Click any exercise to jump to the product description. The Biopharm-Seltek Negotiation | The Interim Performance Review | The Commodity Purchase | Viking Investments | Sphynx Malls | Strategic Choices in Global Telecommunications | The Low-Price Promotion Program | Strategic Alliances: Selling to the Pentagon | Catamount Ranch | Ford New Product | Strategic Diversification at Delta Airlines | The Grade Change | Managing Upward/Managing Downward | The Drug-Testing Program | Assessment of Project Team Effectiveness | The SPARSE Questionnaire
The cases and experiential exercises published by Creative Consensus, Inc. are supplied on a licensing basis. Due to the widespread availability of convenient photocopying, most clients prefer to have us supply them with copy-ready masters of our published cases and experiential exercises which they then reproduce in whatever quantity they need. Once the client notifies us of the number of copies needed, we will send them a document that combines formal permission and an invoice. When names are used at all, the experiential exercises are written with gender-neutral names like Chris, Leslie, Fran, etc., that can be assumed easily by role-players of either sex. You will need to read the descriptions of each of these materials, because the titles are designed not to lead the learner in a particular direction. This is done for two reasons. First, experiential learning, at its best, is discovery learning. Second, real-world problems do not come neatly packaged. Managers encounter problems “in the round,” and learning to pinpoint what is the problem that needs to be addressed is a valuable managerial skill. In addition to packaged learning experiences, Creative Consensus, Inc. offers a diagnostic questionnaire that can be used to assess how well an organizational unit is operating. The organizational unit may be an entire business (or non-business organization), a strategic business unit, a department within a business, or a work group. There is also a version designed to assess the functioning of not-for-profit organizations. This diagnostic instrument, described at the end of this document, can be used as an adjunct to instructional materials, or purely for assessment purposes. Annotated Descriptions of Experiential Exercises
The Biopharm-Seltek Negotiation A secondary bargaining issue is sale of the patent, which will become worthless to Seltek when that company has sold the plant. Seltek wants to sell the patent along with the plant, but Biopharm has no strategic interest in buying the patent, so there is no positive bargaining range. The case is currently written such that Biopharm shouldn’t buy the patent at any price, due to the risk of inheriting product liability problems. This allows the instructor to make a point about strategic focus: negotiators should not get caught making “bargain” purchases if the resulting deal is inconsistent with their interests. The case can easily be modified to bring out a different learning point, by changing the text so that Seltek wants to continue to sell its current biotech product, and Biopharm’s Board of Directors has no objection to contract manufacturing. With that simple modification, Biopharm can agree to manufacture the patented product for Seltek on a cost-plus basis once they buy the plant. This produces an interesting reversal of relationships: Biopharm is now a seller of plant capacity, and Seltek a buyer of manufacturing services. If the parties dealt with each other adversarially in selling the plant, it will now be hard for them to establish a positive relationship as value-chain partners. Biopharm-Seltek takes 10 minutes to read in preparation, and 20 minutes to complete the dyadic negotiation. It is a user-friendly exercise, written in such a way that participants need not have much knowledge of business or pharmaceuticals, and the math is very simple. An instructor’s manual is not written for this simulation because instructors almost invariably have their own preferred text or model to draw upon when debriefing the case. Instructors seeking a negotiation model are advised to read Chapter 6 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001). Back to top. The Interim Performance Review The simulation is most often used to provide insights about participants' preferred styles of dealing with an interpersonal problem that is somewhat uncomfortable to deal with—participants may choose to be candid or indirect (tacit) in addressing the problem, or avoid dealing with it. The simulation can also be used to highlight asymmetry of perspectives between bosses and subordinates—they see the same situation very differently. Sometimes it is used to teach issues of communication, trust, the emotional experience of negotiation, the management of working relationships, and workplace ethics, or some combination of the above. There is no math involved in the case, just a situation that looks very different from the two perspectives. This exercise requires 25 minutes to read the short case materials and plan an approach, and 20-25 minutes for the simulated boss-subordinate meeting. Debriefing takes approximately 45 minutes. Many professors mildly customize this exercise so that it involves graduates of their own college or university; in executive education contexts, the exercise works best in its generic form. Notes for the instructor are available upon request. Back to top. The Commodity Purchase (“Pheasants Eggs”) The simulation scenario involves a seller who has 100,000 pheasant eggs and up to five buyers who need the eggs for very different purposes. If the eggs are simply auctioned to the highest bidder, the seller achieves a suboptimal outcome. Combinations of buyers can pool their purchasing power and instead of competing, collaborate to share the scarce commodity. But the necessary strategic alliances between buyers are hard to achieve given their unwillingness to disclose information about their true needs, and the uncooperative relationships that they bring based on their assumptions, or that arise due to the process of having to compete in an auction. The basic version of this simulation is set in Chicago and denominated in US dollars. A European, denominated in euro currency, is also available. PowerPoint debriefing presentations and notes for the instructor are available for both versions. The exercise requires 10-15 minutes of preparation and a maximum of 45 minutes to run (some instructors prefer to allot only 30 minutes), followed by 30-45 minutes of debriefing. The exercise can be used to bring out learning in the areas of distributive versus integrative bargaining, negotiator expectations and aspirations, communication within a group, auctions, the selling process, coalition (i.e., strategic alliance) formation within a value chain, relationships between the parties, persuasive appeals based on economic advantage versus social responsibility, and sunk costs. Back to top. Viking Investments This exercise simulates a disputed debt between a real estate developer and a builder, set in the context of a multifaceted, long-term business relationship. It can be used to teach conflict de-escalation, the appropriate managerial use of power, negotiators’ responsibilities to constituents, and how to negotiate from a low-power position. It could also be used as a mediation case. Preparation takes at least one hour, because there is a lot of detail involved in how the dispute progressed as far as it did. The negotiation itself can be completed in 30 minutes if individuals are negotiating as principals, but the exercise is often set up as a negotiation between two groups—two or three people representing the developer and two or three people representing the builder—in which case it is best to allow 30 minutes for each side to plan strategy and then 90 minutes to negotiate to settle the dispute. A set of pre- and post-negotiation debriefing questionnaires is available. Back to top. Sphynx Malls The exercise is issue-rich without being difficult to visualize and understand. It is obviously useful in exploring conventional issues of integrative versus distributive negotiation and mixed-motive bargaining, particularly as a capstone exercise in a course or executive program. But it can also be used to teach planning and executing the negotiation strategy, intra-team consensus-building, pricing, cost accounting, coalition (strategic alliance)-formation, joint ventures, the purchasing process, sales management, managing differential power of the parties, anti-collusion law, and environmental responsibility in decision-making. The math is straightforward and made deliberately simple, but there is a lot of information to digest, so at least an hour of preparation time must be made available. Furthermore, it is written for participants with at least some knowledge of basic business concepts. For example, participants would need to know the difference between fixed and variable costs to discover how broad the bargaining range really is. The time requirements for this exercise are 1-2 hours of preparation, 30-60 minutes of time for the team to plan its strategy for dealing with the other businesses, at least 90 minutes to negotiate all the issues, and up to an hour to debrief the exercise. Notes for the instructor are available, as is a PowerPoint presentation that can be used to begin the debriefing. An alternative version of the case is available that involves supplier diversity programs and minority-owned business enterprises. Back to top. Strategic Choices in Global Telecommunications The context is unfolding deregulation of national telecommunication markets, and has high face-validity. Teams represent the primary companies in this industry—cable, telephone line, satellite, and cellular transmission. Embedded in the case is the threat of a large global competitor poised to enter the industry if the four companies weaken each other. Thus, if they cooperate and thereby strengthen the industry, they will all survive; if they generate a lose-lose dynamic, there is no gain for anyone because the industry will become decimated and fall into foreign ownership. Instructors can draw credible parallels to the consumer electronics, steel, and auto industries. The exercise can be used in executive programs, or as an interesting and engaging interesting class exercise in courses in decision-making, strategy, negotiation, management, and psychology. The exercise requires 5 minutes of preparation, 20-30 minutes to do the exercise (more if multiple negotiations are permitted), and 20-45 minutes to debrief. A template for the instructor’s overhead projector slide is available. Back to top. The Low-Price Promotion Program Strategic Alliances: Selling to the Pentagon The exercise requires 5 minutes to prepare, 30 minutes to complete, and 25-45 minutes to debrief. The package includes notes for the instructor about administering and debriefing the simulation. Back to top. Catamount Ranch The scenario is simple, with a short reading assignment to prepare for the negotiation and no special expertise required to understand the situation or the issues. The negotiation is time-consuming because the parties need to discover each other’s interests and constraints, form strategic alliances (coalitions), and reach agreement with the family. Preparation time is 30-45 minutes, the exercise requires 90-150 minutes, and the debriefing takes 30-60 minutes. The exercise has been designed so that the math is very simple: all of the calculations can literally be done by hand on the back of an envelope. The exercise can be used to teach multi-party negotiation; distributive, integrative, and intra-organizational bargaining; strategic alliance formation and leadership; how to manage ongoing relationships when a party is shut out of a particular deal; and environmental preservation. A PowerPoint presentation is available that can be used to debrief the simulation. Back to top. Ford New Product The exercise accommodates from five to seven participants in each group, taking the roles of various vice-presidents involved in making the decision. It is usually run as a leaderless group exercise, but a presidential role can be included if this serves the instructor’s learning objectives. The exercise explores strategic decision-making, multi-party negotiation, group dynamics, coalition formation, consensus processes, and generating commitment to a strategic direction. Considerable preparation is necessary (1-2 hours). The meeting takes 2 to 3 hours, with 2.5 hours being ideal. The package includes a background case, roles for each vice president, a post-meeting debriefing questionnaire, guidelines for group analysis, and a PowerPoint presentation for debriefing. The exercise lends itself to videotaping and/or a process observer. Designed for executives and MBAs, it can also be used successfully with undergraduates. Instructors seeking a group consensus-building model are advised to read Chapter 7 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001). Note that the context of this simulation is a rapidly-evolving industry. The case is up to date as of February 2007, but instructors should check with Creative Consensus to see if an updated version is currently available. The current version is Ford 2.1. Back to top. Strategic Diversification at Delta Airlines The Grade Change Managing Upward/Managing Downward Preparation takes 15 minutes, the role play takes 15 minutes, and the debriefing can take from 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the instructor’s learning objectives. Back to top. The Drug-Testing Program The exercise introduces issues of coalition formation, responsibility to the corporation, precedent, evidence, and corporate policies. Preparation takes 40 minutes, the role-play 30 minutes, and debriefing 45 minutes. A debriefing questionnaire is supplied for each role. Back to top. Assessment of Project Team Effectiveness No preparation time is necessary. The exercise takes either 30 or 45 minutes to complete (depending on how much time pressure the instructor wants to impose), and at least 30 minutes to debrief. An individual debriefing questionnaire and an instructor's manual are available. Back to top. Diagnostic Instrument The SPARSE Questionnaire The instrument was developed to enable managers to assess areas of strength and weakness in their organizations, and to foster alignment of the various factors that enable high performance. It can be used as a teaching tool in executive programs (a PowerPoint program is available), as a pre-post evaluation instrument to measure the impact of an intervention, or as a stand-alone diagnostic device that directs managers’ attention to underperforming aspects of their organizations. The conceptual framework underlying the questionnaire is outlined in Chapter 1 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001). Back to top. |