Grant recipients:
Jason Thistlethwaite, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Michael Wood, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Angela Carter, Political Science
(Project timeline: May 2016 - June 2017)
Description
The purpose of this project is to develop a negotiation simulation to be used in upper-year undergraduate and graduate classes, as well as for publication in the academic literature (simulation attached). The project will develop a simulation that moves beyond a single decision-maker perspective often used in more traditional approaches to case or scenario-based teaching to create a realistic multi-perspective context for negotiation. To achieve this end, the project investigated existing negotiation simulations, how they incorporated both theoretical and “real-world” research to engage students, and developed a simulation based on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline issue. The project also ran the simulation in a fourth-year undergrad and masters class to generate feedback to incorporate for improvements.
Questions Investigated
The objective of the project was to develop a negotiation simulation role-play that can be used in undergraduate and graduate courses and published for replication in other institutions. In particular, the simulation will build-on the traditional use of a single decision-maker centred problem to include a multi-stakeholder role-play simulation. Although cases use real scenarios to help students understand the context of organizational decision-making, they are limited by a focus on a single decision point (e.g. should a firm develop a corporate social responsibility program). Negotiation simulations involve a multiple decision-making requirement as there is engagement with a number of different stakeholders and their positions (e.g. how can a build support among oppositional stakeholders with different perspectives for a corporate social responsibility program). This approach requires students to gain a more thorough understanding of their stakeholder’s background (through a confidential stakeholder perspective document) and the value of their position relative to other stakeholders (through the simulation).
Findings/Insights
- Students who participated in the simulation in both undergraduate and graduate identified benefits associated with learning strategies to advance their interests through trade-offs with other stakeholders. The simulation helped students understand the gap between public stakeholder positions, which are more absolute (i.e opposing or supporting the pipeline) and negotiating positions, that are more malleable given opportunity to advance your stakeholder’s position (i.e. supporting the pipeline with strict environmental conditions). Students also learned how to implement the “best available alternative to an negotiated agreement” strategy or BATNA, which in some circumstances meant blocking consensus.
- Feedback from the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) Case Division panel suggested that the negotiation should be included in a teaching note that accompanies the main case document. The transition from a single to multiple decision-making perspective is accomplished by including the negotiation simulation in the teaching note that accompanies the case. The case describes a decision-making point on whether the NGP should be approved based on the perspective of a Joint Review Panel member. The negotiation simulation then asks students to transition roles into one of seven stakeholders with interests in the NGP decision. The de-brief asks students to transition roles back into the single decision-maker with the additional experience of knowing the contesting positions involved among external stakeholders.
- The scorecards that inform each stakeholder’s position on different conditions required as a part of the NGP negotiation were adjusted in response to student feedback that some stakeholders had limited opportunities to advance their position through the negotiation compared to others. In response, the scorecards were tested to check for biases through four tests that explored the distribution of scores by stakeholder and criteria, instances of mutually positive scores between two stakeholders, instances where the sum of the two stakeholders are positive, and conditions of stakeholder bargaining. These tests led to some minor adjustments in the scorecard for some stakeholders.
- Student feedback also revealed frustration with the voting system. To support criteria in the negotiation simulation, students were initially asked to raise their hand. Feedback suggested students could change their vote by watching other groups respond. An online voting system using Google sheets was developed that instructors can now use to run the voting part of the simulation.
Dissemination and Impact
- At the Department/School and/or Faculty/Unit levels: The simulation was run in one undergraduate (ENBUS 410) and graduate class (SUSM 601) in the School of Environment Enterprise and Development (SEED) (N=60 students). These courses will continue to use the simulation.
- At the provincial, national and/or international levels: The case was presented at the Case Development workshop at the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) in Montreal, May 2017.
Impact of the Project
- Teaching: I have incorporated the case into an undergraduate course on stakeholder engagement and a graduate course on the introduction to sustainability management. Based on positive feedback to the simulation, I plan on formally introducing a section on multi-stakeholder negotiation and collective action problems.
- Involvement in other activities or projects: To promote the use of cases and simulations, I joined SEED’s PhD Committee, which is developing a PhD program for initiation in September 2018. The case, simulation, and de-brief is being discussed as a potential “milestone” that students can take to improve the links between theory and practice.
-
Connections with people from different departments, faculties, and/or disciplines about teaching and learning: Through participation in the case development workshop at ASAC, the case was reviewed by scholars in several business schools with significant experience in publishing. These scholars have agreed to provide a “friendly” review before submission to a case journal.
References
Project reference list (PDF)