Home | Inventory | Author Bio

Click any exercise to jump to the product description.

General Description of Materials Available

The cases and experiential exercises published by Creative Consensus, Inc. are supplied on a licensing basis. Due to the widespread availability of convenient photocopying, most clients prefer to have us supply them with copy-ready masters of our published cases and experiential exercises which they then reproduce in whatever quantity they need. Once the client notifies us of the number of copies needed, we will send them a document that combines formal permission and an invoice.

When names are used at all, the experiential exercises are written with gender-neutral names like Chris, Leslie, Fran, etc., that can be assumed easily by role-players of either sex.

You will need to read the descriptions of each of these materials, because the titles are designed not to lead the learner in a particular direction. This is done for two reasons. First, experiential learning, at its best, is discovery learning. Second, real-world problems do not come neatly packaged. Managers encounter problems “in the round,” and learning to pinpoint what is the problem that needs to be addressed is a valuable managerial skill.

In addition to packaged learning experiences, Creative Consensus, Inc. offers a diagnostic questionnaire that can be used to assess how well an organizational unit is operating. The organizational unit may be an entire business (or non-business organization), a strategic business unit, a department within a business, or a work group. There is also a version designed to assess the functioning of not-for-profit organizations. This diagnostic instrument, described at the end of this document, can be used as an adjunct to instructional materials, or purely for assessment purposes.

Annotated Descriptions of Experiential Exercises

The Biopharm-Seltek Negotiation
This is a two-party negotiation over the sale of a pharmaceutical plant set up for biotech manufacturing. The parties negotiate as chief financial officers (CFOs) of their respective corporations. The buyer (Biopharm) is a corporation with deep pockets, while the seller (Seltek) is a cash-strapped smaller company wishing to make a strategic exit from the US biotech industry. The bargaining range is very wide, although the range is not obvious to either party at the outset (the case is denominated in US dollars, but can be modified easily to use Euro or other currencies). The negotiators typically get lost haggling over irrelevant valuation issues instead of focusing their efforts on learning each other’s interests and constraints.

A secondary bargaining issue is sale of the patent, which will become worthless to Seltek when that company has sold the plant. Seltek wants to sell the patent along with the plant, but Biopharm has no strategic interest in buying the patent, so there is no positive bargaining range. The case is currently written such that Biopharm shouldn’t buy the patent at any price, due to the risk of inheriting product liability problems. This allows the instructor to make a point about strategic focus: negotiators should not get caught making “bargain” purchases if the resulting deal is inconsistent with their interests. The case can easily be modified to bring out a different learning point, by changing the text so that Seltek wants to continue to sell its current biotech product, and Biopharm’s Board of Directors has no objection to contract manufacturing. With that simple modification, Biopharm can agree to manufacture the patented product for Seltek on a cost-plus basis once they buy the plant. This produces an interesting reversal of relationships: Biopharm is now a seller of plant capacity, and Seltek a buyer of manufacturing services. If the parties dealt with each other adversarially in selling the plant, it will now be hard for them to establish a positive relationship as value-chain partners.

Biopharm-Seltek takes 10 minutes to read in preparation, and 20 minutes to complete the dyadic negotiation. It is a user-friendly exercise, written in such a way that participants need not have much knowledge of business or pharmaceuticals, and the math is very simple.

An instructor’s manual is not written for this simulation because instructors almost invariably have their own preferred text or model to draw upon when debriefing the case. Instructors seeking a negotiation model are advised to read Chapter 6 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001). Back to top.

The Interim Performance Review
This two-party simulation involves a routine meeting between a boss and a subordinate to review progress since the last performance review, but the discussion is clouded by suspicion of the subordinate possibly taking unauthorized vacation time.

The simulation is most often used to provide insights about participants' preferred styles of dealing with an interpersonal problem that is somewhat uncomfortable to deal with—participants may choose to be candid or indirect (tacit) in addressing the problem, or avoid dealing with it. The simulation can also be used to highlight asymmetry of perspectives between bosses and subordinates—they see the same situation very differently. Sometimes it is used to teach issues of communication, trust, the emotional experience of negotiation, the management of working relationships, and workplace ethics, or some combination of the above. There is no math involved in the case, just a situation that looks very different from the two perspectives.

This exercise requires 25 minutes to read the short case materials and plan an approach, and 20-25 minutes for the simulated boss-subordinate meeting. Debriefing takes approximately 45 minutes. Many professors mildly customize this exercise so that it involves graduates of their own college or university; in executive education contexts, the exercise works best in its generic form. Notes for the instructor are available upon request. Back to top.

The Commodity Purchase (“Pheasants Eggs”)
This simulation is best run with six participants in each group, but can be run with fewer if the total number of participants is not evenly divisible by six. The exercise can be used to teach integrative and distributive bargaining, and how the success of efforts to achieve integrative solutions depends on the relationships the parties develop and the process by which each party approaches the negotiation task. The simulation also shows how poorly-conceived incentives for negotiating agents can misdirect them away from attaining the best outcomes for the parties they represent.

The simulation scenario involves a seller who has 100,000 pheasant eggs and up to five buyers who need the eggs for very different purposes. If the eggs are simply auctioned to the highest bidder, the seller achieves a suboptimal outcome. Combinations of buyers can pool their purchasing power and instead of competing, collaborate to share the scarce commodity. But the necessary strategic alliances between buyers are hard to achieve given their unwillingness to disclose information about their true needs, and the uncooperative relationships that they bring based on their assumptions, or that arise due to the process of having to compete in an auction.

The basic version of this simulation is set in Chicago and denominated in US dollars. A European, denominated in euro currency, is also available. PowerPoint debriefing presentations and notes for the instructor are available for both versions.

The exercise requires 10-15 minutes of preparation and a maximum of 45 minutes to run (some instructors prefer to allot only 30 minutes), followed by 30-45 minutes of debriefing.

The exercise can be used to bring out learning in the areas of distributive versus integrative bargaining, negotiator expectations and aspirations, communication within a group, auctions, the selling process, coalition (i.e., strategic alliance) formation within a value chain, relationships between the parties, persuasive appeals based on economic advantage versus social responsibility, and sunk costs. Back to top.

Viking Investments
This two-party negotiation is used to explore effective and ineffective ways of dealing with disputes that arise when a negotiated agreement is being implemented after the agreement has been made. Viking is a complex, multi-issue negotiation that involves differential power, incompatible interests, and a negative bargaining zone (i.e., a central issue is which party is going to take how much of the loss). There is some basic math involved in preparing for the case and negotiating an outcome. The math is made as simple as possible under the circumstances, requiring addition, subtraction, and multiplication—all of which can be done without the use of a calculator.

This exercise simulates a disputed debt between a real estate developer and a builder, set in the context of a multifaceted, long-term business relationship. It can be used to teach conflict de-escalation, the appropriate managerial use of power, negotiators’ responsibilities to constituents, and how to negotiate from a low-power position. It could also be used as a mediation case.

Preparation takes at least one hour, because there is a lot of detail involved in how the dispute progressed as far as it did. The negotiation itself can be completed in 30 minutes if individuals are negotiating as principals, but the exercise is often set up as a negotiation between two groups—two or three people representing the developer and two or three people representing the builder—in which case it is best to allow 30 minutes for each side to plan strategy and then 90 minutes to negotiate to settle the dispute.

A set of pre- and post-negotiation debriefing questionnaires is available. Back to top.

Sphynx Malls
This four-party case involves two corporations that are buying equipment and fittings for a chain of 2,000 shopping malls, and two competing vendors who have been pre-qualified as finalists to supply their needs. Bids have been submitted and the sellers have the option of choosing among current bids or negotiating to amend the bid prices.

The exercise is issue-rich without being difficult to visualize and understand. It is obviously useful in exploring conventional issues of integrative versus distributive negotiation and mixed-motive bargaining, particularly as a capstone exercise in a course or executive program. But it can also be used to teach planning and executing the negotiation strategy, intra-team consensus-building, pricing, cost accounting, coalition (strategic alliance)-formation, joint ventures, the purchasing process, sales management, managing differential power of the parties, anti-collusion law, and environmental responsibility in decision-making.

The math is straightforward and made deliberately simple, but there is a lot of information to digest, so at least an hour of preparation time must be made available. Furthermore, it is written for participants with at least some knowledge of basic business concepts. For example, participants would need to know the difference between fixed and variable costs to discover how broad the bargaining range really is.

The time requirements for this exercise are 1-2 hours of preparation, 30-60 minutes of time for the team to plan its strategy for dealing with the other businesses, at least 90 minutes to negotiate all the issues, and up to an hour to debrief the exercise.

Notes for the instructor are available, as is a PowerPoint presentation that can be used to begin the debriefing.

An alternative version of the case is available that involves supplier diversity programs and minority-owned business enterprises. Back to top.

Strategic Choices in Global Telecommunications
This is a four-party interdependent decision-making/ sporadic negotiation exercise in which groups make a sequence of decisions to cooperate or compete. The payoff matrix varies in the sequence, culminating in an end-game decision with massive stakes.

The context is unfolding deregulation of national telecommunication markets, and has high face-validity. Teams represent the primary companies in this industry—cable, telephone line, satellite, and cellular transmission. Embedded in the case is the threat of a large global competitor poised to enter the industry if the four companies weaken each other. Thus, if they cooperate and thereby strengthen the industry, they will all survive; if they generate a lose-lose dynamic, there is no gain for anyone because the industry will become decimated and fall into foreign ownership. Instructors can draw credible parallels to the consumer electronics, steel, and auto industries. The exercise can be used in executive programs, or as an interesting and engaging interesting class exercise in courses in decision-making, strategy, negotiation, management, and psychology.

The exercise requires 5 minutes of preparation, 20-30 minutes to do the exercise (more if multiple negotiations are permitted), and 20-45 minutes to debrief. A template for the instructor’s overhead projector slide is available. Back to top.

The Low-Price Promotion Program
This two-group multi-round negotiation exercise is a multi-trial prisoner's dilemma format set in a corporate context. It works best with groups of 4-7, and a messenger is required for every pair of teams, who need to be in separate rooms, out of earshot of each other. Learning points include constrained communication, group process (intra-group negotiation), group decision-making, trust, in-group/out-group cognitions, Groupthink, and intergroup relationships. The exercise requires 10 minutes of preparation, 30 minutes to complete, and 20-40 minutes to debrief. Back to top.

Strategic Alliances: Selling to the Pentagon
This exercise involves a series of negotiations between three teams over a pot of money, created by contributions from each participant. Teams become unwieldy if they get much larger than 10, so if there are more than 30 participants, the instructor should think about running two simulations in parallel (a second exercise administrator would be needed). Teams will need caucus rooms that are out of earshot of each other in addition to the negotiating room. Learning points include multilateral communication, group process (intra-group negotiation), group decision-making, trust, contracts, and intergroup and interpersonal relationships.

The exercise requires 5 minutes to prepare, 30 minutes to complete, and 25-45 minutes to debrief. The package includes notes for the instructor about administering and debriefing the simulation. Back to top.

Catamount Ranch
This 13-party negotiation involves a family (an aging parent and two heirs) that wishes to dispose of the family ranch, and ten parties that have various interests in acquiring all or part of the ranch. The issues for the family involve intra-group consensus, and distributive negotiations with potential buyers. The issues for the buyers involve distributive, integrative, and mixed-motive negotiation, coalition formation, healing relationship strains, developing creative solutions, and persuasion.

The scenario is simple, with a short reading assignment to prepare for the negotiation and no special expertise required to understand the situation or the issues. The negotiation is time-consuming because the parties need to discover each other’s interests and constraints, form strategic alliances (coalitions), and reach agreement with the family. Preparation time is 30-45 minutes, the exercise requires 90-150 minutes, and the debriefing takes 30-60 minutes.

The exercise has been designed so that the math is very simple: all of the calculations can literally be done by hand on the back of an envelope.

The exercise can be used to teach multi-party negotiation; distributive, integrative, and intra-organizational bargaining; strategic alliance formation and leadership; how to manage ongoing relationships when a party is shut out of a particular deal; and environmental preservation.

A PowerPoint presentation is available that can be used to debrief the simulation. Back to top.

Ford New Product
This exercise simulates top management decision-making when a new president takes over with a turnaround mandate.

The exercise accommodates from five to seven participants in each group, taking the roles of various vice-presidents involved in making the decision. It is usually run as a leaderless group exercise, but a presidential role can be included if this serves the instructor’s learning objectives.

The exercise explores strategic decision-making, multi-party negotiation, group dynamics, coalition formation, consensus processes, and generating commitment to a strategic direction.

Considerable preparation is necessary (1-2 hours). The meeting takes 2 to 3 hours, with 2.5 hours being ideal. The package includes a background case, roles for each vice president, a post-meeting debriefing questionnaire, guidelines for group analysis, and a PowerPoint presentation for debriefing. The exercise lends itself to videotaping and/or a process observer. Designed for executives and MBAs, it can also be used successfully with undergraduates.

Instructors seeking a group consensus-building model are advised to read Chapter 7 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001).

Note that the context of this simulation is a rapidly-evolving industry. The case is up to date as of February 2007, but instructors should check with Creative Consensus to see if an updated version is currently available. The current version is Ford 2.1. Back to top.

Strategic Diversification at Delta Airlines
This exercise accommodates from 5-9 participants, playing the role of members of the top management team at an airline. They have to make a group decision about three proposals on the table, and each participant--taking on the role of a vice president in charge of a particular functional area--has a unique perspective and preference structure. The case is written so that no knowledge of the industry is needed. Preparation takes 1 hour and the role play from 1-3 hours. It can be used to teach negotiation, group dynamics, coalition formation, group decision-making, strategy, organizational design, strategic alliances, and hyper competition. There is a Teacher’s Manual available. Back to top.

The Grade Change
This two-party simulation involves a professor negotiating with a student over a disputed grade. The issues it explores are detection of deception, trusting versus believing, liking versus respecting, and the responsibilities of authority figures. Preparation takes 20 minutes, the exercise takes 20 minutes, and the structured part of the debriefing takes 20 minutes. This exercise is more suited to an academic audience (undergraduates and MBA's) than an executive program. The exercise comes with a debriefing questionnaire for each role. Back to top.

Managing Upward/Managing Downward
This exercise is used when the learning objective is to teach participants how to fire a managerial subordinate. The title is deliberately misleading because the dismissal is designed to come as a surprise to the subordinate. The situation is a corporate scenario that the average participant can easily visualize. The subordinate’s performance has been unsatisfactory, but the stronger motive for dismissal is that the fit with the organization’s strategic direction is poor and better job candidates are available.

Preparation takes 15 minutes, the role play takes 15 minutes, and the debriefing can take from 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the instructor’s learning objectives. Back to top.

The Drug-Testing Program
This three-party exercise involves a personnel manager, an employee assistance program coordinator, and an MBA-trained employee who has tested positive for marijuana. The personnel manager faces pressures to fire or rehabilitate the employee, but the employee insists that the positive test results were caused by inhalation of secondary smoke.

The exercise introduces issues of coalition formation, responsibility to the corporation, precedent, evidence, and corporate policies. Preparation takes 40 minutes, the role-play 30 minutes, and debriefing 45 minutes. A debriefing questionnaire is supplied for each role. Back to top.

Assessment of Project Team Effectiveness
This multi-task exercise can accommodate groups of from three to ten participants, although five to seven is ideal. It is not a simulation per se, but rather a group of tasks which require different degrees of collaboration, division of labor, and creativity. It is a fun way for participants to explore their roles in groups, the evolution of group norms, leadership, the temptation to rationalize the "honor code," inter-group competition, the benefits of diversity, dealing with scarcity, and coping with time pressure. Back to top.

No preparation time is necessary. The exercise takes either 30 or 45 minutes to complete (depending on how much time pressure the instructor wants to impose), and at least 30 minutes to debrief. An individual debriefing questionnaire and an instructor's manual are available. Back to top.

Diagnostic Instrument

The SPARSE Questionnaire
“The SPARSE Questionnaire” gets its name from its suitability for assessing the adequacy and alignment of Strategy, Processes, Architecture, Resources, Systems, and Empowerment in an organizational unit. An organizational unit is a small, medium, or large business, a strategic business unit, a department, or a work group. (Versions of the instrument are available for not-for-profit organizations, and versions can be customized for special applications.)

The instrument was developed to enable managers to assess areas of strength and weakness in their organizations, and to foster alignment of the various factors that enable high performance. It can be used as a teaching tool in executive programs (a PowerPoint program is available), as a pre-post evaluation instrument to measure the impact of an intervention, or as a stand-alone diagnostic device that directs managers’ attention to underperforming aspects of their organizations.

The conceptual framework underlying the questionnaire is outlined in Chapter 1 of Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success by Leonard Greenhalgh (New York: Free Press, 2001). Back to top.