment,themoretheinstructormaybecomeenmeshedinnumerous“gradinghassles”withstudentsaboutcriteriaused,howgoodtheirsolutionswere,etc.Bepreparedforthisasalogicaloffshootofanyeffortstogradestudentsontheirperformance.Takeappealsonlyinwriting,andconsiderthemwhenyouarenotunderdirectpressurefromastudent'sownpersuasivenegotiatingability.

PeerAssessment/ReputationIndex.Thereareatleasttwovariationshere.Firstnegotiatorsmightbeencouragedtogiveeachotherfeedbackattheendofspecificroleplay/simulationexercises.Forexample,instructorsmightcreateaformwhicheachstudentfillsoutafteraroleplay,indicating:

•1-2strengthsdemonstratedbytheothernegotiatorintheexercise

•1-2weaknessesdemonstratedbytheothernegotiatorintheexercise

•howmuchyouwanttoworkwiththeotherinthefuture.

Theseformsmaybedistributedtotheother(andusedtoprepareasummaryself-assessmentlearningpaper),ormaybeshared‘onthespot’withtheothersinanafter-classdebriefing.

Incontrast,studentsmayjudgeeachother’snegotiationreputationattheendoftheclass.RoyLewickihasbeenusingapeerassessmenttoolformanyyears,calledthe‘ReputationIndex’.TheindexwascreatedbyProf.WilliamKahnatBostonUniversity,andhasbeenusedandadaptedwithhispermission.

ThepurposeoftheReputationIndex(RI)wastocreateabriefpeerassessmenttoolthatwouldcurtailhighlycompetitivebehaviorintheclass.Inthoseearlierclasssections,studentsbelievedthattheyhadtobehaveruthlesslytogetasatisfactorygrade,and/orbelievethathighlycompetitiverole-playingbehaviorhasnonegativeconsequences.Asaresult,anend-of-coursepeerassessmentwasintroduced.Studentshavetheopportunitytorateeveryotherstudentintheirsection,awardingthem“votes”forgoodorbadnegotiationreputationsinthesection(seeRIbriefingformfollowingthissection).

StudentswererequiredtocompletetheIndex,eveniftheychosetogivenootherstudentamark.Theywerealsorequiredtomakecommentsforeverynegativevotetheygave.Theinstructorthenentersallofthisinformationintoaspreadsheet,sothatstudentswhoreceivednegativecommentscouldobtainthatfeedback‘blind’fromtheinstructor.RIevaluationscanbeturnedintonumericalgradesasfollows:

1. PrepareamasterlistofnamesonanExcelspreadsheet.

2. Revieweachstudent’squestionnaire.Onthespreadsheet,enter:

a.+2pointsifastudentgota“Good”evaluationbysomeonewhohaddirectexperiencewithhim.

b.+1pointifastudentgota“Good”evaluationbysomeonewhodidnothavedirectexperiencewithhim.

c.-2pointsifastudentgota“Bad”evaluationbysomeonewhohaddirectexperiencewithhim.

d.-1pointifastudentgota“Bad”evaluationbysomeonewhodidnothavedirectexperiencewithhim.

e.Enterallcomments,madebystudents.(Irequirestudentstomakecommentsiftheygivenegativeevaluations,soyouhavesomethingtotellthosestudentsthatgetnegativescores.

3.Whenyouhaveenteredallthepointsreceivedbyeverystudent,createanabsolutetotalscoreforeachstudent(combinationofthe+scoresand–scores.ThenscaletheseabsolutescoresagainstthenumberofpointsyouwanttogivefortheIndexinyourgradingallocation(Iweightthisactivity10%,or20points,inthecourse).Mydistributionof‘points’usuallyrunsfrom20pointsforthemostpositivereputationto8-10pointsforthemostnegativereputation.

4.All“C”votesandcommentscarryoverintoextracreditintheClassParticipationgrade

FeedingBacktheReputationIndex.Iprovidestudentswiththeir+scores,-scores,absolutescore,pointfortheRIinthegradingscheme,andallthecommentsthathavebeenmadeaboutthatindividual(thesecanbeeasilycutandpastedfromthespreadsheettoablankpageortoanemail.)

EvaluatingtheImpactoftheReputationIndexonStudentConduct.TheRIhasgenerallybeensuccessfulincurtailingfrivolouscompetitivebehavior.However,somestudentshavecomplainedthatitistoopowerful--i.e.thattheytoomoreconcernedabouttheirreputationwithpeers,attheexpenseofallowingthemto‘experiment’withcompetitivebehaviorintheclass.Indeed,thisistradeoff,andinstructorsshouldconsiderthepositiveandnegativeconsequencesforthemselves.InseveralpresentationsabouttheRIatteachingconferencesandseminars,Lewickihasoutlinedtheprosandconsasfollows:

+Temperscareless,thoughtlessandclearlyunethicalbehavior(over-weightsthenegativecosts,eventhoughtheindexisonlyworth10%ofacoursegrade).

+Createsareasonablysimpleprocedureforincorporatingpeerassessmentintothegradingprocess.

-Tempersstudentrisk-takingacrosstheboard(createsnormativepressuretowardmediocrity,beinginvisible)

-“Bad”behaviorincidents(andindividuals)becomelightningrodsforlotsofgeneralizednegativeaffect,commentaryfrompeers.

-Mayplayintothe“clique”networkoftheMBAprogram(peersevaluatefriendspositively,non-friendsnegatively).

Alternatives

1. Abandontheindex

2. Continuetheindex,butmakeitanon-gradedcoursecomponent.

3. Doamorecomplexorformalpeerassessment,suchas“Isassertivewithoutdamagingrelationship”or“Improvesrelationshipwithoutdamagetoaparticularnegotiation”

4. Specificpeerassessmentbyopponentsaftereachnegotiation

5. Limitassessorstothosewhohaveonlyhaddirectexperience

6. Broaderpeervotingonamoregeneralizedsetofcriterianearendofcourse

Forinformationonaspecificpeerassessmenttoolthathasreceivedsometestingandvalidation,seePeterColemanandYingYingJoanneLim,“ASystematicApproachtoEvaluatingtheEffectsofCollaborativeNegotiationTrainingonIndividualsandGroups”,NegotiationJournal,October2001,pp.363-392.

SAMPLEREPUTATIONINDEX

(Prof.RoyLewicki,OhioStateUniversity)

ThisquestionnaireconcernsthereputationgarneredbystudentsduringthesemesterinManagerialNegotiations.Pleasefollowtheinstructionsclosely.Youmustreturnthisquestionnairewithyournameonit,evenifyouchoosetomakenofurthermarks.

Onthenextpage,youwillfindalistofallthestudentsinthecourse.Dot