MGMT8647 NEGOTIATION · PDF fileNegotiation Behaviour 8647 1 MBA Unit Outline MGMT8647 Negotiation Behaviour Summer School 2009 Business School This unit examines the process

Negotiation Behaviour 8647

1

MBA

Unit Outline

MGMT8647 Negotiation Behaviour

Summer School 2009

Business School www.business.uwa.edu.au

This unit examines the process of reaching agreement through negotiation. Students develop an understanding of negotiation through practical exploration of competition and co-operation, strategic choice, the dynamics of phases and the processes of interaction. The emphasis is on developing a considered strategic approach which has application in business and other contexts. A high degree of participation is required.


2

All material reproduced herein has been copied in accordance with and pursuant to a statutory licence administered by Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), granted to the University of Western Australia pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Copying of this material by students, except for fair dealing purposes under the Copyright Act, is prohibited. For the purposes of this fair dealing exception, students should be aware that the rule allowing copying, for fair dealing purposes, of 10% of the work, or one chapter/article, applies to the original work from which the excerpt in this course material was taken, and not to the course material itself. © The University of Western Australia 2009


3

Contact Details

Lecturer Dr Sandra Kiffin-Petersen Email [email protected] Phone 6488 3070 Fax 6488 1072 Room 2.13 GP3 Building Consultation Hours TBC

Your Lecturer Dr Sandra Kiffin-Petersen PhD MBA (UWA) BA (Murd) BAppSc (Curtin) Sandra Kiffin-Petersen joined the GSM in 2001 having previously taught Organisational Behaviour at the Department of Organisational and Labour Studies at the University of Western Australia. Sandra lectures on the Organisational Behaviour and Negotiation MBA units. After completing her MBA in 1992 Sandra worked as a private consultant before becoming a lecturer and pursuing further studies. Sandra has a Phd in Organisational Behaviour from the University of Western Australia. Her research interests include negotiation skills training, emotions in the workplace, work team effectiveness and trust within organisations. She has presented papers at conferences in the UK, United States and in Australia. Sandra regularly conducts workshops on Building High Performance Work Teams and Negotiation skills training in industry. Sandra is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) and the Academy of Management (USA). In 2004 Sandra received an Excellence in Teaching Award for her teaching in Organisational Behaviour. She was also nominated in 2001 for a University Excellence in Teaching Award and in 2005 for the Pearson Education ANZAM Management Educator of the Year Award. Sandra was nominated for an Innovation in Teaching Award in 2006 and for an Excellence in Teaching Award in 2008 for the Strategic Negotiation unit of the Executive MBA.

INTRODUCTION

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." ~ John F. Kennedy

Managers negotiate at work everyday. They may negotiate with their bosses, colleagues and subordinates, as well as with suppliers, customers and government officials. Negotiation is therefore an essential skill for every manager. This unit provides senior managers with the opportunity to develop their negotiation skills experientially and to understand the various approaches to negotiation. Emphasis is placed on the use of negotiation exercises and role-playing, and on students developing their understanding of their own negotiation style through self-assessments. The course is designed to be relevant to a wide variety of negotiation situations that a senior manager may face.

The Goal of the Unit The aim is to develop your understanding of the dynamics of the process of negotiation. This will be achieved through an exploration of the theories of negotiation and the exercise of various negotiating techniques. One of the central themes will be an examination of the nature of cooperation in negotiation.


4

Learning Outcomes On completion of this unit, you should:

• know the central models or frameworks for understanding the negotiation process

• understand and be able to distinguish the core strategies in

negotiation which are associated with these models • be aware of the individual behavioural skills involved in face to

face negotiation and have enhanced your own skill level • be able to critically examine the literature on the subject of

negotiation • be able to effectively negotiate more constructive agreements

To achieve these objectives the course uses regular role play negotiation exercises with class debriefing and discussions, and case studies.

TEACHING AND LEARNING RESPONSIBILITIES

Teaching and Learning Strategies This course is structured around an experiential approach to learning and the development of interpersonal and negotiation skills. A high degree of participation is expected from students in order to maximise their learning from the course. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle shown below demonstrates that there are two main ways students can learn about negotiation, through direct experiences of negotiation during class time and in their workplaces; and through the comprehension of the theory and practice of negotiation by reading the literature on the subject and participating in class discussions. Video and television equipment will also be used to aid in the learning process. The actual topics covered and the exercises may change as the trimester progresses, depending on the particular interests of the group.

You are encouraged to take a reflective approach to your negotiation, one of the characteristics of better negotiators is that they take time out to think about what they have done and how it might be improved next time.

"Information is a negotiator's greatest weapon."

~ Victor Kiam, CEO of Remington


5

Charter of Student Rights This Charter of Student Rights upholds the fundamental rights of students who undertake their education at the University of Western Australia. It recognises that excellence in teaching and learning requires students to be active participants in their educational experience. It upholds the ethos that in addition to the University’s role of awarding formal academic qualifications to students, the University must strive to instill in all students independent scholarly learning, critical judgment, academic integrity and ethical sensitivity. The charter outlines the rights and responsibilities for both students and staff of the University and you are encouraged to refer to the charter at: http://www.guild.uwa.edu.au/info/student_rights/charter.shtml

Use of Student Feedback Students usually find the Negotiation unit enjoyable and useful. However, we are always looking for ways to improve how we teach negotiation. Recent changes have seen the incorporation of the Thespian Exercise as a form of assessment in Negotiation. Ethics involved in negotiating has also been incorporated into the unit after feedback from students and the business community in general.

TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCES

Textbook Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B. and Saunders, D.M. (2008) Negotiation (6th ed) Boston, Irwin McGraw-Hill The book should be purchased as it will serve as a standard reference book. * ensure that you do not purchase the book of readings and cases by the same authors. A number of key readings have also been compiled to supplement the textbook. Other particularly useful books are Bazerman and Neale (1992); Lewicki, Hiam and Olander (1996); Putnam and Roloff (1992); Pruitt and Carnevale (1993); Rojot (1991); Rubin, Pruitt and Kim (1994), Thompson (1998) and Watkins (2002). Three useful journals are: International Journal of Conflict Management P303.69 P1 Journal of Conflict Resolution P341.05 P1 Negotiation Journal P302.305 P1 A reference list of books and articles also appears at the end of this unit outline.


6

ASSESSMENT MECHANISM

The Purpose of Assessment

There are a number of reasons for having assessable tasks as part of an academic program. The assessable tasks are designed to encourage you to explore and understand the subject more fully. The fact that we grade your work then gives you an indication of how much you have achieved. Providing feedback on your work also serves as part of the learning process.

Assessment Details

Component Weight Due Date

Assignment 1 The Thespian Exercise

30% Day 5 of Summer School

Assignment 2 Individual Learning Journal 35% 6th February 5pm

Assignment 3 Self Reflection Exercise 35% 20th February 5pm

Assessment 1: The Thespian Exercise The purpose of this assessment is to assess your ability to practically apply the theory of negotiation.

Description

Working in groups of four or five you are to develop a negotiating scenario which the Russell Crowes and Kate Blanchetts among you then act out!! The aim will be to realistically demonstrate a particular aspect of negotiation theory and practice. The group presentation will also include a class discussion, with a handout prepared by the group. The scenario you choose should be a reconstruction of a work-related negotiation (or part thereof) that one of the members of your group has been involved in or is aware of. You should consult with the lecturer to ensure that your topic and approach is appropriate. You will also be required to conduct a discussion with the rest of the class to explore the chosen aspect of negotiation further and prepare a four page handout (1.5 spaced) as an aide memoire for your fellow students which addresses the underlying theory and research, and the application of it in practice. It is expected that groups will draw on at least 6 relevant academic articles in their handout (these articles should be in addition to the readings already provided to you). The handout should also be submitted to the lecturer for assessment as part of the thespian exercise. Each group will have a total of 30 minutes for their presentation (i.e. the negotiation scenario and the class discussion so plan your time accordingly). It should be fun but the main aim is to get you to think about negotiation behaviour by getting you to demonstrate it and explain it to someone else.


7

Assessment Criteria

Following the presentation and discussion your efforts will be assessed according to the following criteria:

� Did the scenario and handout relate the central models or frameworks for understanding the negotiation process to the topic?

� Did the scenario and handout identify and present practical applications in a way in which the audience could learn something useful for their future negotiations?

� Were the major learning points clearly articulated and presented in a way that was easily understood by the audience?

� Were the learning points well supported with relevant scholarly and practitioner articles on negotiation?

Each group will be ranked by the remainder of the class according to the criteria above. This ranking will be taken into account by the lecturer when the marks for the Thespian exercise are awarded. Note: The marks awarded to the group for the presentation and handout will be awarded equally to all members of the group unless the group itself request an agreed different allocation to the total marks awarded. In addition (though not part of the final assessment) the remainder of the class will be asked to consider the extent to which the careers of Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett are under threat from the acting prowess of the group, with Oscar type accolades being awarded.

Not at all = 0; Russell and Cate should quit now = 10

Assessment 2: Individual Learning Journal The purpose of this assessment is to assess your ability to integrate the theory with the practice of negotiation by reflecting on your own and others’ experiences of negotiation.

Description

Individually write up your own reflections on negotiation theory and practice in a learning journal. Your learning journal should include three two page entries. Your journal should record your personal reflection on the core themes and exercises that comprise this unit. The three entries should be structured as follows: Entries 1 and 2: Comment on relevant press clippings and magazine articles of actual negotiation ‘cases’ that have furthered your understanding of negotiation and that illustrate core themes and topics explored in this unit. It is expected that your choice of examples will demonstrate your understanding of the major negotiation frameworks covered in class. The negotiation cases you choose should also not be ones that we discuss in class. Your final entry should describe three key learning points about negotiation that you have learned from completing the unit; and how you will use what you have learned to be a more effective manager in your workplace. There is a limit of six pages (1 1/2 spaced) for this assessment, excluding reference list.


8

Assessment Criteria

Your paper will be assessed according to the general criteria provided on page 10 and also take into account the extent to which you demonstrate your:

� understanding of the underlying concepts and theories of negotiation using ‘real world’ examples � ability to constructively review your own experience and to integrate it with the ‘practice of

strategic negotiation’

HD 80-100%

D 70-79%

CR 60-69%

P ass 50-59%

Fail ≤49%

• demonstrate your understanding of the underlying concepts and theories of negotiation using two ‘real world’ examples

• ability to constructively review your own experience and to integrate it with the ‘practice of negotiation’

• use of relevant readings to support your analysis and conclusions

• identification of three key learning points about negotiation

• specific example(s) of how learning will improve effectiveness at work

• logical structure and presentation

• clarity of expression

• Harvard referenced

Assessment 3: Self Reflection Exercise The purpose of this assessment is to focus on your own experience of negotiating, to reflect on what happened and to develop an action plan to improve your future negotiation skills.

Description This assignment focuses on your analysis of individual and group negotiation behaviour. On Day 3 of Summer School you will participate in a group negotiation exercise which will be recorded on video. For this assignment you will be required to reflect upon that negotiation and your own participation in it. As part of the review process you should:

� Write up your impressions and reflections immediately after the negotiation has concluded � Arrange with others in the group to review the video

You are required to write up your experience of the Salary Negotiation conducted during the course under the four headings below based on Kolb’s learning cycle. Please keep the description of the actual experience to an absolute minimum; write only what is necessary for an analysis of the negotiation itself. Avoid generalities such as 'the negotiations were cooperative', instead concentrate on analysing the detail of strategy and behaviour. References to research should be used to show how you apply research to practice and to support your analysis and conclusions. The active experimentation section should discuss what you might now do in other negotiations, not simply in a re-run of the negotiation being reviewed. You will not be assessed according to the outcome you achieved in the negotiation.


9

� Concrete experience: What happened? What were the results?

� Reflective observation: So what? o on process - what was helpful and what was not helpful? o on performance – how well did you do? How well did the group do? o what were your feelings, thoughts and observations about your role in the

negotiation? Other people’s roles? o on your negotiating style(s) – what did you observe about your style(s) during the

negotiation? (e.g. did your style change? stay the same?) o on others’ negotiating styles - what did you observe? o how did you prepare?

� Abstract conceptualisation: So what?

o what does it tell us about the process of negotiation? o how does this experience relate to your previous experiences when negotiating? o how does your experience relate to the research literature, on negotiating styles and

process? (i.e. particularly the articles reviewed in the assignment preparation task) To salary negotiations?

� Active experimentation: Now what?

o what did you personally learn and what can you do to put your learning into action (specific actions/behaviours) to improve or change things or to achieve the same results/avoid the same problems when faced with a similar negotiation situation?

o Action plan - list three behaviours that you will work on over the next six months to improve your negotiation skills, and the measure(s) that you will use to assess whether you have achieved your goal(s).

Behaviour Timeframe Measure

1.

2.

3.

Behaviour (What will you do?) Timeframe (By when will you do it?) Measure (How will you know that you have done it? How will others know?) There is a limit of six pages (1 1/2 spaced) for this assessment, excluding reference list and appendices.

Assessment Criteria

Your paper will be assessed according to the general criteria provided on page 10 and also take into account the extent to which you demonstrate your:

� understanding of the underlying concepts and theories of negotiation � knowledge of relevant literature on negotiation � ability to constructively review your own experience � insight into your own negotiation strengths and weaknesses


10

HD 80-100%

D 70-79%

CR 60-69%

P ass 50-59%

Fail ≤49%

1. Concrete experience: What happened? � succinct description of key dynamics

in the negotiation

2. Reflective observation: What did you think, feel and observe?

� identification of helpful/unhelpful behaviours

� awareness of own and others’ negotiating style

� awareness of own thoughts, feelings and behaviour

� observation of body language

3. Abstract conceptualization: So what? � relationship of theory to practice � analysis of behaviours and

negotiation processes

4. Active experimentation: Now what? � new ways of thinking/behaving � application to other situations � development of action plan

5. Knowledge of relevant literature � evidence of wide reading � use of relevant readings beyond

course materials

6. Presentation and structure � organisation and structure � grammar, spelling and punctuation � Harvard referenced

The Standard of Assessment The Graduate School must ensure that the processes of assessment are fair and are designed to maintain the standards of the School and it’s students. The School follows the University of Western Australia’s grading system. HD (Higher Distinction) 80-100% D (Distinction) 70-79% CR (credit Pass) 60-69% P (Pass) 50-59% N+ (Fail) 45-49% N (Fail) 0 -44% The School awards marks leading to these grades by using the following general criteria which are presented here as an indication of the School’s expectations. These general criteria may be supplemented by specific standards provided with regard to a particular assignment. HD The student has a clear understanding of theory, concepts and issues relating to the subject and is able to adopt a critical perspective. The student is able to clearly identify the most critical aspects of the task and is able to offer a logically consistent and well articulated analysis within the analytical framework presented in the course. The student is able to draw widely from the academic literature and elsewhere, but maintains relevance.


11

D The student has a clear understanding of theory, concepts and issues relating to the subject. The student is able to develop an analysis of an issue using the analytic framework presented in the course and is able to identify and evaluate the critical issues. The student is able to draw upon relevant academic and other material. CR The student demonstrates an understanding of the analytic framework developed in the course and a partial understanding of concepts and issues. The student is able to identify some key issues and is able to present a logical discussion, but with some conceptual errors or gaps between analysis and conclusions shortcoming. The student is able to draw upon an adequate range of references and other materials. P The student generally takes a descriptive rather than analytic approach to the subject. The student is able to demonstrate some understanding of the issues involved but does not demonstrate the ability to apply the analytical framework which had been developed in the course. Draws primarily upon course materials for referencing. N+ The student is unable to demonstrate that he or she understands the core elements of the subject matter. The student is able to provide some insight into issues but misapplies analytic framework developed in the course, omitting key factors and, for example, drawing conclusions which are not related to the preceding discussion. N The student is unable to demonstrate any understanding of the subject matter. Material presented for assessment is unrelated to course framework and shows no effort to identify or address critical aspects of the topic.

The scaling of marks to ensure comparability between classes is an acceptable academic practice. The GSM and Board of Examiners has the right to scale marks where it is considered necessary to maintain consistency and fairness.

Submission of Assignments All assignments should be handed in to the Myer Street Reception by 9am on the due date. Students can also use the after hours box at the bottom of the stairwell leading to the carpark for submission of their assignments over the weekend. This box will be cleared at 9am on the Monday morning. Late assignments will attract a penalty of 5% per day. This penalty will be waived by the lecturer only in exceptional circumstances. No marks will be awarded to assignments submitted after other students in the class have had their assignments returned. Papers of excessive length will also attract a penalty. The penalty will be 5% for each 200 words, or part thereof, over the word limit. Assignments will be returned in class or through the Business School reception. It is the intention that the marked assignments will be returned within two weeks of submission.


12

Ethical Scholarship, Academic Literacy and Academic Misconduct Ethical Scholarship is the pursuit of scholarly enquiry marked by honesty and integrity. Academic Literacy is the capacity to undertake study and research, and to communicate findings and knowledge, in a manner appropriate to the particular disciplinary conventions and scholarly standards expected at university level. Academic misconduct is any activity or practice engaged in by a student that breaches explicit guidelines relating to the production of work for assessment, in a manner that compromises or defeats the purpose of that assessment. Students must not engage in academic misconduct. Any such activity undermines an ethos of ethical scholarship. Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to cheating, or attempting to cheat, through:

• collusion • inappropriate collaboration • plagiarism (see more details below) • misrepresenting or fabricating data or results or other assessable work • inappropriate electronic data sourcing/collection • breaching rules specified for the conduct of examinations in a way that may compromise or

defeat the purposes of assessment. Penalties for academic misconduct vary according to seriousness of the case, and may include the requirement to do further work or repeat work; deduction of marks; the award of zero marks for the assessment; failure of one or more units; suspension from a course of study; exclusion from the University; non-conferral of a degree, diploma or other award to which the student would otherwise have been entitled. Refer to the Ethical Scholarship, Academic Literacy and Academic Misconduct and individual Faculty policies. For further information on the rules and procedures in respect of appropriate academic conduct you should visit: http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl/academic conduct

Acknowledgements of Plagiarism In the course of your individual and group work assignments, you will encounter ideas from many sources. These will include journal and newspaper articles, commentaries, books, web sites and other electronic sources, original case sources, lecture materials. All MBA assignments that you submit must acknowledge all the different sources you have used. Not to acknowledge your sources is plagiarism, a form of dishonesty. Plagiarism is the misappropriation of the work or ideas of others and presenting them as your own. This is reprehensible from both an ethical and legal viewpoint. Neither the School nor the University accepts ignorance or the fact that a student’s previous acts of plagiarism had been undetected as a defense. In order to avoid engaging in plagiarism it is your responsibility to acknowledge all of your sources in any work submitted for assessment and it is essential that you reference the work of others correctly. Where you quote directly from a source, you must ensure that any direct quotations are placed in quotation marks and are fully referenced. Even when you do not quote directly and are just referring to or expanding on the work of others, you must still acknowledge the sources of your information and ideas. Close paraphrasing in which you change a few phrases around, leave a clause out of a long sentence or put the original sentences in a different order is still plagiarism. To mark words as a quotation the entire text that has been copied should be enclosed within the quotation marks. If the copied text is four or more lines in length, it may be more appropriate to set it as a separate and indented paragraph. Each time that text is copied, the source must be acknowledged with a reference citation, including the page number. Advice on proper referencing is given below. If you have any doubts concerning appropriate referencing formats or how to acknowledge the work of others correctly, you should seek the advice of your lecturer.


13

Referencing It is important that the referencing of any sources used in your written work is done properly, if only to substantiate the points you are making in your assignment or project. The Harvard style is the preferred and there are some notes for guidance which have been prepared by the library staff: ‘Çiting your Sources Harvard Style’ http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/guides/citingsources/harvard.html EndNote is a really good system for building up a database of references. Not everyone will want to invest the time in using this system but you should consider it if you intend to build up resource materials or plan to undertake extensive research in a particular area. The library staff have also developed a tutoring package: Á Quick Guide to Using EndNote’ which provides the basics for using EndNote with an essay http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/guides/endnote/quick_endnote.pdf This is linked to the ‘How to Use’EndNote page www.library.uwa.edu.au/guides/endnote/ which provides more comprehensive information.

Taping of Lectures The Graduate School does not provide tape recordings of lectures, however if you do wish to tape record a lecture, then as a matter of courtesy you should obtain the permission of the lecturer first.

Appeals against Academic Assessment In the first instance, students are strongly advised to talk informally to the lecturer about the grade awarded. The University provides the opportunity for students to lodge an appeal against any mark which he or she feels is unfair. Any student making an appeal is under an obligation to establish a prima facie case by providing particular and substantial reasons for the appeal. There is a 12 day time limit for making any such appeal. An appeal against academic assessment may result, as appropriate, in an increase or decrease in the mark originally awarded. The University regulations relating to appeals and the form on which the appeal should be lodged can be found in the GSM website or at http://www.publishing.uwa.edu.au/handbooks/interfaculty/PFAAAA.html

Attendance

Participation in class, whether it be listening to a lecture or getting involved in other activities, is an important part of the learning process. For this reason the GSM has decided not to move to on-line teaching. It is, therefore, important that you attend classes (and be on time). More formally, the University regulations state that ‘to complete a course or unit, students shall attend prescribed classes, lectures, seminars and tutorials’. Students should not expect to obtain approval to miss more than two classes per unit, unless there are exceptional circumstances.


14

UNIT STRUCTURE AND SEMINAR TOPICS

D A Y O N E 8:30 – 10:30 am Session 1: Getting started: What is negotiation?

Conflict handling styles. Text reading: Lewicki et al. 2007 Ch 1 Supplementary Readings: Deutsch 1990; Shell 2001; Sorenson et al. 1999;

10:30 – 10:45 am Morning Tea/Coffee

10:45 – 12:30 pm Session 1 cont: The nature of negotiation Text reading : Lewicki et al. 2007 Ch 1; Exercise : The Petrol Pricing Exercise

12:30 –1:15 pm Lunch

1:15 – 3:00 pm Session 2: Distributive bargaining Text Reading : Lewicki et al 2007 Ch 2 Supplementary Readings : Rubin, Pruitt and Kim 1994 Chs 4; Watkins 2001 ;

3:00 – 3:15 pm Afternoon Tea/Coffee

3:15 – 4:30 pm Session 2 cont: Distributive bargaining cont… Exercise : The Book Deal


15

D A Y T W O D A Y T H R E E 8:30 – 10:30 am Session 3: Integrative negotiation

Text reading : Lewicki et al 2007 Ch 3 Supplementary readings : Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991 ; Lax and Sebenius 1986 ; Walton and McKersie 1965 pp 126-160 ; Video : Negotiating Corporate Change

8:30 – 10:30 am Session 5: How do I negotiate? Text Reading: Lewicki et al 2007 Chs 6, 7 and 8 Supplementary Readings: Olekalns et al. 1996; Rackman and Carlisle 1978; Schroth, Bain-Chekal and Caldwell 2005; Barry, Fulmer and Van Kleef 2004; Simons and Tripp, 2003; Thompson 2005 Exercise: Active Listening & Questioning Techniques

10:30 – 10:45 am Morning Tea/Coffee 10:30– 10:45 am Morning Tea/Coffee

10:45 – 12:30 pm Session 3 cont: Interest-based approaches to negotiation Text Reading : Lewicki et al 2003 ch 3 ; Supplementary Readings : Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991 ; Thompson and Leonardelli, 2004 ; Exercise : Island Cruise

10:45 – 12:30 pm Session 5 cont: Managing Negotiation Impasses Text Reading : Lewicki et al 2007 Ch 17 Video: Inside Story

12:30 –1:15 pm Lunch 12:30 – 1:15 pm Lunch

1:15 – 3:00 pm Session 4: Strategic Choice Text Reading: Lewicki et al. 2007 Ch 4 Supplementary Readings : Allred 2000 ; Douglas 1957; Fells 2000 ; Pruitt 1983; Putnam 1990 ; Sorenson et al 1999 ; Olekalns et al. 1996; Weingart and Olekalns 2004;

1:15 – 3:00 pm Session 6: Video Practice Session Salary Negotiation Exercise Groups 1, 2 and 3 Groups 4, 5 and 6 preparation for the Thespian Ex

3:00 – 3:15 pm Afternoon Tea/Coffee 3:00 – 3:15 pm Afternoon Tea/Coffee

3:15 – 4:30 pm Session 4 cont: Strategic Choice cont… Exercise : EuroTechnologies cont

3:15 – 4:30 pm Session 6 cont: Video Practice Session Salary Negotiation Exercise Groups 4, 5 and 6 Groups 1, 2 and 3 preparation for the Thespian Ex


16

D A Y F O U R D A Y F I V E

8:30 – 10:30 am Session 7: Communication, Emotions & Cognitive Biases in Negotiation Text Reading : Lewicki et al 2003 Chs 5, 10 ; Supplementary Readings : Allred et al 1007 ; Barry 1999 ; Bazerman and Neale 1992 ; Brett et al 1998 ; et al. 2000 ; Kramer et al 1993 ; Morley and Stephenson 1977 ; Ogilvie and Carsky 2002 ;

8:30 – 10:30 am Session 9: Mediation Supplementary Reading: Boule 1996 Ch 4; Exercise: Levver Corporation

10:30 – 10:45 am Morning Tea/Coffee 10:30 – 10:45 am Morning Tea/Coffee

10:45 – 12:30 pm Session 7 cont: Ethics and negotiation Text Reading: Lewicki et al 2007 Ch 9

10:45 – 12:30 pm Session 9 cont: Thespian exercise practice session and Presentations

12:30 – 1:15 pm Lunch 12:30 – 1:15 pm Lunch

1:15 – 3:00 pm Session 8: Negotiating in Other Contexts Text Reading : Lewicki et al 2007 Ch 16 ; Supplementary Readings : Brett et al 1998 ; Graham 1996 ; Salacuse 1998 ; Sebenius 2002 ; Schuster and Copeland 1996 Chs 1,2 ; Video : Mustang Jeans

1:15 – 3:00 pm Session 10: Thespian exercise Presentations

3:00 – 3:15 pm Afternoon Tea/Coffee 3:00 – 3:15 pm Afternoon Tea/Coffee

3:15 – 4:30 pm Session 8 cont: Negotiating in other contexts Exercise: Bacchus Winery

3:15 – 4:30 pm Session 10 cont: Integration and Review Text Reading: Lewicki et al. 2007 Ch 12


17

REFERENCE LIST MODELS OF NEGOTIATION: Primary sources and related reading (‡ in the readings) ‡Allred, K.G. (2000) ‘Distinguishing Best and Strategic Practices: A Framework for Managing

the Dilemma between Creating and Claiming Value’ Negotiation Journal 16(4) pp.387-397. Axelrod, R. (1990) The Evolution of Cooperation Harmondsworth, Mddx., Penguin Books. ‡Bazerman, M.H. and Neale, M.A. (1992) Negotiating Rationally New York, Free Press. Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict New Haven, Yale University Press. Douglas, A. (1957) 'The Peaceful Settlement of Industrial and Intergroup Disputes' Journal of

Conflict Resolution 1 pp.69-81. Douglas, A. (1962) Industrial Peacemaking New York, Columbia University Press. Fells, R.E. (1983) Movement, Phases and Deadlocks MIR Thesis, University of Western

Australia, published in 1986 by IRRC, Monograph No.12, University of New South Wales. Fells, R.E. (1993) ‘Developing Trust in Negotiation’ Employee Relations 15(1) pp.33-45. Fells. R.E. (1998) 'Overcoming the Dilemmas in Walton and McKersie's Mixed Bargaining

Strategy' Relations Industrielles 53(2) pp.300-322. ‡Fells, R.E. (2000a) ‘Negotiating ‘strategically’’ in Travaglione, A. and Marshall, V. (eds.) Human

Resource Strategies: An Applied Approach Sydney, McGraw-Hill, pp.81-116. Fells, R.E. (2000b) ‘Labour-Management Negotiation. Some Insights into Strategy and

Language’ Relations Industrielles 55(4) pp.583-603. Fisher, R (1983) ‘Negotiating Power’ American Behavioral Scientist 27, pp149-166. Fisher, R and Ertel, D. (1995) Getting Ready to Negotiate New York, Penguin. ‡Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991) Getting To Yes London, Hutchinson. Holmes, M.E. (1992) ‘Phase Structures in Negotiation’ in Putnam, L.L. and Roloff, M.E. (eds)

Communication and Negotiation Newbury Park, Sage Publications, pp.83-105. Kniveton, B. (1989) The Psychology of Bargaining Aldershot, Hants., Avebury. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (1985) ‘The Power of Alternatives or the Limits to Negotiation’

Negotiation Journal 1, pp.163-179. ‡Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (1986) The Manager as a Negotiator New York, Free Press. Lewicki, R.J., Hiam, A. and Olander, K.W. (1996) Think Before You Speak New York, John Wiley

and Son. Magenau, J.M. and Pruitt, D.G. (1979) 'The Social Psychology of Bargaining: A Theoretical

Synthesis' in Stephenson, G.M. and Brotherton, C.J. (eds) Industrial Relations: A Social Psychological Approach Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, pp.181-210.

Marsh, P.D.V. (1981) Contract Negotiator's Handbook Aldershot, Hants., Gower. ‡Mnoonkin, R.H., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello, A.S. (2000) Beyond Winning Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, Mass. Morley, I.E. and Stephenson, G.M. (1977) The Social Psychology of Bargaining London, George

Allen and Unwin. Peterson, R. B. and Tracy, L. N. (1976) 'A Behavioral Model of Problem-Solving in Labour

Negotiations', British Journal of Industrial Relations 14, pp.159-173. Pruitt, D.G. (1981) Negotiation Behavior New York, Academic Press. ‡Pruitt, D.G. (1983) 'Strategic Choice in Negotiation' American Behavioral Scientist 27(2)

pp.167-194. Pruitt, D.G. and Carnevale, P.J. (1993) Negotiation in Social Conflict Buckingham, Open

University Press. ‡Putnam, L.L. (1990) ‘Reframing Integrative and Distributive Bargaining: A Process Perspective’

in Sheppard, B.L., Bazerman, M.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (eds) Research on Negotiations in Organizations Greenwich, Conn., JAI Press, pp.3-30.

Putnam, L.L. and Roloff, M.E. (1992) Communication and Negotiation Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, Volume 20, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.

Raiffa, H. (1982) The Art and Science of Negotiation Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.


18

Rhoades, J.A. and Carnevale, P.J. (1999) ‘The Behavioral Context of Strategic Choice in Negotiation: A Test of the Dual Concerns Model’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(9) pp.1777-1802.

Rojot, J. (1991) Negotiation: From Theory to Practice London, Macmillan. ‡Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994) Social Conflict New York, McGraw Hill. Schuster, C. and Copeland M. (1996) Global Business Fort Worth, Texas, Dryden Press. ‡Sorenson, R.L., Morse, E.A. and Savage, G.T. (1999) ‘A Test of the Motivations Underlying

Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concerns Model’ International Journal of Conflict Management 10(1) pp.25-44.

‡Thompson, L. (1998) The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator Upper Saddle River, NJ., Prentice Hall.

Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1965 or 1991) A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations New York, McGraw-Hill.

Warr, P. (1973) Psychology and Collective Bargaining London, Hutchinson. ‡Watkins, M. (1999) ‘Negotiating in a Complex World’ Negotiation Journal 15(3) pp.245-270. Watkins, M (2002) Breakthrough Business Negotiation Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. NEGOTIATION AND NEGOTIATON STYLES: General readings Albin, C (1993) ‘The Role of Fairness in Negotiation’ Negotiation Journal 9(3) pp.223-244. Ancona, D.G., Friedman, R.A. and Kolb, D.M. (1991) ‘The Group and What Happens on the Way

to ‘Yes’’ Negotiation Journal 7(2) pp.155-173. Andes, R.H. (1992) ‘Message Dimensions of Negotiation’ Negotiation Journal 8(2) pp.125-130. Brett, J.F., Northcraft, G.B. and Pinkley, R.L. (1999) 'Stairways to Heaven: an Interlocking Self-

Regulation Model of Negotiation' Academy of Management Review 24, 435-451. Craver, C.B. (2003) ‘Negotiation Styles: The Impact on Bargaining Transactions’ Dispute

Resolution Journal February/April pp48-55. Downie, B.M. (1991) ‘When Negotiations Fail: Causes of Breakdown and Tactics for Breaking

the Stalemate’ Negotiation Journal 7(2) pp.175-186. Fells, R.E. (1995) ‘Enterprise Bargaining and the Process of Negotiation’ Journal of Industrial

Relations 37, pp.218-235. Fells. R.E. (1996) ‘Preparation for Negotiation: Issue and Process’ Personnel Review 25(2)

pp.50-60. Fells, R.E. (1996) ‘Negotiating Workplace Change: An Overview of Research into Negotiation

Behaviour’ in Mortimer, D., Leece, P. and Morris, R. (eds) Workplace Reform and Enterprise Bargaining Harcourt Brace, Sydney, pp.327-345.

Fisher, R. (1989) 'Negotiating Inside Out: What Are the Best Ways to Relate Internal Negotiations with External Ones?' Negotiation Journal 5(1) pp.33-42.

Fisher, R. and Davis, W.H. (1987) ‘Six Basic Interpersonal Skills for a Negotiator’s Repertoire’ Negotiation Journal 3, pp.117-122.

Friedman, R.A. (1994) Front Stage Backstage Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Galasinski, D. (1996) ‘Pretending to Cooperate. How Speakers Hide Evasive Actions’

Argumentation 10, pp.315-388. Graham, J. (1996) ‘Vis-à-vis International Business Negotiations’ in Ghaauri, P.N. and Usunier,

P. (eds) International Business Negotiations Oxford, Pergamon, pp.69-90. Honey, P. (1990) Face to Face Skills Aldershot, Hants., Gower. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (1991) ‘Negotiating Through An Agent’ Journal of Conflict

Resolution 35, pp.474-493. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (2002) ‘Dealcrafting: The Substance of Three-Dimensional

Negotiations’ Negotiation Journal 18(1) pp.5-28. Mayer, B. (2000) The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mnookin, R.H. and Susskind, L.E. (eds)(1999) Negotiating on Behalf of Others Thousand Oaks,

Calif, Sage. ‡Ogilvie, J.R. and Carsky, M.L. (2002) ‘Building Emotional Intelligence in Negotiations’

International Journal of Conflict Management 13, pp.381-400. ‡Rackman, N. and Carlisle, J. (1978) ‘The Effective Negotiator’ Parts 1 and 2, Journal of

European Industrial Training Part 1:2(6) pp.6-11; Part 2:2(7) pp. 2-5.


19

Roloff, M.J. and Jordon, J.M. (1991) ‘The Influence of Effort, Experience, and Persistence on the Elements of Bargaining Plans’ Communication Research 18, pp.306-332.

‡Salacuse, J.W. (1998) ‘Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results’ Negotiation Journal 14(3) pp.221-240.

Schneider, A.K. (1994) ‘Effective Responses to Offensive Comments’ Negotiation Journal 10(2) pp.107-115.

‡Sebenius, J.K. (2001) ‘Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators’ Harvard Business Review April, pp.87-95.

Sebenius, J.K. (2002) ‘The Hidden Challenge of Cross-Border Negotiations’ Harvard Business Review March, pp.76-85.

‡Sebenius, J.K. (2002) ‘Caveats for the Cross-Border Negotiators’ Negotiation Journal 18(2) pp.121.133.

‡Shell, G. R. (2001) ‘Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument’ Negotiation Journal 17(2) pp 155-174.

‡Schuster, C. and Copeland, M. (1996) ‘Culture Classification Model’ Global Business Fort Worth Tx, Dryden Press

Spegel, N.M., Rogers, B. and Buckley, R.P. (1998) Negotiation Theory and Techniques Sydney, Butterworths

Stark, P.B. and Flaherty, J. (2004) ‘How to Negotiate’ Training and Development June pp. 52-54. Walters, A.E., Stuhlmacher, A.F. and Meyer, L.L. (1998) 'Gender and Negotiator

Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis' Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, pp.1-29.

Watkins, M. (2001) ‘Principles of Persuasion’ Negotiation Journal 17(2) pp.115-137. NEGOTIATION BEHAVIOUR: Selected Experimental Research Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., and Raia, C. P. (1997) ‘The Influence of Anger and

Compassion on Negotiation Performance’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 70 pp. 175-187.

Axelrod, R. (1980) ‘More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 24, pp.379-403.

Bolton, G.E., Chatterjee, K. and McGinn, K.L. (2003) ‘How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation’ Management Science 49(5) pp 583-598.

‡Brett, J.M., Adair, W., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P, Tinsley, C. and Lytle, A. (1998) ‘Culture and Joint Gains in Negotiation’ Negotiation Journal 14(1) pp.61-86.

‡Brett, J.M., Shapiro, D.L. and Lytle, A.L. (1998) ‘Breaking the Bonds of Reciprocity in Negotiations’ Academy of Management Journal 14, pp.410-424.

Carnevale, P.J.D., and Lawler, E.J. (1986) 'Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiation' Journal of Conflict Resolution 30(4) pp.636-659.

Carnevale, P.J.D., Pruitt, D.G. and Seilheiner, S. (1981) 'Looking and Competing: Accountability and Visual Access in Integrative Bargaining' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, pp.111-120.

De Dreu, c. K., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B.J. and van de Vliert, E. (1994) ‘Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 pp. 90-107.

De Dreu, C. K., Koole, S. L. and Steinel, W. (2000) ‘Unfixing the Fixed Pie: A Motivated Information Processing Approach to Integrative Negotiation’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 pp. 975-987.

Duane, M.J., Azevedo, R.G. and Anderson, U. (1985) 'Behaviour as an Indication of an Opponent's Intentions in Collective Negotiation' Psychological Reports 57, pp.507-513.

Esser, J.K., and Komorita, S.S. (1975) 'Reciprocity and Concession Making in Bargaining' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, pp.864-872.

Gelfand, M.J. and Christakopoulou, S. (1999) ‘Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79(3) pp.248-269.

Gordon, M.G., Schmitt, N. and Schneider, W.G. (1984) 'Laboratory Research on Bargaining and Negotiation: An Evaluation' Industrial Relations 23(2) pp.218-233.


20

Gruder, C.L. and Duslak, R.J. (1973) 'Elicitation of Co-operation by Retaliatory and Non-Retaliatory Strategies in a Mixed Motive Game' Journal of Conflict Resolution 17(1) pp.162-174.

Hamner, W.C. (1974) 'Effects of Bargaining Strategy and Pressure to Reach Agreement in a Stalemate Negotiation' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, pp.458-467.

Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K. and Van Vienen, A. E. (2000) ‘The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81 pp. 329-358.

Jackson, C.N. and King, D.C. (1983) 'The Effects of Representatives' Power Within Their Organisations on the Outcome of a Negotiation' Academy of Management Journal 26(1) pp.178-185.

Keating, M.E., Pruitt, D.G., Eberle, R.A. and Mikolic, J.M. (1994) ‘Strategic Choice in Everyday Disputes’ International Journal of Conflict Management 5(2) pp.143-157

Kemp, K.E. and Smith, W.P. (1994) ‘Information Exchange, Toughness and Integrative Bargaining: The Roles of Explicit Cues and Perspective Taking’ International Journal of Conflict Management 5(1) pp.5-21.

Klimoski, R.J. (1972), 'The Effects of Intragroup Forces on Intergroup Conflict Resolution' Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 8, pp.363-383.

Komorita, S.S. and Barnes, M. (1969) 'Effects of Pressures to Reach Agreement in Bargaining' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13(3) pp.245-252.

Kramer, R., Newton, E. and Pommerenke, P. (1993) ‘Self Enhancement Biases and Negotiator Judgment: Effects of Self-Esteem and Mood’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56 pp. 110-33.

Lamunde, K.G. and Scudder, J. (1993) ‘Compliance-Gaining Techniques of Type A Managers’ Journal of Business Communication 30(1) pp.63-79.

Lindskold, S., Betz, B. and Walters, P.S. (1986) 'Transforming Competitive or Co-operative Climates' Journal of Conflict Resolution 30(1) pp.99-114.

Maddux, W. W., Mullen, E. and Galinsky, A. D. (2008) ‘Chameleons Bake Bigger Pies and Take Bigger Pieces: Strategic Behavioral Mimicry Facilitates Negotiation Outcomes’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 pp. 461-468

Mosterd, I. and Rutte, C.G. (2000) ‘Effects of Time Pressure and Accountability to Constituents on Negotiation’ International Journal of Conflict Management 11, pp.227-247.

Murningham, J.K., Babcock, L., Thompson, L. and Pillutla, M. (1999) 'The Information Dilemma in Negotiations: Effects of Experience, Incentives and Integrative Potential' International Journal of Conflict Resolution 10, pp.313-339.

Nauta, A. and Sangers, K. (2000) 'Interdepartmental Negotiation Behavior in Manufacturing' International Journal of Conflict Management 11(2), pp.135-161.

Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985) 'The Effect of Externally Set Goals on Reaching Integrative Agreements in Competitive Markets' Journal of Occupational Behavior 6, pp.19-32.

Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985) 'The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes' Academy of Management Journal 28(1) pp. 34-49.

Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996) ‘The Process of Negotiating: Strategy and Timing as Predictors of Outcomes’ Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68, pp.68-77.

Patchen, M. (1987) ‘Strategies for Eliciting Co-operation from an Adversary' Journal of Conflict Resolution 31(1) pp.164-185.

Pinkley, R.L., Griffith, T. L., and Northcraft, G. B. (1995) ‘”Fixed Pie” a la Mode: Information Availability, Information Processing, and the Negotiation of Suboptimal Agreements’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 101-112.

Pruitt, D.G. (1983) 'Achieving Integrative Agreements', in Bazerman M.H. and Lewicki R. J., (eds) Negotiation in Organizations Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, pp.35-50.

Purdy, J.M., Nye, P. and Balakrishnan, P.V. (2000) 'The Impact of Communication Media on Negotiation Outcomes' International Journal of Conflict Management 11(2), pp 162-187.

Rahim, M. A. (1983) ‘A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict’ Academy of Management Journal 26, pp 368-376.


21

Schei, V. and Rognes, J.K. (2003) ‘Knowing Me, Knowing You: Own Orientation and Information about the Opponent’s Orientation in Negotiation’, The International Journal of Conflict Management 14(1), pp. 43-59.

‡Schroth, H. A., Bain-Chekal, J. and Caldwell, D. F. (2005) ‘Sticks and Stones may Break Bones and Words can Hurt Me: Words and Phrases that Trigger Emotions in Negotiations and Their Effects’ The International Journal of Conflict Management 16(2) pp. 102-127

‡Schweitzer, M. E. and Croson, R. (1999) ‘Curtailing Deception: The Impact of Direct Questions on Lies and Omissions’ The International Journal of Conflict Management 10(3) pp. 225-248

‡Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G. A. and Harinck, F. (2008) ‘Are You Talking to Me?! Separting the People from the Problem When Expressing Emotions in Negotiation’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 pp. 362-369

Tedeschi, J.T. and Bonoma, T.V. (1977) ‘Measures of Last Resort: Coercion and Aggression in Thompson, L. (1993) ‘The Impact of Negotiation in Intergroup Relations’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 29, pp.304-325.

Wall, J.A. (1977) 'Operant Conditioning and Negotiator's Concession Making' Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13, pp.431-440.

Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, M.H. and Carroll, J.S. (1990) ‘Tactical Behaviour and Negotiation Outcomes’ International Journal of Conflict Management 1, pp.7-31.

REVIEWS of Research in Negotiation Barry, B. (1999) ‘The Tactical Use of Emotion in Negotiation’. In R. Bies, R. J. Lewicki and B. H.

Sheppard (Eds.) Research on Negotiations in Organizations (Vol. 7, pp 97-121), Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Bazerman, M. H. and Lewicki, R. J. (eds)(1983) Negotiating in Organizations Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.

Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt. D.C. (1992) 'Negotiation and Mediation' Annual Review of Psychology 43, pp.531-582.

‡Deutsch, M. (1990) ‘Sixty Years of Conflict’ International Journal of Conflict Management 1, pp.237-263.

Druckman, D. (ed)(1977) Negotiations Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Kumar, R. (1997) ‘The Role of Affect in Negotiations: An Integrative Overview’ Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science 3(1) pp. 84-100. Lewicki, R.J., Weiss, S.E. and Lewin, D. (1992) ‘Models of Conflict, Negotiation and Third Party

Intervention: A Review and Synthesis’ Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, pp.209-252. Murray, J.S. (1986) 'Understanding Competing Theories of Negotiation' Negotiation Journal 2(2)

pp.179-186. Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985) 'Perspectives for Understanding Negotiation' Journal of

Conflict Resolution 29, pp.33-55. Rubin, J. Z. and Brown, B. R. (1975) The Social Pschology of Bargaining and Negotiation New

York: Academic Press. Rubin, J.Z. (1983) ‘Negotiation: An Introduction of Some Issues and Themes’ American

Behavioral Scientist 27(2) pp.135-147. Sawyer, J. and Guetzkow, H. (1974) ‘The Process of Negotiation’ in Brinkman, P. (ed) Social

Conflict Lexington, Mass. D.C. Heath, pp. 146-161. ‡Spector, P. (2004) ‘An Interview with Roger Fisher and William Ury’ Academy of Management

Executive 18(3) pp. 101-108. Thomas, K. (1976) 'Conflict and Conflict Management' in Dunnette, M. D. (ed) Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology Chicago, Rand McNally, pp.889-935. ‡Thompson, L. and Leonardelli, G. J. (2004) ‘The Big Bang: The Evolution of Negotiation

Research’ Academy of Management Executive 18(3) pp. 113-117. Zartman, I. W. (1988) 'Common Elements in the Analysis of the Negotiation Process' Negotiation

Journal 4(1) pp.31-44. Also, several volumes of Research on Negotiation in Organizations Greenwich, Conn., JAI

Press, usually edited by Bazerman, Lewicki and Sheppard (though the principal editor changes each edition)


22

MEDIATION: Some useful sources Agusti-Panareda, J. (2004) ‘Power Imbalances in Mediation: Questioning some Common

Assumptions’ Dispute Resolution Journal May/July pp. 24-31. Blitman, B. and Maes, J. (2004) ‘Visioning and Coaching Techniques in Mediation’ Dispute

Resolution Journal May/July pp 20-23. ‡Boulle, L. (1996) Mediation Sydney, Butterworths. Bush, R.A. (1999) ‘What do we need mediators for?: Mediation’s “Value-added” for Negotiators’

in Lewicki, R.J., Saunders D.M. and Minton, J.W. (1999) Negotiation, Readings, Exercises and Cases Boston, Irwin McGraw-Hill, pp.429-457.

Carnevale, P. (1986) 'Strategic Choice in Mediation' Negotiation Journal 2(1) pp.41-56. Fells, R.E. (2000c) 'Of Models and Journeys: Keeping Negotiation and Mediation on Track'

Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 11(4), pp.209-219. Kressel, K. and Pruitt, D.G. (eds)(1989) Mediation Research San Francisco, Jossey Bass. ‡Wade, J.H. (1994) 'Strategic Interventions used by Mediators, Facilitators and Conciliators'

Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 9(4), pp.292-304.

Documents

MGMT8647 NEGOTIATION · PDF fileNegotiation Behaviour 8647 1 MBA Unit Outline MGMT8647 Negotiation Behaviour Summer School 2009 Business School This unit examines the process