Multiparty Facilitation and Negotiation
RSCN 595, EVST 595, COMM 595
The University of Montana
Spring 2011Office Hours
MondayMonday 12-1
1:10 to 2:30 and 2:40 to 4:00 By Appointment
______
Matthew McKinney, Ph.D. Daisy Patterson
Lead Instructor Instructor & Coordinator
406-457-8475 406-360-9204
______
Course Description
The purpose of this course is to prepare students to effectively engage in multiparty negotiation on natural resource, environmental issues and other public policy issues. This is an independent, stand-alone course. There are no prerequisites. It is also the second in a series of three courses required for the Natural Resources Conflict Resolution Program. The first course – Foundations of Natural Resources Conflict Resolution -- introduces students to the nature of natural resource and environmental conflict, the menu of options for preventing and resolving such conflict, and the theory and methods of collaboration.
This course provides an opportunity to learn theory and develop practical skills for (a) participants trying to formulate a strategy and execute tactics before, during, after the negotiation process; and (b) facilitators, mediators, and other process managers charged with convening and coordinating multiparty negotiations. While this course focuses on natural resource and environmental issues, the core material on multiparty negotiation and facilitation is applicable to a variety of professions and policy areas.
Drawing on the pioneering work of Professor Lawrence Susskind at the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, the course is divided into two parts. The first emphasizes theoretical aspects of multiparty negotiation and facilitation. During this part we use a series of simulations, strategically sequenced so that each one is more complex than its predecessor and introduces new theoretical elements. In the second part, students are given a variety of opportunities to test and refine the theoretical framework through a series of in-depth case studies. The course consists of 24 class sessions (each 90 minutes in length) over 14 weeks.
Course Overview
Developing a Theoretical Framework
Week # 1Introduction
Week # 2Two-party Negotiation
Week # 3Multiparty Negotiation: Part 1
Week # 4Multiparty Negotiation: Part 2
Week # 5Communication for Multiparty Negotiation
Week # 6The Nature of Facilitation and Mediation
Week # 7Preparing to Facilitate
Week # 8Facilitating Multiparty Dialogues
Week # 9Managing the Process Between Meetings
Applying and Refining the Framework
Week # 10Resolving Community-based Conflicts
Week # 11Negotiating Across Cultures
Week # 12Managing River Basins in the American West
Week # 13Small Group Presentations and/or Skill-building
Week # 14Small Group Presentations/Course Review and Evaluation
Course Reading
Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (Penguin Books, 1981).
Michael Doyle and David Straus, How to Make Meetings Work (Jove Books, 1976).
Weekly readings will be distributed via email or online through the class website at
Course Faculty
One of the distinct advantages of this course is that it is interdisciplinary. A different professor or guest speaker interested in conflict resolution leads each module. Matt McKinney serves as the primary instructor for the course, and Daisy Patterson serves as the coordinator and Teaching Assistant. The faculty team includes (in order of appearance):
- Matt McKinney, Director, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy (406.457.8475)
- Jim Burchfield, Professor and Dean, College of Forestry and Conservation
- Klaus Sitte, Adjunct Professor, School of Law (406.544.1763)
- Greg Larson, Professor, Department of Communication Studies (406.243.4161)
- Eduardo Capulong, Professor, School of Law (406.243.6707)
- Jim Stone, Chair of the Blackfoot Challenge (406.793.5830)
- Greg Neudecker, US Fish and Wildlife
- Jill Belsky, Professor of Rural and Environmental Sociology (406.243.4958)
- Stephen Siebert, Professor of Tropical Forest Conservation and Management (406.243.4661)
- Clayton Matt, Director of Tribal Services, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (406.883.2888)
- John Thorson, Co-Chair of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (406.826.0500)
- Sarah Bates, Senior Fellow, Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (406.207.9071)
Course Requirements
- Write a two-page memo on the key differences between two-party and multi-party negotiation. Due February 28th (15%).
- Work in small groups to analyze a multi-party negotiation, and present the findings to the class. Provide anonymous feedback to each presenter using a common evaluation form. Each analysis should include a brief description of the issues, relevant background information, process elements (objectives, participants, rules for decision-making), and the results. The most important aspect of this analysis is to articulate one or more lessons learned from your study and link the lessons directly to one or more theories, methods, or themes that we have covered in class. Specifically, what are the particular negotiation challenges or opportunities, and what role, if any, did a neutral, third-party person play? Each presentation must be no longer than 15 minutes – exact length will be determined during the course of the semester. An outline or preview of analysis is due March 28thas a hard copy to submit in class. One page summary of analysis due through the google site on April 28th. Presentations on May 2nd and 9th (30%).
- Develop and refine your own theoretical framework for multiparty negotiation and facilitation by making a weekly entry into an on-line journal. After the two sessions each week, prepare a one-to-two page outline of key principles and prescriptions. The on-line journal and web site for the course can be found at Journal entries due each Thursday (35%) .
- Complete four observations of facilitation/mediation and/or co-facilitations/mediations. This requirement my be fulfilled by (1) working at the Missoula Community Dispute Resolution Center or (2) engaging in a multi-party event that is approved in advance by the instructor. Prepare a brief summary of your experiences and lessons learned. Summaries should be submitted via the google site no later than one week from observation (20%).
Grading Scale
93-100 A
90-92A-
88-89B+
83-87B
80-82B-
78-79C+
73-77C
Page 1
Week 1 – January 24th
Introduction (McKinney and Patterson)
This module reviews the purpose and structure of the course, along with the theory of natural resource and environmental conflict resolution (a synthesis of material covered in Law 613, Natural Resources and Environmental Conflict Resolution). Using an interactive simulation, this session will also review the theory of interest-based negotiation, and compare distributive and integrative approaches to negotiation. Finally, this session will review the requirements for the course (in particular, we will explain the hands-on mediation requirement).
Learning Objectives
To review the sources, types, characteristics, and outcomes of multi-party conflicts, particularly in the context of natural resource and environmental issues;
To understand the range of strategic choices available to prevent and resolve multi-party conflicts;
To review the benefits of and need for collaboration, and the principles for collaboration;
To recognize the place of negotiation and facilitation in collaborative approaches to natural resource and environmental conflict.; and
To understand the difference between positional and interest-based negotiation.
Exercise
Appleton v. Baker – 2 party, one issue
This simulation illustrates the nature of conflict and the characteristics of interest-based negotiation.
Reading
Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (Penguin Books, 1981).
This classic book introduces the basic theory of principled negotiation, including changing from positional bargaining to interest-based negotiations, and the seven element framework (communication, relationship, interests, options, standards of legitimacy, alternatives, commitments).
Week 2 – January 31
Two-party Negotiation (Corbett)
This session reviews basic two-party negotiation concepts and theories (i.e., the “three tensions,” the “seven elements” framework, the basic “negotiators’ dilemma,” and the “mutual gains” model of negotiation). It highlights what we know about two-party negotiation, and synthesizes prescriptive lessons for negotiation. This review ensures that all students have a common knowledge of basic two-party negotiation theory before moving into the sessions on multiparty negotiation theory.
Learning Objectives
To highlight what we know about two-party negotiation;
To examine the “seven elements” framework presented by Fisher and Ury;
To understand the “three tensions” as explained by Mnookin, et al.;
To clarify the basic “negotiators’ dilemma” as defined by Lax and Sebanius;
To review the “mutual gains” model of negotiation; and
To synthesize prescriptive lessons for multi-party negotiation.
Exercise
Parking Spaces Simulation – 2 party, one issue
This simulation illustrates the value of exploring interests, the use of objective criteria, the power of trading across differently-valued issues, and the tension between creating and claiming value.
Reading
Robert H. Mnookin, Scott R. Peppet, and Andrew S. Tulumello (2000). Beyond Winning:
Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes (Harvard University Press 2000): 9-91.
These chapters examine the three basic tensions or dynamics in all negotiations – creating and distributing value; empathy and assertiveness; and principal and agent.
David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius. "The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value," ‘The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain (The Free Press, 1986): 29-45.
The chapter introduces the essence of negotiation, and the core dilemma faced by negotiator -- creating and claiming value
Consensus Building Institute, Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiation (2004): 1 page.
Week 3 – February 7
Multiparty Negotiation: Part 1 (Sitte)
This session introduces three distinguishing features of multiparty negotiation: (1) the formation and dissolution of coalitions; (2) group interaction when there are many parties around the table; and (3) the need to continuously modify the structure of negotiations in multiparty situations. Using the simulation Three-Party Coalition Exercise will highlight several initial lessons regarding coalitions and the dynamic nature of multiparty dialogue, including the impact of different decision rules.
Learning Objectives
To define multi-party negotiation and clarify the similarities between two-party and multiparty negotiation;
To understand the three distinguishing features of multiparty negotiation: (1) the formation and dissolution of coalitions; (2) group interaction when there are many parties around the table; and (3) the need to continuously modify the structure of negotiations in multiparty situations.
To examine the value and dynamics of creating coalitions in the context of multiparty negotiation; and
To build theoretical understanding and practical skills through an interactive role-play simulation.
Exercise
Three-Party Coalition
This simulation highlights how coalition formation (and dissolution) can dramatically alter the stability of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA).
Reading
Lawrence Susskind, et al., “Multiparty Negotiation: Key Distinguishing Features,” in Teaching Multiparty Negotiation: A Workbook (The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 2003): 158-171. (14 pages).
This appendix compares two-party and multiparty negotiation; highlights three distinguishing features of multiparty negotiation; examines the most important factors that impede and facilitate multiparty negotiations; and describes the importance of mediation for multiparty negotiations.
David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, “Thinking Coalitionally: Party Arithmetic, Process Opportunism, and Strategic Sequencing.” In Negotiation Analysis, edited by P. Young, Chapter Three. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.
This article describes various coalitional dynamics that affect the “zone of possible agreement” among the players.
Week 4 – February 14th
Multiparty Negotiation: Part 2 (Sitte)
This module continues developing the theoretical framework for multiparty negotiation by focusing on (1) group interaction when there are many parties around the table; and (2) the need to continuously modify the structure of negotiations in multiparty situations. It examines how a strategic negotiator might use group interactions, coalitional strategies, or process opportunism to block an agreement even where all the other parties can benefit from the agreement, and how group interactions can be used as part of an attempt to create and maintain even disadvantageous commitments.
Learning Objectives
To understand the dynamics of creating and maintaining groups in the context of multiparty negotiation;
To manage the tension between group diversity and the pressure to conform;
To appreciate the kaleidoscope nature of multiparty negotiations, including issues related to convening and conflict assessment, framing issues, participation, decision rules, process management, and the use of negotiation theory and strategies for building consensus when there is no conflict per se; and
To build theoretical understanding and practical skills through an interactive role-play simulation.
Exercise
Harborco – 6 party, multi-issue
This simulation illustrates lessons related to coalitions, group interactions, and the dynamic nature of multiparty negotiation. It also reinforces some key lessons from two-party negotiation theory.
Reading
Ancona, D., R. Friedman, and D. Kolb (1991). “The Group and What Happens on the Way to“YES”.” Negotiation Journal (1991): 155-173. (19 pages)
This article examines the influence of group interactions on multiparty negotiations, and the need to develop group norms, clarify roles, evaluate the group’s progress along the way, and manage the tension between internal group processes at the table with external groups whom are being represented by the parties at the table.
Lawrence Susskind, “An Alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations, and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate by Consensus.” In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas- Larmer (eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. (Sage Publications 1999): 3-55 (52 pages).
This chapter summarizes the basic principles of consensus building and considers their application to both ad-hoc and permanent groups.
Week 5 – February 28th
Communication for Multiparty Negotiation (Larson)
One of the most critical ingredients of effective negotiation is communication, which becomes much more complex and complicated in a multiparty context. This session will examine several key elements of communication for multiparty negotiation, including (but not limited to) active listening, asking and reframing questions, perception processes, identity/impression management, the nature and use of language, and utilizing communication technologies.
Learning Objectives
To better understand perception process, including key perception biases that may influence multiparty negotiations.
To better understand decision making as a complex process involving bounded rationality, retrospective sensemaking, and the appearance of rationality.
To understand how sensemaking influences multi-party negotiations.
To learn how meaning is constructed communicatively through framing.
To understand how to manage meaning in multi-party negotiations through the strategic use of framing.
To better assess the potential impacts of communication technologies and make informed choices as to which technologies to utilize.
To understand how gender and culture influence communication styles.
Exercises
Skull Valley Band of the Goshutes Case Study (perception, sensemaking and framing)
Absolute PowerPoint (discussion of how communication mediums structure our thoughts)
Active Listening Handout
Framing Handout
Reading
Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L.B. & Proctor, R.F. (2004). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. (Chapter 3)
Littlejohn, S. & Domenici, K. (2007). Communication, conflict and the management of difference. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. (Chapter 2).
Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts?, New Yorker, 77, no. 13, 76-87.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 1)
Week 6 – March 7th
The Nature of Facilitation and Mediation (Capulong)
This module introduces the role of an impartial, nonpartisan “process manager” in multiparty negotiation. It examines the distinction between facilitation and mediation; reviews different theories, styles, and roles of process managers; examines qualifications for effective facilitators and mediators; and discusses codes of professional conduct and ethical dilemmas faced by process managers.
Learning Objectives
To highlight the most relevant distinctions between facilitation and mediation;
To examine the different styles or types of facilitation and mediation, and to clarify the different levels of engagement by process managers;
To clarify the relevant differences between two-party and multi-party mediation;
To experience the dynamics of multi-party mediation through a role-play simulation.
Exercise
Westville -- 2 party plus mediator
This simulation illustrates different roles that facilitators may play and reinforces several lessons in multiparty negotiation.
Reading
John Forester, “Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from
Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations,” Journal of the American Planning Association, (Fall 2006): 447-456.
Chris Moore, The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (9 pages).
Lawrence Susskind, Multi-party Public Policy Mediation: A Separate Breed (6 pages)
Zena Zumeta, “Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation,”
National Association of Community Mediation (September 2000): 5 pages.
Riskin, Leonard L., “Mindfulness: Foundational Training for Dispute Resolution;” 54 J. Legal
Educ. 79 (2004)
Facilitating with an Interest (1 page)
Week 7 – March 14th
Preparing to Facilitate (Patterson)
Before attempting to manage any process, facilitators prepare by conducting assessments; assessments may be a brief as a conversation or may produce lengthy reports. This module provides strategies for assessments, building agendas (objectives and issues), managing meetings, listening, conflict analysis, problem-framing, and reframing positions into interests.
Learning Objectives
To match the type of meeting with client and participant expectations;
To determine who should attend the meeting;
To practice building agendas;
To understand how to make the meeting room work, along with other logistical considerations; and
To develop a working knowledge of the theory of designing and conducting effective meetings.
Exercise
Storyville Part # 1 – 3 party plus mediator
This simulation provides an opportunity for mediators and negotiators to practice opening remarks, agreeing on objectives and an agenda, identifying and exploring issues, and framing a joint problem statement.
Reading
Michael Doyle and David Straus, How to Make Meetings Work (Jove Books, 1976).