# Collaborative Role-Play Design: Teaching Negotiation through a Novel Student-Business Partnership

Patrick Germain-thomas, Catherine Lafarge, Doudou Sidibe

► To cite this version:

Patrick Germain-thomas, Catherine Lafarge, Doudou Sidibe. Collaborative Role-Play Design: Teaching Negotiation through a Novel Student-Business Partnership. Negotiation Journal, 2019, 35 (3), pp.387 - 402. 10.1111/nejo.12296. hal-04685035

HAL Id: hal-04685035

https://hal.science/hal-04685035v1

Submitted on 9 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Collaborative Role-paly Design : Teaching Negotiation Through A Nobel
Studen-Business Partnership

Patrick Germain-Thomas (Novancia Business School, Paris, pgermain@novancia.fr)

Catherine Lafarge (Novancia Business School, Paris, [lafargecatherine@gmail.com](mailto:lafargecatherine@gmail.com))

Doudou Sidibe (Novancia Business School, Paris, doudou sidibe72@gmail.com)
**Abstract**

Simulations are a valuable tool for teaching negotiation and the different ways in which they can be
used constitute one of the central themes in academic literature dealing with pedagogical issues. Their
role and the conditions in which they are utilized are also a target for critical reflection stressing the
drawbacks inherent to the often artificial context they are set in, which might limit the participant's
real commitment. An innovative pedagogical experiment carried out with Master's students offers
potential responses to these recurrent questions. As part of this experiment the students devised the
role-plays themselves, deriving inspiration from real situations some of them had experienced as
interns in their partner companies. Three main methodological methods were employed to study this
experiment. The analysis demonstrates how this novel pedagogical approach avoids the usual pitfalls
encountered when using role-plays and emphasizes the added value it can offer students in terms of
skills. The whole process helps to clarify the major challenges: development of interpersonal and
language skills, mastery and proper use of information, seeking a delicate balance between the
distributive and integrative approaches.

KEY WORDS: negotiation skills, pedagogy, simulations, motivation, information asymmetry

**Introduction**

The different ways in which role-plays can be used constitute one of the central themes in academic literature dealing with teaching negotiation. Simulations are omnipresent in education syllabi but their role and the conditions in which they are utilized are also a target for critical reflection stressing the drawbacks inherent to their recreational nature and to the often artificial context they are set in, both of which are liable to have a negative effect on the participant's real degree of commitment (Alexander and LeBaron, 2009). Recent research work has focused on ways of remedying this gap between pedagogical simulation and the realities of the world of business (Poitras, Stimec and Hill, 2013). One of the solutions contemplated involves getting the students being trained to participate in the actual creation of the role-plays (Druckman and Ebner, 2013), an approach based on ground-breaking experiments already carried out in the past (Cherryholmes, 1966; Gamson, 1972).

An innovative pedagogical experiment carried out during the academic year 2015-2016 with two
groups of students in the Novancia Business School Master's course (this school belongs to the Paris
region Chamber of Commerce), warrants our attention in this context as it offers possible responses to
these recurrent questions about the way the role-play method is used and its real efficiency. As part of
this experiment the students devised the role-plays themselves, deriving inspiration from real
situations some of them had experienced as interns in their partner companies. The teachers contacted
all the companies who were training interns to invite them to participate in the pedagogical project and
six of them responded by agreeing to provide information pertaining to concrete examples of complex
negotiations, which would help the students to construct their own case-studies intended for use within
the framework of a role-play session. This involvement on the part of the partner companies ensures
the project is rooted in the down-to-earth reality of key management issues and enables the students to
participate in the process of the creation of teaching materials. The major aim of our article is to
highlight the skills that the project helps to develop and the way this process works.

Three main methodological tools employed in carrying out the project – participatory observation, debriefing after the role-plays sessions and the setting up of focus groups with the students after the final class – provided a significant number of answers to the questions raised by the research. In order
to show how this novel approach enables us to overcome the limitations and avoid the pitfalls
generally encountered when using role-plays to teach negotiation and to understand the added value
for the students in terms of new skills, we will begin presenting a review of current reflection on
teaching negotiation with a special focus on the use of role-plays. We will then move on to a
presentation of the different stages and the content of the pedagogical experiment, before proceeding
with an in-depth analysis of the results it yielded and of how the students viewed these benefits by
means reflecting on their own work

# 1. Role-plays: an essential tool for teaching negotiation

According to the Webster-Merriam dictionary, pedagogy is « the art, science, profession of teaching ».
This laconic definition specifies neither the scope nor the target ie. What is taught and the recipient of
this teaching. Are we dealing with children or adults ? Or both at the same time ? The term
“pedagogy” is often used to designate teaching related to children and “andragogy” is preferred for
adults. The latter term was popularized by Malcolm Knowles (1968). But what about individuals who
are in transition between adolescence and adulthood and notably those aged between 18 and 25 ?
Dachner and Polin (2015 : 123) studied this problem and used the term “emerging adults” to express
the idea that the latter are not totally mature adults. Even if their approach represents a fair
compromise, it is not totally accurate for young people today are very precocious and could be
considered as adults. Anyway, it is not our intention to settle the debate between pedagogy and
andragogy even if it was necessary to bear it in mind. It does enable us to be more precise since the
teaching methods employed are liable to vary depending on the target population and the field of
education involved. In the present article we have chosen to use the term “pedagogy” because the
experiment which we are studying concerns initial training for students on a master’s course who are
aged 21 on average. This context is quite distinct from “adult education” where the students involved
are considered as adults because they have all been working for several years.

If we return to the definition provided in the Webster-Merriam dictionary, we can at least recognize
that pedagogy is an art, and possibly even a science. Hence the method employed to pass on
knowledge is not only important but remains the major concern of every teacher. Each one of us, in his
or her particular way, endeavors to employ the most efficient form of pedagogy by combining theory
and practice. This explains why such a wide variety of teaching methods exists, regardless of the field
involved : lectures, adventure learning, field trips, case studies, videos, simulations etc...

However our article is concerned more specifically with simulations and their pedagogical value in
teaching negotiation. This explains why we have decided to proceed with a review of the literature
devoted to the use of simulations employed for this purpose. We can observe that three major themes
emerge : the function of role-plays in teaching negotiation , their advantages and limitations, and the
strategies which can be applied in order to enhance their efficiency. Among these proposed strategies
we shall pay particular attention to one which involves students in creating their own role-plays. This
is a strategy which has been referred to by authors such as Cherryholmes (1966) and Alexander and
Lebaron (2009) but has been elaborated on by Druckman & Ebner (2013) in their work.

*The function of role-plays in teaching negotiation*

Cherryholmes (1966) informs us in his research that the first role-plays date back to 1959 and that
their development took place in 2 phases. The first stage was mainly centred around international
relations. Authors such as Bloomfield and Padelford (1959), Goldhamer and Speier (1959) and
Guetzkow (1959), all quoted by Cherryholmes (1966) figure amongst the precursors. A second phase led to the emergence, around 1962, of new role-plays which had been tested in the classroom. Since then, simulations have been used in several disciplines such as management (Dachner and Polin, 2015), the learning business processes (Shen and co., 2015) but equally in business negotiation ((Usunier, 2004, Stimec, 2013), international relations (Cherryholmes, 1966), law schools (Zartman, 2010) and diplomatic negotiation (Druckman and Ebner, 2013; Druckman, 2010; Zartman, 2010). The frequency of their use (Alexander & Lebaron, 2009: 182) is in itself an eloquent testimony to the privileged position they enjoy in the pedagogy of negotiation. This is justified by the practical dimension they contribute as a complement to theory. Nowadays it is rare to encounter a teacher of negotiation who doesn't use them because the teaching of negotiation is strongly associated with the concept of "Learning by doing" (Usunier, 2004: 66). Now that role-plays are commonly used, it is necessary to examine both their positive contribution and their limitations.

## Advantages and limitations of role-plays

Several authors agree on the fact that simulations enhance learners' interest in a given subject and motivate them to learn. However they also point out that there are limits to their usefulness since they by no means constitute a panacea for mastering the art of negotiation. In short, they do not represent an advance compared to conventional teaching methods. Cherryholmes (1966), after examining six cases, came to the conclusion that students display more interest in simulations than in conventional exercises carried out in the classroom. To back up his assertion, Cherryholmes quotes Boocock and Coleman (1959) who concluded that: "students evidence a high degree of interest and react very positively to simulations." (Cherryholmes, 1966: 5). But despite the benefit in terms of motivation, Cherryholmes claims that there are no guarantees in terms of improved learning, memorizing or acquisition of critical awareness. Likewise, Alexander and Lebaron (2009: 182) recognize that role-plays possess recreational and motivational value. Nonetheless they are aware of their limitations given that "the contexts are artificial", that is to say removed from reality. In Alexander and Lebaron's view the process of borrowing somebody else's cultural identity deprives the simulation of its authenticity and might also be considered disrespectful. In such a situation, the pedagogical worth of simulations is significantly diminished. As they state: "When context is artificial, knowledge and skills may be similarly artificial, thus reducing the likelihood of the transfer of skills into real situations." (Alexander and Lebaron, 2009:184). For these reasons the two authors recommend less frequent recourse to role-plays, even if they stop short of advocating the death of the role-play.

While asserting that role-plays are useful in highlighting most of the themes covered in class and in stimulating interest, Jean-Claude Usunier draws our attention to what he terms "the danger of over-emphasis on playing games". In his view it is vital to prevent the aspect of playing a game from over-shadowing the central pedagogical goal. Expanding on his argument he considers the player in the simulation to be just one aspect among others. His performances are dependent on his own actions and on those of his opposite number which implies a certain level of inter-dependence. Hence the players are not totally in control of their performances which depend on "the quality of the inter-action between them both" (Usunier, 2004: 70). Another idea put forward to improve the player's performance is to ensure that the subject matter is credible and realistic, that is to say based in the real world and not in an artificial one. Finally, Usunier insists on an equally important point: the absence of preparation. He advocates that students shouldn't read the scenarios properly in order to not fully understand their role (Usunier, 2010: 84) since a too precise comprehension of the latter is detrimental to the essential goal of learning. This fits in with his conclusion that a satisfactory performance in negotiation cannot be guaranteed if the artificial conditions he lists above prevail
(Usunier, 2004 : 70). And at the end of the day it is the level of performance that counts as a yardstick for successful learning.

As for William Zartman (2010 : 234), he also believes that simulations are useful tools for putting students in situations which reflect the abstract concepts they have been studying. However he makes it quite clear that he regrets the artificial nature of role-plays most particularly those concerned with international relations and opines that the best way to teach negotiation is to allow the student to be himself/herself even if the scenario is fictitious (Zartman, 2010 : 235 ).

Druckman and Ebner, for their part, also looked into the usefulness of role-plays in negotiation. After carrying out a fairly comprehensive review of the existing literature on the subject, they reached the same conclusion as their forebears: “ role-plays are useful for motivating students but there is no proof of their effectiveness “ (Druckman & Ebner,2013 : 67). In addition to the criticisms already voiced by several authors calling into question the effectiveness or the performance of role-plays, Druckman and Ebner base their findings on the research carried out by Alexander and Lebaron (2009) in formulating three further criticisms :

1- Pedagogical and logistical considerations

2- Transferability and verisimilitude

3- The cultural and contextual suitability of teaching with simulations

Regarding the first criticism, they maintain that simulations are time-consuming. Their use also entails a risk since the lack of motivation or poor performance of a single student can prove detrimental to his/her group or even to the entire class. Thus Druckman and Ebner (2013 :69) raise the question of inter-dependence which Usunier (2004 : 70) had already studied. As for their second criticism, it deals with the feasibility of transferring concepts learned in the classroom into real life situations. Finally, the third criticism emphasizes problems related to the adaptability of simulations in different contexts, above all cultural ones, owing to the confusion liable to arise between students from different cultures and between students and teachers. Even though this argument appears justified to them, they are careful to recommend that it should be the object of assessment before a conclusion is reached.

By the way of a conclusion to their review of research into this topic, Druckman and Ebner (2013:69) highlight three recurrent themes : namely the limitations of simulations in the teaching of negotiation , the scope for improvements in their use and the search for new ways of exploiting them.

## Strategies designed to enhance the effectiveness of role-plays

Despite criticisms of their flaws, role-plays are not doomed to disappear. Several authors have opted for recommending that they be improved upon rather than jettisoned. Accordingly, the strategies or recommendations we can find in research writings are structured around two major ideas: the need for more realistic case-studies and the case for students inventing the role-plays themselves.

## *The search for more realistic situations*

Although William Zartman recognizes the importance of role-plays in the teaching of negotiation, he nevertheless advocates that the problem of their artificial nature must be addressed if they are to be rendered more effective. To his mind, “the best simulation is one where parties play themselves for real stakes in real time in real scenario” (Zartman, 2010, 235). To remedy the artificial aspect of role-plays, Zartman recommends the use of role-plays of a fairly everyday nature which are also culturally and contextually neutral, thus enabling students to inhabit the roles as if they were virtually in a real-life situation. As he states : "Since the prime purpose of simulations in courses is to develop a general,
introductory feel for negotiation-to get the student know him or herself and to learn insights into the
process – rather than to capture a particular international situation, simple, homey situations to which
the student can relate are most useful.”(Zartman, 2010, 235). He goes on to recommend two
simulations which match his description of the ideal role-play and which work well in his classes: The
House Sale Game and Camp Game.

Following on from Zartman, Poitras and co (2013) worked on how to change things in order to get
students more involved in the negotiation but also in order to improve the quality of role-plays created
by teachers in this discipline. They came up with two frames of reference as a theoretical benchmark :
ecological validity and vested interest. The first one (ecological validity ) is supported by three
cornerstones : mundane realism, experimental realism, and psychological realism. As for the second
frame of reference it comprises five features : the stake, salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-
efficacy (Poitras and co.,2013 ). Although these proposals are relevant and underpinned with sound
reasoning they haven't as yet been tested empirically.

As for Alexander and Lebaron (2009), in their work they deeply regret the lack of authenticity in role-
play scenarios before proceeding to recommend a certain number of alternative ideas in order to render
simulations more effective from a pedagogical point of view. Their first suggestion is adventure
learning, an experiment regularly used in leadership and team-building classes but overlooked in
negotiation and conflict resolution (Alex and Lebaron, 2009 : 186). This approach involves getting
students on an outing to negotiate in real situations which directly affect their life. The authors select
the example of a negotiation revolving around lunch where the quality of the meal will depend directly
on the outcome of the negotiation. This factor motivates the students to perform well in the
negotiation. Furthermore, the lessons derived from this constitute a valuable learning experience for
the future.

Their second suggestion involves a wide-ranging overview of creative ideas such as “drawing,
impersonation, improvisation, movement exercises, dancing, writing, music, story-telling, body
sculpture “whose aim is to enable students “to progress and learn more effectively”” (Alexander &
Lebaron, 2009 : 188).

*The creation of role-plays by the students themselves*

Whereas certain authors concentrate on improving the way in which role-plays are constructed by
teachers (Poitras and co.,2013), others recommend that students should invent their own role-plays.
We are referring to Cherryholmes, Alexander and Lebaron, and Druckman and Ebner. Cherryholmes
(1966) was one of the earliest to innovate by suggesting alternative strategies. Without going into too
much detail, we can observe that he proposes three different options: the creation of the role-plays by
the students, the validation of a theory which has been integrated into the simulation, and the re-
working of the simulation. But a combination of the first two options seems to him the most useful
manner of coming to terms with reality and compensating for the deficit in authenticity
(Cherryholmes, 1966 :7). Although these three alternative options are thoroughly realistic, other
authors became interested in the creation of role-plays by students and attempted to go further than
Cherryholmes. Alexander and Lebaron (2009) made twelve recommendations which place the overall
emphasis on realism and authenticity in the role-plays ie. The creation of role-plays which are closer to
students' real-life experience. But their number one recommendation which involves offering students
the opportunity of creating their own role-plays for other students particularly commanded our
attention since it mirrored the main aim of our article. Unlike Cherryholmes (1966) and Alexander and
Lebaron (2009), Druckman and Ebner (2012) alone proceed beyond the phase of just making
suggestions by actually taking the idea further into ground-breaking territory and specifically recommending that students create their own simulations which are then enacted by other students.

In order to achieve this they drew on experiments organized in two classes : one in Israel and another in Australia. They asked the students to write the role-plays using three concepts to form the material : alternatives, time-pressure and power. A questionnaire dealing with learning and motivation submitted to the participants made it possible to gather empirical data which yielded four conclusions when analysed. Yet one of these in particular captured their attention : "students grasp the relationships between different concepts better when they create the simulations than when they enact them " (Druckman & Ebner, 2013 : 81 ). This conclusion at least possessed the merit of blowing away the clichés relating to the pedagogical value of simulations written by teachers. Notwithstanding the significance of their finding, Druckman & Ebner are fully aware that this is only the beginning of the story. That is why they state in their conclusion : " A fresh look at whether, when and how to employ simulations is clearly needed" (Druckman & Ebner, 2013 : 87).

In this way they launch an appeal for a wholesale overhaul of methodology and our article is resolutely intended as a part of the same process.

## 2. An interactive pedagogical experiment

Scheduled to fit in with the companies' requirements, the class featured five half-day sessions spread out over a semester and organized as shown in the diagram below.

The preparation phase was staggered over a month roughly in order to have time to find companies – chosen among those offering internships to our students – who were willing to participate in this project. We requested them to provide data which could be used for writing the case studies and invited them to participate in the final assessment of the role-plays.

The execution phase lasted a month and comprised two sessions devoted to producing materials and another session dedicated to the simulations and evaluations of the role-plays. The first two sessions, the groups formed of four students developed the various class materials: a subject, two separate role descriptions, a teaching manual and a marking grid used during the simulation and evaluation of the role-plays. In fact, every student interpreted a role as a negotiator, working from a case study written by another group. Lastly, each group had the opportunity of evaluating the other student's performances in enacting the role-plays which they had previously created.

The phase of analysis only involved one session organized around focus groups comprising ten students. Their purpose was to gather their reactions in order to obtain answers to the main research questions posed.
<table><caption>TABLE 1: the different stages of the pedagogical experiment</caption><thead><tr><th>PHASE</th><th>DURATION</th><th>STAGE</th><th>METHODOLOGY</th><th>PARTICIPANTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Preparatory phase</td><td rowspan="2">1 month</td><td>Establishing contact with the company</td><td><ul><li>Obtaining appointments</li><li>Interviews and data collection</li><li>Data formatting</li></ul></td><td>✓ Company tutors<br>✓ Teachers</td></tr><tr><td>Presentation of the project</td><td><ul><li>Reminder of the basic rules of negotiation</li><li>Presentation of the class objectives, running order of the sessions and marking grid</li><li>Description of the 6 negotiation situations</li><li>Forming of groups of 4 students and choice of situations</li></ul></td><td>✓ Teachers<br>✓ Students</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Execution phase</td><td rowspan="2">2 sessions</td><td>Drafting</td><td><ul><li>Creation by each group of the subject wording for each case and the 2 role-play cards</li><li>Writing-up of the educational chart and drafting of the marking grid</li><li>Supervising of work by teachers</li></ul></td><td>✓ Teachers<br>✓ Students</td></tr><tr><td>Simulation</td><td><ul><li>Organisation of the running order of the role-plays by the teachers</li><li>Reception of the professionals</li><li>Preparation of the role-play based on another group's role-play</li><li>Enacting of the role-plays (20 mn per simulation)</li></ul></td><td>✓ Company tutors<br>✓ Teachers<br>✓ Students</td></tr><tr><td>1 session</td><td>Evaluation</td><td><ul><li>Organisation of the evaluation panels by the teachers*</li><li>Evaluation of the simulation by the teachers and the students who wrote the case-study, based on the marking grid and therequirements listed in the educational chart.</li><li>On the spot debriefing for the 2 students who have been evaluated</li></ul></td><td>✓ Company tutors<br>✓ Teachers<br>✓ &lt;students</td></tr></tbody></table>

* prepared before the evaluation simulation session
## Preparation phase

In order to set up this experiment the teachers called and e-mailed all the companies where the Master's course students were doing their internships and offered them the opportunity to participate in the project. Six of them answered affirmatively. The two professors running the project then met the company tutors to select concrete examples of negotiations. Six negotiations were chosen on the criteria that they dealt with the everyday running of companies and problems faced by management.

During this meeting the teachers asked the company tutors to provide them with the required information for each example selected (the contract, the sums involved, the general sales terms, the arguments used by each side) which would allow the students to themselves construct the case studies which were to be enacted. Once this data had been collected, the teachers compiled dossiers containing the raw information provided by the firm and gave them to the students.

Lastly, in order to present the project to the class, the teachers referred to a previous class entitled "Theories and techniques of negotiation" which had equipped them with a theoretical grounding. After the teachers had presented the background to each negotiation situation, the groups proceeded to choose the case study which they wished to work on.

It was sometimes hard for certain students to come to terms with the context and issues at stake involved in some of the negotiation situations. Indeed certain situations were more complex than others. To complement the information given by the teachers the students who were familiar with the companies were able to provide additional explanations for the others.

## The different situations worked on

The six firms who agreed to take part in the pedagogical experiment belong to different fields of activity. All the situations dealt with refer to examples of B to B negotiations which occur frequently.

The first example involves a disagreement between the Sales Management and the Production Management of a car manufacturing firm. The dispute is due to the Sales department overlooking to order spare parts from the Production Department. The crux of the negotiation is whether to opt for additional supplies within the company by ordering from a plant based abroad, entailing a deadline issue, or to purchase from another supplier whose prices are higher.

The second situation deals with resolving a dispute between the IT department of a financial group, and one of their suppliers who is under-performing. The IT department is confronted with the choice between applying a penalty clause or adopting measures improving the supplier's quality of service.

In the third case, the negotiation takes place between a firm specializing in renting vehicles to companies and one of their customers. There are two issues involved here: first a dispute around the bill for repairing a returned vehicle and second concerning the signature of a new contract possibly containing an exclusivity clause.

The fourth example focuses on the deal between a leading firm in the Food business and the purchasing department of a major Retail Chain concerning the acceptance of a new product. This new product is very innovative and requires extra promotion in order to overcome initial hesitation among purchasers and customers.

The fifth negotiation takes place between a manufacturer in the aeronautics field (producing airplane engines) and a service provider specializing in the renting of test stands for new engines. What is at
stake here is the renegotiation of the current contract involving a reduction in the size of the order (two test stands rented instead of three), a redefining of the contract specifications and the application of a penalty clause due to a delay in the service delivered.

The sixth and final case refers to the settlement of a dispute between a firm renting vehicles to companies and a customer dissatisfied due to a delay in receiving vehicles and the non-availability of the required model.

## The materials the students had to produce

Each group of four students produced four sets of materials:

- a first text comprising one or two pages should cover the background to the negotiation which both parties are aware of (stakes, objectives, players involved) and describe in precise detail the exact circumstances surrounding the simulation (the place, the time factor, the players, the content);

- two role descriptions, each roughly a page long, contain specific information for each negotiator which his/her counterpart in the negotiation doesn't have access to. These "roles" should include specific and more detailed information about the goals and vested interests of the characters, as well as the arguments which they are able to employ (promises and/or threats) and the various solutions available to them in case of failure of the negotiation (BATNA);

- a third document entitled "Teaching manual" should explain the objectives of the role-play, the different scenarios which can be envisaged, potential sticking-points (the distributive aspect), scope for cooperation which could (or should) be explored, the arguments which should be put forward (structuring attitudes) and the internal negotiation which need to be taken into account for each side (the intra-organizational aspect);

- the final tool is a marking grid featuring the main assessment criteria in the role-plays, depending on the specific nature of each situation dealt with, taking into account the various difficulties, opportunities for cooperation and assets which the different negotiations can take advantage of.

The students were asked to draw on the information provided in creating their case study. However, they were granted permission to invent additional factors or elements with a view to adding coherence and dynamism to the role-plays. Admittedly these extra additions bestow a partially "fictitious" quality to these simulations but this is acceptable as long as it results in rendering them more efficient in negotiation training.

## Execution phase

The groups are supervised by the teachers who check the successive versions of the case studies produced by the students. By integrating the feedback and comments sent to them by the teachers beforehand, the groups of students were able to complete the wording of the subject for the role-plays.

Prior to the final session devoted to the simulations, the teachers prepared the organization and the running-order for the role-play, so as to enable each student to be, in turn, involved in the enactment and the assessment. The day's schedule had to accommodate welcoming the visiting professionals sitting on the evaluation panel, preparation-time for the simulation exercise (30 minutes) the enactment of the role-plays (20 minutes) as well as a short time for grading (10 minutes).
The students participated, not in the role-play they had created but in one of those devised by the other groups. They were given a grade by an evaluation panel formed by the professional (the company tutor), a teacher and the group of students who had created the role-play. Those who created the case-study therefore helped to evaluate and give a grade for their class-mates performance. At the close of the simulation the teachers, the company tutors and the students sitting on the panel had the opportunity to provide the negotiator with on the spot feedback.

## Analysis phase

Drawing on a questionnaire which they wrote before the last work session, the teachers set up focus groups containing ten students. This chance to reflect on the project enabled the students to voice their overall feelings on their participation, the difficulties they faced, what they thought of their contribution and what skills they learned, as well as their suggestions on how the whole process could be improved.

## 3. A specific pedagogical approach which allows us to overcome the usual limitations inherent to the use of role-plays

The three major pedagogical tools which we had recourse to while carrying out the project – observation by the participants, analysis of the students' production, debriefing at the close of the role-playing session and organization of focus groups with the students after the final class – provided us with a number of answers to the main research questions we were confronted with. We need to differentiate two separate objectives here : first, to demonstrate how this novel pedagogical approach enables us to avoid the usual pitfalls encountered when using role-plays to teach negotiation techniques and second, to comprehend the benefits which this original method can bring the students in terms of acquisition of skills. Throughout this exposé we shall refer to the students' own testimonials which are in themselves sufficiently rich in terms of analysis to reveal their strong degree of commitment to the project.

During the discussion groups which were set up immediately after the class, the students were immediately at pains to stress how much they enjoyed role-plays in negotiation training in general and how valuable they considered them as a preparation for their future career. The fact that in this case the role-plays are based on real situations and created with the input of professionals makes this approach even more relevant in their view:

> "Participating in this role-play allowed us to carry out a negotiation based on a real-life situation and the fact that we were aware that the topics covered involved problems actually faced by firms made the whole exercise feel more realistic, which in turn helped us feel more involved. So we were able simultaneously to discover new professional situations, acquire a better understanding of certain fields of activity and put into practice the theoretical knowledge covered in the classroom."

These observations show how valuable this pedagogical device is for overcoming the limitations of the use of role-plays in negotiation most frequently cited in research into the topic, particularly pertaining to their artificial nature which is perceived as a problem in motivating students. At this point we should add that two specific features of the experiment warrant further explanation: firstly, the fact that the subject matter was devised by the students themselves and, secondly, that they participated in evaluating their classmates' performance in enacting the role-play they had themselves created.
## *The students' active involvement in creating the case-studies*

The students and the professionals associated with the class unanimously heralded the originality of this approach. The fact of being directly involved in producing the teaching materials is highly rewarding for students and this form of recognition, enhanced by a close working relationship with people from the world of work, is vital in securing their commitment to the whole process:

> "Working on devising the subject enabled us to improve our summarizing skills and to develop our imagination. We had never done anything like it before and it helped us feel more involved and more aware of the issues at stake in the negotiation, to realize all the factors which had to be taken into account and to consider the entire scope for possibilities and solutions which a role-play can cover."

Certainly the students frequently stress how hard they find the exercise but they consider it highly useful for practising writing skills. Starting off with raw information which has been prepared jointly by the teachers and the professionals, their task is both to develop a shared presentation of the context for both parties and specific role-play cards for each party. In this way they enter into the negotiation and must understand not only its details and basic essence but also be able to summarize these points and make them clear when wording the subject. They are fully aware of how demanding this work is:

> "Putting yourself in the shoes of the person writing the subject is a very good exercise for it makes you realize how hard tough it is to produce written data. The wording of the subject has to be as clear, as simple and as easily understandable as possible. We had to be concise and at the same time careful not to leave out important details. This exercise proved to be very useful since it taught us how to describe the background to a negotiation, how to "set the scene". Furthermore different fields of activity or firms have distinct working cultures which means that the students need to be in possession of this knowledge in order to be able to inhabit the role as quickly as possible."

This stage of the writing-up of the case-study calls for writing skills and develops awareness of the right choice of words and precise presentation of data which is vital for understanding the context and the momentum of the negotiation. The exercise emphasizes the impact the choice of vocabulary has upon the progression of the exchanges and the way in which the various possible formulations give rise to differing negotiation scenarios:

> "In our first draft we did things simply but then we realized the importance of vocabulary, of the words we employ. Each and every word can have repercussions for the next stage of the negotiation and for the negotiators' appreciation of the situation. This teaches us to read the case studies more carefully, to interpret the vocabulary used better and not to skim over the text too quickly."

This last aspect is vital since an understanding of the different managerial situations presented in the role plays and of the various forms of bargaining leverage employed in the transactions was viewed as one of the most decisive features in the course of the role-plays. Given that several role-plays were proposed, and that several groups of students worked on the construction of different versions for each of them, the students ended up successively playing a role on the evaluation panel for the partcase studies they had written, and then as negotiators, for a different case altogether. The inclusion of students on the evaluation panel, alongside the teachers and managers representing the partner firms undoubtedly worked in favor of stronger commitment on their part. As a kind of trade-off, they responded to the trust which was placed in them in taking their opinions on board regarding the evaluation procedure by displaying a keen interest in the whole exercise in return. Equally aware of how original this situation was, the professionals involved really got into what they were doing and engaged in an authentic dialogue with the students. The latter highly rated this stage of the project:
"We had never taken part in an exercise of this sort before but we are now mature enough to be fair in assessing the qualities and faults of the participants. The experience allowed us to step back from what was going on, to understand what the professionals were looking for and also to gain a clearer insight into the company's strategy. Thanks to the constructive feedback we received from the professionals we were able to get a better understanding of their priorities and what we had to do and not to do."

Indeed the consultative role afforded to the students on the evaluation panel also opened up a quite new perspective into the criteria which have to be taken into consideration when assessing participation in a negotiation process as well as into the kind of skills needed to perform well in this exercise. The performances of their classmates, who were working with subject-matter which they had themselves devised, allowed them to observe negotiating strengths and weaknesses which, held up like a mirror image, they were able to learn from. Above all, they came to realize the importance of inter-personal skills:

"Sitting on an evaluation panel enables you to watch how other people negotiate, to observe the gestures and the non-verbal communication they use. It helps you to realize what you should or shouldn't do, things you don't see when you're actually negotiating yourself. You also notice stuff like repeating the same words, language tics which impair communication. We realized how well the students expressed themselves and how carefully they listened to others."

On a more general level, over and above the project's value in terms of improved communication, the momentum it established in three phases – creation of the case study, participation in the marking panels for the written part, enacting a role-play for another case study – was beneficial in getting the students to develop a reflexive attitude and in making them more aware of the essential skills required for negotiation.

### A reflexive attitude which is potentially conducive to the acquisition of skills

Two key aspects of the theory and practice of negotiation were systematically mentioned in the reactions of the students and professionals who participated: firstly, the question of careful reading and comprehension of the context and of the precise facts relating to the case studies dealt with and secondly, awareness of the underlying relative strengths of the two parties and of the ensuing balance of power.

All the players participating in the learning process concur that comprehension, reporting and correct utilization of information constitute the greatest challenges presented by this exercise. We as teachers had to assist the students very closely in the creation of the case studies and very often help them to rewrite several successive versions in order to improve their comprehension and structuring of the information dealing with the various managerial situations. At this juncture we noticed the difficulties they experienced in grasping the essential facts relevant to each negotiation, especially when it came to figures. To cite one case study for example, one dealing with a legal dispute between the IT department of a financial corporation and a services firm hired to develop applications used to manage a pension fund, the professional present and the students who developed the case description realized how tricky it was to grasp the essence of the negotiation. The dispute is hinged around major quality defects in the work carried out by the sub-contractor which entitle the client, in keeping with the terms of the contract, to apply financial penalties. However the client company's manager, who runs his department with a strong focus on employees' welfare, doesn't wish to go ahead with this since the consultants concerned are employed in his work site and he is afraid that if he applies the penalties it would result in more pressure on them from management, leading in turn to heightened tension among the staff and a bad working atmosphere. So, during the negotiation, this manager attempts to get the
sub-contractor to recruit more experienced and competent IT staff, which would obviously involve
paying them a higher salary. From an economic point of view, an important sub-text to the negotiation
relates to the calculations of the sums incurred as a result of the penalties and to the increase in the
wage bill resulting from the recruitment of experienced IT staff. The students' reactions to the
negotiations they observed, based on situations they themselves had conceived, clearly reveal their
understanding of the difficulties their classmates had encountered in enacting the role-plays:

"We noticed that most students failed to tackle certain fundamental issues involved. For instance the client company's management adopted a strategy prioritizing "well-being in the workplace" and this point was supposed to represent a major focus during the negotiation. We included this factor in the wording of the subject but the students participating in the simulation didn't really structure their negotiation around it. Maybe we failed to emphasize this point enough when writing the subject matter for the case study."

One of the remarkable effects of the learning process lies therefore in the realization by the students
that careful reading of the case-studies is a vitally important pre-requisite for delivering a top quality
performance. Teachers often cite students' failure to do this as a recurrent weakness and ours pledge to
do their utmost to rectify this fault:

"We shall pay more attention to careful reading of the precise wording of the subject in future simulations so as to avoid missing key information. When I performed in the role-play I paid strict attention to every single word written about the case being studied as I now realize, thanks to the experience gained from writing one myself, that every sentence possesses its own importance."

Moreover, when writing up the role-plays, the students had to provide both parties with the same background information relative to the case as well as producing separate role play cards for each side. Thus their task was to share out certain data between the two parties and they could then see how this distribution of information affected the balance of power in the negotiation, given that having access to certain information amounted to a clear asset for one or other of the sides. In this way they had the chance to experience in a very concrete way the notion of information asymmetry and its crucial role during transactions. For example, in a negotiation dealing with the listing of a food product in the retail sector they were able to seize the delicate nature of the exercise:

"The hardest part is summarizing the information in order to help those who will be working on the case study to understand it rapidly. There's a risk of providing too much information or leverage for one side (the seller for example) and not enough for the other (the buyer for instance). We realized that we had produced an imbalance in our case study by giving the buyer too many leads and not enough to the seller. This raises the whole issue of what scope you give each party."

Regarding negotiation theory we thus note that the reflection necessary in devising case-studies provides invaluable help in shedding light into the wide spectrum of nuances covering the integrative and distributive dimensions of negotiation (Walton and MacKersie, 1965). Having produced the wording of the subjects and witnessed their classmates' performances while enacting the role-plays, the students had the opportunity of realizing to what extent the balance between the distributive and the integrative dimension could vary radically according to the way in which those who had created the case studies had perceived and formulated the data pertaining to the managerial situations being dealt with:

"Creating the case -study enabled us to step into each party's shoes. We had to analyze the initial situation, make it clear how many concessions each side could make, set them both goals which were
at odds with each other, and nonetheless leave the door open for a win/win outcome. We were forced
to consider the arguments in favor of a distributive negotiation while at the same time subtly hinting at
the case for an integrative solution.”

Overall, all the players involved in the class – students, professionals and teachers – recognized what amounts to a highly significant hypothesis in terms of theoretical reflection on negotiation teaching that the exercise militated naturally in favor of an integrative negotiation. The following comments by a student perfectly backs up this observation:

"While watching the different role-plays we were struck by the general behavior of the students. Most of them opted for an integrative stance whilst relatively few really managed to defend their specific interests by engaging in a distributive negotiation. We're not sure how to explain this. Is it down to the time-limit? Is it perhaps due to the pedagogical nature of the scenario which implicitly comes down in favor of a win/win scenario? The systematic search for a compromise induces some participants to make concessions too quickly without getting anything in return."

These remarks reveal the development of a more reflexive approach by the students and provide evidence of the great potential this experiment has for teaching the art of negotiation and increasing awareness of the necessary skills. They also represent an opening of the mind and raise important questions concerning to what extent the way we teach tends to weight the balance in favor either of cooperation or of prioritizing the defense of one's own interests.

Conclusion: opportunities for further improvement

The mix of the observations made by the teachers and the professionals and the comments gathered among the students highlights the added value provided by this pedagogical project and also the way in which it offers solutions for the major difficulties usually encountered when using role plays as well as its potential for developing skills, above all thanks to the way it induces a reflexive approach. The whole process stimulates a clear realization of the major issues at stake: interpersonal skills and the language used, mastery and proper use of information, the delicate balance which has to be sought between the distributive and integrative approaches.

In order to proceed further with this experiment, several possible improvements can be envisaged with
a view to moving further towards the goal of getting closer to real work situations. Indeed, several
limitations and residual questions have to be taken into consideration:

- We need to reflect on the size of the groups and the precise duration of the class which would allow students to properly grasp all the factors involved and give them enough freedom to imagine different scenarios; this issue of the length of the class also concerns the optimal time for preparing and enacting the simulations;

- Class evaluation, for both writing the subjects and performance during the simulations, constitutes another crucial area for reflection since it represents a possible way of promoting a balanced view of the integrative and distributive dimensions of negotiation;

- accompanying the students during the creation of the case studies is of primary importance in order to avoid the natural risk of an emphasis on the integrative dimension, compared to what actually happens in the business world; it would be desirable, via pedagogy notes and the
marking criteria, to ensure that the encouragement of willingness to cooperate doesn't militate against firmness in the defense of each party's own interest;

- still on the level of evaluation and the length of the class, it would be important to allow sufficient time for detailed feedback on the students' performances, both in writing the case studies and in enacting them; this is something the students themselves request very eagerly and this feedback should ideally be scheduled immediately after the end of the role-plays.

The success of this experiment can be dated back to principles defended from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, notably in the works of the American philosopher John Dewey. According to this writer, the real purpose of education is to form individuals able to play a leading role in a process of collective action and to shape their own environment. Dewey favors confronting learners with concrete problems taken from real life with a view to developing both individual capacities and the ability to act within a group. This basic idea is founded in a strong belief in the relationship between progress, the education system and democratic principles.

## References

Alexander N. and Lebaron, M. 2009. Death of the Role-Play. In Rethinking negotiation teaching Vol.2 : Venturing beyond the classroom, edited by C. Honeyman, J.Coben, and G.Dipalo. St Paul, MN : DRI. Press.

Bloomfield, L.P. and Padelford, N.J.1959. Three Experiments in Political Gaming, *The American Political Science Review*, 1105-1115

Cherryholmes, H.C.1966. Some Current Research On Effectiveness of Educational Simulations : Implications for Alternative Strategies, *The American Behavioral Scientist*, 4-7.

Dachner M.A., and Polin, B.2016. A Systematic Approach to educating the Emerging Adult Learner in Undergraduate Management Courses, *Journal of Management Education*, Vol.40 (2) 121-151.

Dewey J. 1916. *Democracy and Education: an introduction to the philosophy of education*. New York: Mac Millan.

Druckman, D. and Ebner, N.2013. Games, Claims, and New Frames : Rethinking the Use of Simulation, *Negotiation Journal*, 61-91.

Druckman, D., 2010, Frameworks, Cases, and Experiments : Brideging Theory with Practice, *International Negotiation* 15, 163-186.

Knowles, M.S.1968. Andragogy, not pedagogy. *Adult Leadership*, 16, 350-352.

Goldhamer, H. and Peier, H.1959. « Some Observations on Political Gaming », *World Politics*, XII, 71-83.
Guetzkow, Harold., 1959. A use of Simulation in the Study of Inter Nation Relations, *Behavioral Science*, IV, 183-195.

Poitras, J., Stimec, A., and Hill, K.2013. Fostering Student Engagement in Negotiation Role Plays, Negotiation Journal, 439-461.

Usunier, J.C. 2004. Comment enseigner la négociation d'affaires par les jeux de simulation, *Revue Française de Gestion*, vol 6 (n°153), 63-86.

Yide, S., Nicholson, J.2015. Nicholson, D., Teaching Tip, Using a Group Role-Play Exercise to Engage Students in Learning Business Processes and Enterprise Resource Planning, *Journal of Information Systems Education*, Vol 26 (4), 265-280.

Zartman, W.2010. Negotiation Pedagogy : International Relations, *International Negotiation* 15, 229-246.

**Webographie :**

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogy