S1215 Negotiating (S1215)
Negotiating is a key process in leadership, conflict resolution, and change management at every level of internal and external relationships among stakeholders. The purpose of the course is to improve students' abilities to analyze, prepare for, practice and/or resist win-lose, win-win, dialogic, and third party negotiating methods as appropriate. Types of distributive, integrative, expansive, creative and transformative negotiating outcomes are also considered. Emphasis is on practical application and personal development. Teaching methods used are role playing, discussion of readings, original student projects, and discussion of current events. In most weeks there will be experiential negotiating exercises. Students are invited to reflect upon how our negotiating and conflict resolution practices make us happy, effective, and ethical. What practical and next developmental steps might we take with respect to negotiating and conflict resolution practices that might help make us more happy, effective, and ethical?
Topic Outline (See more detailed outline within syllabus).
1. Why negotiate and engage with conflict situations and potential development?
2. Types of negotiating methods and outcomes.
3. A brief history of negotiating and conflict resolution.
4. Causes of conflicts and obstacles to win-win and creative negotiating.
5. Adversarial win-lose methods and how to resist them.
6. Integrative and expansionary win-win methods.
7. Dialogic methods for creative/transformative outcomes.
8. Third party methods.
9. Negotiating ethics
10. Reflection on negotiating and conflict resolution: Toward praxis, happiness?
Course objectives
The objectives of this course are to help us with the following.
1. Negotiating skills/techniques. Be able to practice negotiating techniques (techne).
2. Theory. Theories of understanding, decision, and action. Be able to understand and explain how macro level theories of understanding (theoria) can help explain and diagnose negotiating situations, inform meso level practical decision, sagacity (phronesis), and guide micro level negotiating techniques/arts (techne, poiesis) that produce change. Think macro, decide meso, act micro.
3. Practice. Be able to combine the above, write and implement a negotiating action plan, and practice negotiating that developmentally changes both the external world and the actor (praxis).
4. Reflection and transformation (Toward happiness, eudaimonia?). Do my negotiating and conflict resolution practices make me happy, effective, and ethical? What practical and next developmental steps might I take with respect to negotiating and conflict resolution practices that might make me more happy, effective, and ethical?
Teaching methods used are discussion of negotiating topics, readings, cases, role playing, original student projects, and current events. In most weeks there will be experiential negotiating exercises.
##LIST##
1. Situation Analysis.
Describe the phenomena of the situation and how seeing/knowing the variables in the situation may be influenced by the lenses/perspectives through which different players see them?
1.1 Key variables, facts:
- Relevant players
- Historic relationships, values added by players
- Past strategies and tactics of players
- Needs of players
- Potential stakes/consequences for key players.
- Strengths and weaknesses of key players.
- Key "rules", if any
- Summary: key issues of "fact."
1.2 Key lenses/perspectives that can influence how we perceive a situation include:
- whether we are insiders or outsiders
- whether a person's orientation is short term vs. long term
- whether a person's position is top, middle, bottom, peer
- whether a person has a leadership and/or a technical perspective
- whether a person is seeing the situation more from a perspective of efficiency or fairness
- how a person perceives the rules of the game; etc.
- Summary: key issues of perception/perspective.
2. Transcripts (for past experience cases)
Two-three page transcript of what you actually said compared to what you were thinking and feeling. Note similarities and differences. See A, pp. 136-142 and Tech Systems case.
3. Diagnosis.
Explain why there was/is a conflict and/or why the negotiation was not as successful short and long term as it might have been.
4. Negotiating Actions.
Explain how and why, if you could act/reenact the negotiation, you would do it. Defend your recommendations relative to alternatives with respect to the following:
1. Objectives.
2. Negotiating Tone: Analytic, Adversarial, Friendly
3. Negotiating approach: adversarial win/lose; integrative win-win; dialogic; internal and/or external third party; combination approaches.
4. Solution strategy/outcome (at least a tentative solution/outcome you can offer as a solution that others would accept).
5. Tactics/techniques (For example, what type of win-lose, win-win, dialogic or combination of methods will you use?)
6. Transcript: two-three page transcript of exact words and feelings. Should correspond to specific tactic or combination of tactics. See A, pp. 136-142 and Tech Systems case.
7. Negotiating team organization and third parties if necessary.
8. Contingency plan.
5. Reflection and transformation: Toward praxis, happiness (eudaimonia?). Do my negotiating and conflict resolution practices make me happy, effective, and ethical? What are my conflict resolution strengths and weaknesses? What practical and next developmental steps might I take with respect to negotiating and conflict resolution practices that might make me more happy, effective, and ethical?
##LIST##
- Economic foundations for long term win-win relationships.
- Tempered Reformers/Innovators/Radicals: Succeeding while maintaining values and improving things; developmentally changing myself and the world (praxis).
- If we want to do business and/or be a player, we may have to.
- If we don't, we may lose.
- If we don't, someone we care about might lose.
- If we don't, the common good may lose.
- If we want to develop better relationships, groups, organizations, communities, we may need to.
- If we want to resist, reform and/or survive corruption systems, we may have to.
- If we want to develop as a person, make the world a bit better place, and/or be happy, we may have to.
2. Types of negotiating methods and outcomes.
2. 1 Tone: adversarial; analytic/civil; friendly; respectful; caring; ironic
2.2 Negotiating methods/means.
- win-lose pushing/forcing
- win-win integrative
- dialogic, mutual problem solving
- third party
2.3 Negotiating outcome/ends, e.g.,
- no deal
- lose-lose
- win-lose, lose-win to most powerful/cleverest
- Win-win integration
- Quantitative positive-sum expansion
- Qualitative, creative/transformation
- The above with positive or negative externalities
3 A Short History of Economic/Business Conflict Resolution
1. Premodern, zero-sum, win-lose
- Royals, military, large landowners, religion.
2. Small family owned business
3. Large family owned
3.1 Sweat shops
3.2 Religious and engineering reformers and discretionary win-win social contract
3.3 Modern efficiency oriented and discretionary win-win social contract
4. Early Finance Capitalism
4.1 U.S. and discretionary win-win social contract
4.2 Germany and state supported win-win social contract
5. Managerial capitalist win-win social contract
5.1 U.S./British stock market, discretionary social contract, and minimal regulation
5.2 German/Scandanavian bank financed and state supported social democracy
5.3 Japanese network and social democracy
5.4 State-owned enterprises and social democracy
6. Finance Capitalism, Discretionary CSR, and Minimal Regulation
6.1 Long vs. Short-term Shareholder Value Capitalism
6.2 Private Equity-Leveraged Buyout
6.3 Hedge Fund
6.4 High-leverage banking
6.5 High leverage/debt government finance.
7. Re-regulation and/or new directions/systems?
4. Causes of conflicts and obstacles to win-win and creative negotiating.
1. Features that are embarrassing or threatening:
- Dissatisfaction with group performance
- Attribution of politics
- Attribution that causes of low performance are not discussable
- Recognition of norms against dealing with conflicts or views openly.
2. Bypass and cover-up.
3. Actions that excuse and maintain bypass and over-up.
- Blame others, internal or external.
- Privately express dissatisfaction about group performance.
- Privately hold doubts about group's ability to change.
- Experience helplessness.
- Distance oneself from one's own causal responsibilities.
4. Consequences of actions.
- Low creativity
- Low productivity
- Low teaming cooperation
- Remain active while experiencing burnout - discuss only boring items.
- Individual Obstacles
- Organizational Obstacles: compensation systems, communication systems, culture of short-term maximizing/winning only one big thing with little/no concern for other constituencies/criteria, burnout, obedience/compliance culture, uncritical/unthinking
loyalty, Sophistic professionalism, waiting for the better time that never comes.
5. Adversarial, win-lose methods and how to resist them.
- Adversarial bargaining tactics
- application/threat of greater power
- provocation
- extreme demands
- advocacy reasoning
- few/little concessions (Hard)
- give in (soft)
- leverage/power building with knowledge, political, economic
resources/allies, etc. Can be win-lose or win-win.
- attacking language
- threat of win-lose going to court
- dirty tricks, e.g., provocation, lying, "good guy/bad guy", etc.
- Resistance methods
- Don't do business with win-lose player and look for win-win and/or developmental players.
- Mirror
- Hard and reasonable
- Quiet resistance
- Parity building, e.g., help from and/or exposure to more powerful person, organization, government organization/official/court, media and/or union with less powerful.
- Networking, see, win-win methods.
- Dialogic reframing toward positive-sum outcomes, see dialogic methods.
- Exposure/transparency
- Argyris, pp. 52-55, single-loop, win-lose tactics.
A. Values
1. Achieve your intended purpose.
2. Maximize winning and minimize losing.
3. Suppress negative feelings.
4. Behave according to what you consider rational.
B. Actions
1. Advocate your position.
2. Evaluate, but not verify, the thoughts and actions of other (and your own thoughts and actions).
3. Attribute causes, but do not verify.
6. Integrative and expansionary win-win methods
- long or short series of Tit For Tat
- Fisher and Ury (1981) w-w problem solving:
1. inquire about "I's" and "other's" needs;
2. separate "I" and "other" from issues;
3. focus on "I" and "other's" interests/needs, not positions;
4. invent options for mutual gain of the "I" and the "other".
- Fisher and Ury Key elements:
- Communications and constructive relationships
- Interests more than positions
- role of emotionality, personal relationships
- legitimacy criteria
- multiple options
- BATNA
- Networking, collective action:
1. A helps B.
2. A asks B to help C.
3. A asks B and C to help D.
4. A asks B, C, and D to help E....
- Ury (1991) w-w negotiating with difficult people:
1. don't react negatively
2. step to their side.
3. don't reject, reframe.
4. build them a golden bridge.
5. bring them to their senses, not their knees.
7. Dialogic methods for creative/transformative outcomes.
- Socratic (5th c. B.C) double-loop dialog
1. I's first motion toward the other is respectful, friendly.
2. I asks other(s) for a potential solution and helps consider positives of potential solution.
3. I asks other(s) to help consider negatives of potential solution and iteratively consider other potential solutions in attempt to retain positives and reduce negatives of earlier solutions.
4. Process continues iteratively until can't improve evolving transformed solution.
- Torbert (l987, p. 240) double-loop confronting action inquiry.
"1. Framing - the frame or purpose of the current endeavor, setting, or conversation - not just the speaker's goal, but the frame or purpose that underlies everyone's participation.
2. Advocating - what the speaker advocates be done within the frame.
3. Illustrating - a concrete example to clarify what the speaker is referring to.
4. Inquiring - a question about how others respond to the speaker's perspective and initiative."
- Argyris Action-Science Method. General Rules
"Rule 1: Combine advocacy with inquiry...
Rule 2: Illustrate your inferences with relatively directly observable data....
Rule 3: Make your reasoning explicit and publicly test for agreement at each inferential step....
Rule 4: Actively seek disconfirming data and alternative explanations....
Rule 5: Affirm the making of mistakes in the service of learning....
Rule 6: Actively inquire into your impact on the learning context....
Rule 7: Design ongoing experiments to test competing views...."
Cooperrider, "Appreciative Inquiry"
1. Discovery
2. Dream
3. Design
4. Destiny
1. Elevation of Inquiry
2. Relatedness to Others
3. Fusion of Strengths
4. Activation of Energy
5. From the Local to the Whole
Stone, Patton, Heen, "Learning conversations."
- The "What Happened?" conversation.
- Stop arguing about who's right: explore each other's stories.
- Move from certainty to curiosity.
- Embrace both stories: adopt the "and stance."
- Don't assume they meant it: disentangle intent from impact.
- Share the impact on you; inquire about their intentions.
- Listen for feelings, and reflect on your intentions
- Listen past the accusation for he feelings
- Be open to reflection on the complexity of your intentions.
- Abandon blame (looking backward): Map the contributions (looking forward) system.
- Finding fair shares and clarifying what we should do differently.
- The "Feelings" conversation.
- Feelings can be a source of at least some valid data, but many of us try to frame feelings out of the problem.
- Good people can have bad feelings.
- Find the feelings under attributions, judgments, and accusations.
- Don't vent: describe feelings carefully.
- Don't evaluate (at least at first) just share.
- Negotiate forward while including solutions that care for feelings.
- The "identity" conversation.
- Difficult conversations threaten our identity of: competence, a good person, worthy of love.
- Become aware of your identity issues.
- Complexity your identity, adopt the and stance
- Let go of trying to control their reaction
- Prepare for their response
- Imagine its three months or ten years from now
- Think about (sometimes) raise explicitly (other times) identify issues.
- "Disentangling," Woolman (1774) triple-loop dialog. When the problems are with a biases in a shared internal tradition-system.
1. Frame to oneself a "we" relationship with others and remind oneself that there may be important biases in "our" system-tradition that may be at least as important as individual or group differences.
2. Frame to others, in a friendly manner, a "we" fellowship relationship and suggest that there may be potential biases in "our" tradition-system that may be at least as important as individual or group differences.
3. Request help in deconstructing a specific case issue that may be entangled with a bias in "our" tradition-system.
4. Request consensus building help in developing experiment in disentangling reform.
8. Third Party Methods
Facilitation, Mediation, Arbitration, And Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mediation and Facilitation
- Howard Raiffa's Definition of a Facilitator. "A facilitator is a person who arranges for the relevant parties to come to the negotiating table. In the international arena a facilitator may use his or her 'good offices' to bring the disputants together and arrange the amenities for meetings. In other contexts the facilitator may be a real estate broker who brings together potential buyers and sellers, or an investment banker who identifies firms that might profitably merge. The facilitator may choose not to get involved in the actual process of negotiation, but he may play a
- facilitating role in implementing the agreement -helping with last-minute details, helping with financing, helping with surveillance of the agreements. The facilitator may actually have a short-term asymmetric interest that could lead to biases: for example, a real estate broker gets a percentage fee (from the seller of a house), as does an investment banker who arranges acquisitions and mergers. But in such situations the facilitator is playing a repetitive game, and his or her reputation depends on maintaining a balance between the parties that are negotiating deals."
- Howard Raiffa's Definition of a Mediator. "A mediator is an impartial outsider who tries to aid the negotiators in their quest to find a compromise agreement. The mediator can help with the negotiation process, but he does not have the authority to dictate a solution. He might not even choose to suggest a final solution; rather, his purpose is to lead the negotiators to determine whether there exist compromises that would be preferred by each party to the no-agreement alternative, and to help the parties select on their own a mutually acceptable agreement." Raiffa techniques:
- Bring parties together.
- Establish constructive ambience.
- Collect and share selected information.
- Manage single-text process.
- Reduce extreme differences.
- Clarify values, responsible reservation points.
- Suggest win-win solutions, contingency agreements, contract embellishments.
- Lead dialog.
- Supervise implementation.
- Adam Curle's Definition of Mediation. "Mediation ... is not negotiation ....Mediation is a psychological effort to change perceptions both of the conflict and of the enemy to the extent that both protagonists gain some hope of a reasonable resolution and so are more prepared to negotiate seriously." Curle's Techniques:
- Establish foundation of personal and/or institutional service, trust, friendship with both sides before mediation.
- Interpret potentially positive points that other side is saying.
- Explain potential mitigating causes of other's negative attitude.
- Expose false information, false rumors.
- Therapeuticly listen.
- Challenge negative habits of mind.
- Disillusion false assumptions.
Arbitration
- Raiffa's Definition. "An arbitrator, after hearing the arguments and proposals of all sides and after finding out 'the facts,' may also try to lead the negotiators to devise their own solution or may suggerst a reasinable solution but if these preliminary actions fail, the arbitrator has the authority to impose a solution. The negotiators might voluntarily submit their dispute for arbitration, or the arbitration might be imposed on them by some higher authority."
- Types of arbitration.
- Single arbitrator decides.
- Panel of arbitrators decide.
- Arbitrator or panel of arbitrators (e.g., former judges) make mock decision.
- Final offer arbitration.
9. Negotiating ethics
- Ethics Issues
- Not wanting to know, understand, be sympathetic, care about the other and ourselves
- Compartmentalization of business vs. ethics
- Use of power for unethical ends
- Inappropriate use of power as means
- Lying/deception
- Provocation
- Dirty tricks
- Methods for resisting/transforming unethical behavior
- Know what is going on: Paying attention, inquiry, networking
- Blocking
- Mirror
- Hard and reasonable
- Quiet resistance
- Parity building, e.g., help from and/or exposure to more powerful person, organization, government organization/official/court, media, union with others.
- Networking.
- Once unethical behavior blocked, win-win methods for positive outcomes that are reasonable and/or quantitatively larger, qualitatively better.
- Offer win-win solutions/outcomes.
- Use win-win process methods such as Fisher and Ury and networking to achieve win-win solutions
- Once unethical behavior blocked, dialogic methods for positive, value adding outcomes that are reasonable and/or quantitatively larger and/or qualitatively better.
- Offer win-win solutions/outcomes.
- Dialogic reframing toward positive-sum outcomes, see dialogic methods, particularly appreciative inquiry.
- Once unethical behavior blocked, third party methods
10. Reflection on negotiating and conflict resolution (Toward happiness, eudaimonia?). Do my negotiating and conflict resolution practices make me happy, effective, and ethical? What practical and next developmental steps might I take with respect to negotiating and conflict resolution practices that might make me more happy, effective, and ethical?
1. Aristotle and Three Ways/Dimensions/Choices of Life
- Poesis: actions/work that are neutral or even unethical means to ethical ends such as wealth/income.
- Praxis (joined ethics and politics): actions/work that are good as ends in themselves and good means to good ends; actions that make me a better person and the world a better place.
- Theoria: study, research, contemplation as ends in themselves
2. Praxis approaches/choices.
- Oppose the negative, the unethical
- Rescue/help the victims
- Increase/add value, co-create with the positive, the ethical
##LIST##
Used Car Negotiation
You are about to negotiate the purchase/sale of an automobile. The seller advertised the two year old car in the local newspaper. (Note: Both role-players should interpret "local" as the town in which the role-play is occurring.) Before advertising it, the seller took the car to the local Toyota dealer, who has provided the following information.
Two year old Toyota fuel efficient, hybrid engine sedan, automatic transmission.
White with red upholstery, tinted glass, air conditioning.
CD/AM/FM radio.
15,000 miles; steel-belted radial tires expected to last 65,000.
45 miles per gallon on fuel.
No rust; dent on passenger door barely noticeable.
Mechanically perfect except exhaust system, which may or may not last another 10,000 (costs $1,000 to replace).
"Blue book" retail value, $20,500; wholesale, $10,500 (local prices).
Car has spent its entire life in the local area; it is the only used hybrid within a 60-mile radius.
There is some international concern about oil prices due to continuing political problems in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
Technical Systems*
The Marketing Director of Technical Systems informed the Purchasing Manager of a buyer company that two technical customer representatives assigned to the Purchasing Manager's company were being promoted and two new ones were being assigned. The Marketing Director predicted that this action would upset the Purchasing Manager because his company depended on the two technical customer representatives for important technical assistance in installing and using the complicated systems that the company had purchased.
The Marketing Director's strategy was (1) to review current progress to confirm that things were going well; (2) to announce the new assignments; (3) to correct the Purchasing Manager's expected feeling that TS was not concerned about his company.
What was going on in the mind of the
Marketing Manager while each person in the
conversation was speaking
Take the initiative and define the job to be done.
What each person actually said
Marketing Manager: I would like to review the purpose of today's meeting.
Purchasing Manager: Yes, what is the objective of today's meeting. Why are you here instead of the account representatives?
Oh no! My coming here has triggered off
questions in his mind. My strategy of beginning
with a review is going to have to be changed. He
senses that there are more important reasons, so
I'll have to come to the point.
Marketing Manager: There are two purposes to today's meeting. One, obviously, is to review the status of our work with you. Second, and the most important reason for the meeting is to review a change that we are making. From time to time, excellent opportunities come up for our customer representatives , When that occurs, we do not want to block
deserving individuals. We obviously cannot control the timing of these opportunities. Well, such an opportunity has appeared for representative I. We are very pleased to advise you that he is being promoted to a new job.
Purchasing Manager: You can't pull him out when I need him most. Oh, no! This will really set us back.
When he hears this, he is going to go through
the roof. But I have to tell him and make him
understand that he cannot change it.
Marketing Manager: Your account has made a lot of progress; your people are more than self-sufficient. I assure you, the new representative is very well qualified. (The purchasing manager is silent and shakes his head.) Well, we can't control when these opportunities occur, and when an individual deserves a promotion, we should promote him. We're also going to promote representative II.
Purchasing Manager: No! No! No. You can't do that. It's totally unacceptable. You know I signed with your company because of the support you promised. I knew I could pick up the phone and someone would help us. Now you're doing this to me! No! No! No!
Marketing Manager: You made the right decision. These changes will give you the opportunity to test our support and commitment to you; let us demonstrate it to you.
Purchasing Manager: (Probably feeling that "I Listen. I hear what you are saying.
can't believe this. I have no choice and I don't I can't believe it. I'm going to
like it. What else can I do?) make you responsible.
* Adapted from Chris Argyris and donald A. Schon, Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Ch. 4.
Universal Computer Company*
Universal Computer is a small manufacturer and assembler of computer parts. The company has some vertical integration. Parts made in one department are assembled into components at another which in turn are assembled into final products at still another department. Each department operates as a profit center.
John Crawley is the manager of a department that produces modules and cable harnesses which in turn are shipped to other company departments as well as outside customers. It makes more than l0 different types of modules for Peter Phillips' department. The two departments are in two different buildings located about two miles apart. Kevin Logan is the company sales manager responsible for sales of all Universal products.
Production at Phillips' department has been plagued by poor quality. Upon examination it has been found that a considerable portion of this problem can be traced to the quality of the modules received from Crawley's department. Crawley's plant maintains a final inspection operation. There has been considerable dispute between the two managers as to whether Crawley's department was to maintain a 95 percent acceptance level for all modules shipped to Phillips' department, or to maintain that standard for each of the l0 modules shipped. Phillips has insisted that the standard had to be maintained for each of the ten modules produced. Crawley maintains that the requirements mean that the 95 percent level has to be maintained for the sum of modules produced. Experience at Phillips' department shows that while some module types were consistently well above the 95 percent acceptance level, 4 types of modules had erratic quality and would often fall far below the 95 percent level. Phillips considered this a serious problem since the quality of his department's products is influenced by the quality of the modules he receives from Crawley. Bonuses for department managers are linked to individual department costs as well as overall company profitability. While the quality levels at Universal were generally well within the local industry range, German, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwan quality control was much better.
Phillips argued that the Crawley department was ignoring its responsibility to the company by forcing the cost of repairs on to his department where only repairs could be made - rather than to have the costs borne by the Crawley department where corrections of faulty process could be made. Crawley argued that defective parts were a normal and acceptable manufacturing expense.
* Adapted from R. J. Lewicki and J.A. Litterer, Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Mc-Graw-Hill – Irwin..
Olympic House*
Stavros was on the governing board of Olympic House, a mental health residence for young men and women ages eighteen to twenty-five who needed the support of a sympathetic group and professional guidance to ease their transition from mental institutions back to society. Many of the residents had had nervous breakdowns, or were borderline schizophrenics, or were recovering from unfortunate experiences with drugs. Located on the outskirts of a large city in an industrial suburb, Olympic House accommodated about twenty residents. The neighborhood was in a transition stage; some said that it would deteriorate further, others that it was on the way up. In any case, it did not provide an ideal recuperative setting because of its agitated atmosphere. Although the house was small and quite run down, the lot itself was extensive, consisting of a full acre of ground.
The governing board, though a subcommittee, had once investigated the possibility of moving Olympic to a quieter, semiresidential suburb, but the financial aspects were prohibitive and the idea of moving was reluctantly dropped.
Some months later, a Mr. Narcos approached Olympic's director, Mrs. Peters, who lived in the house with her husband. Narcos indicated that his firm, a real estate development company, might be interested in buying the Olympic property. Mrs. Peters responded that the thought that never occurred to her, but that if the price was right, the governing board might just consider it.
The governing board asked Stavros to follow up on this promising lead. The other board members were prominent individuals in clinical psychology, medicine, vocational guidance, and the clergy; none besides Stavros had any experience in business negotiations of this type, and since they fully trusted Stavros, they essentially gave him carte blanche to negotiate.
Stavros called Narcos on the telephone and accepted an invitation to discuss possibilities over lunch at a local restaurant. He decided not to talk about any money matters at that first meeting - just to sound out Narcos and find out what he might have in mind. Narcos was interested in the property as a possible site for a multiple unit condominium development.
Stavros found that alternative sites for the residential clinic could be obtained for about $700,000. Repair estimates for the alternative properties were about $100,000. The residential clinic also needed new equipment and furniture costing about $50,000. This did not include such items as cost of moving, minor repairs, or insurance. In addition, Stavros learned that contributions from businesses to nonprofit organizations were tax deductible. Olympic House was a single family house that had been converted, but not
enlarged, into the residential clinic. Recent sales prices of similar size single family homes in the area were about $500,000. In his research, Stavros also learned that Narcos was buying additional properties in the area.
*Adapted from H. Raiffa's, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Ch. 3.
Evaluation
Readings