The Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education

Negotiating the Final Examination

David S. Hames

Associate Professor

Department of Management

College of Business

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Las Vegas, NV  89154-6009

(702) 895-3675

(702) 895-4370 fax

hames@ccmail.nevada.edu

Negotiating the Final Examination

            Effective negotiators are able to make deals, settle disputes or make group decisions that are desirable or cannot be achieved without the other party.  They are also able to influence the quality of their relationships, which is particularly important if they remain interdependent after the outcome is achieved.  As such, negotiation is a critical business skill for employees and managers, regardless of their functional disciplines.

Numerous role-playing exercises are available for instructors to use to help students learn how to perform the different facets of the negotiation process.  While many of these exercises are excellent, the outcomes rarely affect students in a meaningful way.  Even if these outcomes influence their  “grade,” the stakes are artificial.  The objectives of this comprehensive negotiation exercise are to enhance participants’ understanding of and ability to perform the different facets of the negotiation process when they have a vested interest in the outcome.  It is an appropriate exercise for any class in which the topic of negotiation is examined.

Background Information

This exercise begins on the first day of class when the instructor tells students about the course requirements.  Regarding the final examination, the instructor explains that although he advocates them, students typically do not like or want to take them.  He further explains that because the negotiation process will be examined in this course, he is willing to see if they can negotiate an agreement regarding the final examination rather than making this decision unilaterally.  If the parties agree to have a final examination, its format must also be negotiated.  If they agree to not have a final examination, they must negotiate how the points initially allocated to the final examination will be divided among the other evaluation criteria. 

Students are informed that the instructor’s presumption is that they will take a comprehensive final examination, unless an agreement to the contrary is negotiated.  They are also told when the negotiation will take place and how much time will be devoted to it, if they accept his invitation to negotiate the exam.  All aspects of the negotiation process are left entirely to the students’ discretion.  This includes whether they will select classmates to represent them, who will assume this role if representatives are chosen and their preparations, including their choice of strategies and tactics.  It is helpful to provide class time, including all or part of the final class period preceding the negotiation, so that all students may participate in the group’s preparations.

During the segment of the course devoted to negotiation, readings, class discussions and role-playing exercises may be used to introduce students to the important components of the negotiation process, and to enhance their abilities to perform them.  The topics covered include preparing to negotiate, negotiating strategies and tactics, the influence of individual difference variables upon negotiations and organizing negotiating teams, including the role of representatives.  (See the Appendix for a brief discussion of negotiation strategies and tactics.) 

When the negotiation ends, a debriefing session often proves to be an excellent learning tool.  The instructor invites all students to share their observations of the negotiation.  Successes should be commended and difficulties should be examined to find ways to improve.  Students should be asked to identify any unexpected occurrences, how they were handled, and why they opted to handle them in this manner.  The role of the representatives should be addressed, including the difficulties they experienced, things that their constituents did that made their task easier, and the issues they faced in managing their constituents prior to and during the negotiation.  Finally, the instructor should share his observations, including any “stunts” that he pulled, why he did so, and what the consequences were. 

The Negotiation

This exercise has been conducted in a variety of graduate (MBA) and undergraduate business classes.  The amount of time devoted to it depends upon the importance of the topic to the particular course.  Most negotiations have lasted between one and three hours.  Two were conducted in the assigned classrooms;  all others were conducted in “neutral” locations, including meeting rooms in the student union or classroom buildings, or in restaurants located off campus. 

The negotiation should begin with the negotiators sitting where the others may easily observe the proceedings.  Exactly how it begins, and the direction it takes, depend upon the strategies and tactics that are adopted by each of the parties.  Some generalizations, however, are possible.  Students’ initial behaviors have been somewhat ingratiating, as indicated by the nature of their “small talk” with the instructor prior to the actual negotiation, and by their offer of food and beverages.  Debriefing sessions revealed that these efforts were designed to “help the instructor mellow out,” largely because their only prior experience negotiating with him exposed them to a very aggressive negotiator. 

            In many of the negotiations, the instructor began by asking questions designed to assess the team’s preparations, including their readiness to deal with the unexpected.  Examples include questions pertaining to the team’s authority to make binding decisions, why they accepted the instructor’s invitation to negotiate the examination, and whether they were selected as representatives because they were the “best negotiators in the class.”  Negotiating teams that have not prepared well have struggled with some of these questions.  The latter question, for example, has “strained” the relationship between the negotiators and their constituents.  These questions have not affected negotiating teams that were well prepared.  In fact, well-prepared teams have typically taken charge of the negotiation from the beginning, thereby precluding the instructor’s use of these tactics.  

            Most negotiating teams have used an integrative negotiating strategy.  (This is a cooperative approach whereby the parties attempt to create mutually beneficial outcomes.)  Poorly prepared teams, however, have been reluctant to share information with the instructor, largely because they feared that he would adopt the very aggressive tactics they had witnessed previously and use this information against them.  Others failed to probe deeply enough to discern the instructor’s true interests, or they were not sufficiently aware of their own interests to recognize that there might be different solutions that could satisfy both parties.  These teams had trouble understanding why many of their offers or counteroffers were rejected, or they began proposing solutions before the parties’ interests had been identified.  Frustrated by the instructor’s tactics, they resorted to aggressive tactics.  These teams thought the instructor was using a distributive negotiating strategy.  (This is a competitive approach whereby each party attempts to win by maximizing its share of limited resources.)  They did not realize that he was simply unwilling to compromise his interests.  In most cases, these teams acknowledged that their tactics were probably inappropriate, given their expressed concern for the relationship and their perceived lack of bargaining power.

            Well-prepared teams have understood what the instructor was trying to accomplish.  They explored his interests and probed deeply enough to draw accurate conclusions.  They also allowed the instructor to explore their interests and worked with him to find solutions that would satisfy both parties.  These teams’ negotiations were quicker and less frustrating for them.  They also secured more desirable outcomes.

The terms of the negotiated agreements have ranged between not taking a final exam and merely reallocating these points to the other evaluation criteria, and administering a conventional final exam.  In between these extremes, most agreements modified a project that was already assigned by including additional requirements.

Evidence of Effectiveness

            Student feedback indicates that the major benefit of this exercise involves their heightened appreciation for the role assumed by representatives.  Most students (70-75%) have expressed their appreciation for the burden that representatives carry, especially when their constituents have diverse goals or ideas about the tactics that should be used to achieve these goals.  (All classes have used negotiating teams consisting of 3-5 representatives.)  These students have also noted the benefit of involving constituents in the preparation phase of the negotiation process.  This exercise has also highlighted the importance of thorough preparation.  Many students (60-65%) have commented that they will increase their preparations for future negotiations to facilitate their adaptation to unanticipated behaviors, offers and counteroffers.  Finally, the majority of students (55-60%) have commented about the value of being patient, and the importance of silence.

Appendix¹

The distributive or win-lose negotiation strategy is appropriate when the parties want to maximize their share of limited resources.  Winning, even if it hurts the other side, is the aim of distributive negotiators.  Their relationship with the other party is unimportant.  When using this strategy, the parties conceal information about their true settlement points by bluffing, deceiving, distorting information, or even lying.  Distributive negotiators may be quite aggressive, exploiting any power advantage they may have.  If a party has significantly less negotiating power than the other, using this strategy is not advised. 

            The integrative or win-win negotiation strategy is appropriate when the parties want to find solutions that satisfy each of their goals.  This strategy requires significant trust and cooperation because the parties must be willing to share even sensitive information.  When using this strategy, negotiators attack the problem, not the other person.  They focus on interests, not positions.  (A position is a possible solution.  An interest is the motive underlying the position – usually an unmet need.  There may be several interests associated with a position.)  Integrative negotiators also invent options for mutual gain.  This entails brainstorming possible solutions that may satisfy each party’s interests.  Finally, integrative negotiators use objective criteria to evaluate these options and decide which ones should be selected.  These criteria are independent of the will of either party,

¹See Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991).  Getting to Yes, 2nd.  New York:  Penguin

    Books.