Negotiation, Facilitation and Mediation:

Principles and Practices

19th October 2011

AGENDA AND READINGS FOR ALL MORNING

8.00-11.30AM

Ethics, Facts and Values in Negotiation, Facilitation and Mediation

Today's Reading

1. Raiffa, H. 1982. "Prologue" and "Overview" (pp.1 - 9), "Ethical and Moral Issues" and "Epilogue," (pp. 344 - 360). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2. Menkel-Meadow, C. and Wheeler, M. 2003. What's Fair? Ethics for Negotiators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass pp.i-xlix.
3. Cormick, G.W. and Knaster, A. 1986. "Mediation and scientific issues: Oil and fishing industries negotiate," Environment.Vol.28. No. 10. 6-16.
4. Kelman,S. 1982 "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental, Safety, and Health Regulation: Ethical and Philosophical Considerations" in Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics, Ethics, and Methods. Edited by Swartzman, D., Liroff, R. A., and Croke, K. G. The Conservation Foundation.
5. Liroff, R.A. 1982. "Overview" in Swartzman, D.,et al.above.
   

Agenda

1. Ethics exercises (see handout)
2. Evaluation planning exercise (see handout)
3. Any questions on Analytical Exercise 2?
4. Arrangements for the Presentations in the final class of the term.
5. Preparations for joint class on November 5th.

In the last two classes of the term three and two negotiation groups respectively will have an opportunity to make a 25 minute presentation on their case study negotiation, which would then be followed by 25 minutes of discussion of each case. We will take a 10 minute break between each case session. Please decide among yourselves the order in which you would like to proceed on the day. The remaining time in the last class will be used for assessing the class participation grade and feedback on the course including how it might be strengthened if it should be offered in future.

Presentations

In preparing your presentation please keep in mind that others in the class do not know anything about your case and take advantage of PowerPoint, overheads or posters to support your presentation. The presentation should include consideration of the following questions:

• What were the roles and how did they relate to the focus of the negotiation?
• What was the outcome of the negotiation?
• How well did facilitation of the process work?
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of your original group process agreement and how would you rewrite it now?
• How did you utilize reflection?
• What were the major lessons for each of you personally?

You should also prepare an agenda for the 25 minutes of discussions that follow your presentation and decide how your group members will be involved in facilitating this.

Ethics Exercises

1. The Alligator River Story
2. The Car Scraper Story
3. Are there any differences between ethics and morals?
4. Why do ethical frameworks provide conflicting advice?
5. Why be noble (cooperative) rather than selfish (uncooperative)?
6. Guides to ethical decision-making (Raiffa)
   • be continually reflective
   • think about reciprocity and the Golden Rule
   • look in the mirror
   • consider your self-respect
   • reflect on the norms of society
   • take the Rawlsian perspective
   • anticipate ethical dilemmas
   • be conscious of conflicting rights
   • be more conscious of others and of long-run societal interests
   • consider the specifics of the decision
   • do your cost-benefit analysis well
   • consider the effects of precedents and linkages
   • develop heuristic guidelines or auxiliary principles
   • remember: "compromising a principle sounds wrong; but compromising between principles sounds right" (Tom Schelling)

7. Guides to fairness of negotiations (Menkel-Meadow p. xxx)

• Is the structure of a particular negotiation fair?
• Are rules of process and proceeding clear to all?
• Do the parties understand their respective purposes and goals?
• Do the parties have a fair shot at achieving a mutually satisfactory solution, or is one party "unfairly" positioned to take advantage of the other side?
• Do the parties share expected criteria for assessing outcomes?
• To what extent should the justice of negotiated outcomes be measured by principles outside the parties' own criteria: equity, equality, need, social welfare, precedential value, likelihood of enforcement, and effects on others?
• Should we assess the fairness of a negotiated outcome after we see what it actually achieves or accomplishes for the parties? For others?

 

If you are interested in learning more about ethical decision making I strongly recommend taking a look at Michael Sandel's course at Harvard on Justice, the whole course in video with readings and exercises is online. He makes a difficult subject highly accessible in a most stimulating and entertaining way.

Evaluation Planning Exercise

The multistakeholder round table considering development options for the Northern BC Valley has now asked Values Inc to prepare a report on the analytical techniques and processes for evaluation that it would recommend should be used in assessing the options. It is recognized that Values Inc. might subsequently be asked to work with the round table in doing the evaluation.

You are now in the roles of the highly experienced and well-regarded members of the international consulting firm Values Inc. You have decided to meet for a morning to begin developing ideas for an initial report to the round table in two steps:

• firstly divide into five teams that will develop preliminary ideas, and then
• secondly, come together in a plenary session to develop the coordinated approach that Values Inc. would propose to the round table.

This simulation will be done in role as the designated members of Values Inc.

In the first step, for 40 minutes, each of the five teams is asked to approach the task of identifying techniques and processes for evaluation from the viewpoint of one of the five major stakeholder groups concerned with the future of the valley. Each team will then have five minutes (and 1 sheet of flip chart paper) to summarize their recommendations to the whole company. This will be followed by plenary discussion.

To facilitate this exercise, when you are role playing as a member of Values Inc you may assume that the general knowledge and perspective that you have developed from your role playing in the Valley Simulation has been obtained from your previous consulting work with the participant groups of stakeholders concerned with the Valley and on similar types of projects elsewhere.

The teams are as follows and each should select its own facilitator, notetaker and spokesperson:

The Provincial Government

Lauren, Ruth, Jason, Andrew

Power Inc.

Thomas, Daniel, Maureen, Devon

The Raven First Nation

Erica, Debra, Polly

The Environmental Coalition

Tessie, Mariona, Jennifer R., Rosa

The Community

Katherine, Maysa, Jennifer P., Fernanda