multiparty negotiation

Multiparty Facilitation and Negotiation

RSCN 595, EVST 595, COMM 595The University of Montana

Spring 2011 Office HoursMonday Monday 12-11:10 to 2:30 and 2:40 to 4:00 By Appointment_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew McKinney, Ph.D. Daisy PattersonLead Instructor Instructor & Coordinator406-457-8475 [email protected] [email protected]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Course Overview

Developing a Theoretical Framework

Week # 1 Introduction

Week # 2 Two-party Negotiation

Week # 3 Multiparty Negotiation: Part 1

Week # 4 Multiparty Negotiation: Part 2

Week # 5 Communication for Multiparty Negotiation

Week # 6 The Nature of Facilitation and Mediation

Week # 7 Preparing to Facilitate

Week # 8 Facilitating Multiparty Dialogues

Week # 9 Managing the Process Between Meetings

Applying and Refining the Framework

Week # 10 Resolving Community-based Conflicts

Week # 11 Negotiating Across Cultures

Week # 12 Managing River Basins in the American West

Week # 13 Small Group Presentations and/or Skill-building

Week # 14 Small 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 https://sites.google.com/site/multinegfac/

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

1. Write a two-page memo on the key differences between two-party and multi-party negotiation. Due February 28th (15%).

2. 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 28th as 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%).

3. 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 http://sites.google.com/site/multinegfac/ Journal entries due each Thursday (35%) .

4. 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 A90-92 A-88-89 B+83-87 B80-82 B-78-79 C+73-77 C

http://sites.google.com/site/multinegfac/

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 issueThis 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 31Two-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 issueThis 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 7Multiparty 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 CoalitionThis 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-issueThis 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 mediatorThis 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 mediatorThis 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).This classic book presents a theory of how meetings should work. It reviews the key elements of a group memory; the recorder; and the facilitator. It highlights a number of practical tools to increase the effectiveness of participants in accomplishing their objectives. Read chapters 10-19.

International Association of Facilitators, Basic Facilitation Skills (May 2002): 40 pages.This primer presents a basic introduction to facilitation. The authors define a facilitator as someone who uses knowledge of group processes to formulate and deliver the needed structure for meetings to be effective. The facilitator focuses on effective processes (meeting dynamics) allowing the participants to focus on the content or the substance of their work together.

Public Policy Research Institute and Consensus Building Institute, The Role of Facilitators and Mediators (June 16, 2008): 16 pages.

Week 8 – March 21st Facilitating Multi-party Dialogues (Patterson)

The modules covers the elements of managing a meeting: facilitator/participant opening remarks, generating options, evaluating and packaging solutions, reaching closure, tools for decision-making, managing group dynamics.

Learning Objectives

To practice facilitator/participant opening remarks; To develop skills in generating options; To practice evaluating options and packaging solutions; To practice managing meetings; To develop strategies for recording/notetaking during the meeting; and To review strategies to deal with an angry public.

Exercise

Storyville Part # 2 – 3 party plus mediatorThis simulation provides an opportunity for participants to practice exploring issues, generating options, packaging options, and reaching closure.

Reading

Michael Doyle and David Straus, How to Make Meetings Work (Jove Books, 1976).This classic book presents a theory of how meetings should work. It reviews the key elements of a group memory; the recorder; and the facilitator. It highlights a number of practical tools to increase the effectiveness of participants in accomplishing their objectives. Read chapters 1-9.

Week 9 – March 28th Managing the Process between Meetings (Patterson)

While what occurs at meetings is important, much of the work done in multiparty negotiation occurs before and after the meeting. This module emphasizes the need to work between meetings -- preparing meeting summaries and single negotiating texts; engaging in shuttle diplomacy (i.e., working with clients and stakeholders to build understanding and agreement); and maintaining momentum until the group’s next meeting. The purpose of this module is to build on the last module and continue to develop both a theoretical understanding of the role of process managers as well as practical skills in facilitating multiparty dialogues.

Learning Objectives

To review strategies to reach closure; To prepare meeting summaries and single negotiating texts; and To review strategies for shuttle diplomacy and to explore different applications

of shuttle diplomacy in mediation and facilitation; To understand how participants influence and contribute to the facilitation

process; and To continue practicing both facilitation and negotiation.

Exercises

Carson-Wetlands – 6-party, co-mediationMulti-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions-- especially blocking coalitions. This 6-party mediation provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies.

Reading

Susan L. Carpenter and W.J.D. Kennedy, "Guidelines for Making the Program Work," Managing Public Disputes (Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988): 157-196.

The authors offer guidelines for making meetings productive, managing activities between meetings, involving constituents, keeping the public informed, dealing with the media, and using third parties.

Jeanne M. Brett, Rita Drieghe, Debra L. Shapiro. “Mediator Style and Mediation Effectiveness,” Negotiation Journal. 1986. Volume 2, Issue 3: 277-285.

Mediators are of two basic types: orchestrators, who manage patterns of interaction, and dealmakers, who actually propose settlements. The authors' research focused on grievance mediation in the bituminous coal industry and examines mediators using either the dealmaking style described by Kolb or 'shuttle diplomacy,' in which they separated the parties and developed specific settlements in the process of moving back and forth between them.

Applying and Refining the Framework

Week # 10 – Managing Community-based Conflicts (April 11)

Greg Neudecker and Jim Stone will discuss the Blackfoot Challenge and the use of the 80/20 decision rule.

Jill Belsky and Steve Siebert will discuss human-wildlife interactions in Bhutan’s national parks. The session will look specifically at tiger and cattle/yak interactions. This case study will challenge our thinking on the cultural assumptions underlying what constitutes “conflict” and how strategies for mediating so called human-wildlife conflict (including compensation schemes and public facilitation) may or may not be applicable under different historic and cultural conditions.

Week # 11 – Negotiating Across Cultures (April 18)

Otto Koester will present a case study on the multiple ways in which culture influences multiparty negotiations, including but not limited to cultural identity and predispositions, social structures, communication styles, and the role of power.

Clayton Matt will discuss his experience in negotiating natural resource and environmental agreements across cultures.

Week # 12 – Managing River Basins (April 25)

John Thorson will discuss the ongoing effort to develop an plan for managing the Missouri River.

Sarah Bates will examine ongoing efforts to revise and update the management of the Colorado River.

Week # 13 – Small Group Presentations (McKinney and Patterson – May 2)

To round out the application of the theoretical framework to case studies, students will present their small group case assessments to class for review and discussion.

Week # 14 – Small Group Presentations/Course Review and Evaluation (All Faculty – May 9)

During this final session, students and faculty will synthesize lessons learned. We will revisit the theoretical framework; highlight lessons learned from case studies, simulations, and practical mediation experience; and discuss how the course might be improved.

multiparty negotiation

Documents