A Practical Guide to Negotiation Simulation Writing

It is hard to imagine modern negotiation pedagogy without the extensive use of simulations (Lewicki 1997; Williams and Geis 2000; Ebner and Efron 2005; Druckman and Ebner 2013). Although simulations are also used to teach in other fields, such as medical education (Alsuwaidi et al. 2021); economics instruction (Porter, Riley, and Ruffer 2004); and teacher training (Kelleci and Aksoy 2020), they are a distinguishing feature of negotiation pedagogy.

There is extensive research on the use of simulations in negotiation pedagogy, including the factors that promote learning (Poitras, Stimec, and Hill 2013; Germain‐Thomas, Lafarge, and Sidibe 2019); the effects of simulations on critical thinking and students' motivation (Druckman and Ebner 2013; Kallestrup 2018); the length of time required for the use of simulations; cultural influences; and the differences between simulations and real negotiations (Alexander and LeBaron 2009). The use of simulations for online teaching also has been investigated (Matz and Ebner 2011). The most recent comprehensive review of the research on using simulations in negotiation education can be found in Druckman and Ebner (2013).

The literature also has addressed designing and writing negotiation simulations (Ebner and Druckman 2012; Druckman and Ebner 2013; Germain‐Thomas et al. 2019; Bell and Valley 2020). Some benefits of writing negotiation simulations are listed below:

• It increases the credibility of the instructor, who can explain the background of the simulation and the motivation behind writing it.

• The simulations can be tailored to the instructor's pedagogical needs; in corporate trainings, they can be tailored to the company's customers or even developed together with the customers.

• Instructors can integrate their specific industry or domain expertise into the pedagogical material and address contemporary issues, such as current technological developments.

• Writing simulations improves the understanding of negotiation structures and how their individual elements can affect the negotiation process and outcome. Druckman and Ebner (2013: 28) point out that “the design process contributes to the development of analytical skills because authors must identify critical elements with clarity, search for concreteness, synthesize the elements (roles, goals, resources, and rules), and develop new analytical questions.”

• It saves costs, presents commercialization opportunities, and positively contributes to the author's professional reputation.

In addition, simulation writing skills are often required to undertake experimental research and organize negotiation competitions.

Writing a negotiation simulation for the first time can be challenging, as we discovered ourselves when drafting our first simulations and have observed among our doctoral students and other negotiation professors. We also have noticed a reluctance among students and professors even to attempt writing simulations, due in part to the wide availability of excellent simulations that have been used successfully in classrooms, corporate trainings, and other venues. With practice, however, writing negotiation simulations becomes easier. Like negotiation, simulation writing is a skill. One can learn how to write engaging and pedagogically effective negotiation simulations and teach others to do so as well.

This article directly builds upon the work of Bell and Valley (2020) in this journal. They offer “five core principles that can be used to curate both simple and moderately complex negotiation exercises.” These principles help shape the stages of the writing process, and they serve as the foundation for this article as well. However, Bell and Valley (2020: 59) also state that “while this method is intended to assist with the planning of exercises, it does not offer detailed guidance on negotiation exercise research or writing, or on the design of specific exercise elements.” This is precisely what this article aims to accomplish. Here, we present concrete blueprints for negotiation simulations, providing detailed instructions on how to structure them and what elements they should include.

The structure of negotiations and the corresponding design of negotiation simulations can vary significantly. Therefore, we propose blueprints for six different types of negotiations: short introductory negotiation simulations, scorable distributive negotiation simulations, non‐scorable integrative negotiation simulations, scorable multi‐issue simulations, scorable multiparty simulations, and non‐scorable multiparty multi‐issue simulations. While these types are not exhaustive, they cover a broad range of topics taught in negotiation courses. Additionally, we present variations for some of the types.

The structure of this article can be compared to a cookbook, which contains recipes that assist in shopping for ingredients (analogous to negotiation exercise research) and preparing food (analogous to the design of specific exercise elements). Similarly, the guidance offered in this article provides “recipes” for creating specific negotiation simulations.

There are different categories of negotiation exercises, such as games, role plays, and simulations (e.g., Susskind and Corburn 2000; Druckman and Ebner 2013; Bell and Valley 2020), as well as dynamic simulations (Watkins 2007), mega‐simulations (Weiss 2008), and systemic multiconstituency exercises (Bell and Mandell 2018), which already have been presented in this journal. However, the terminology used in this context is not consistent. The types of negotiation exercises presented in this article can perhaps be best classified as simulations. Key characteristics of the simulation types presented in this article include a scenario that describes the background of the negotiation; the protagonists (negotiators) along with their traits, interests, and objectives; and an indication of the issues they need to settle. However, this does not imply any further significance, as there is no strict delineation; blueprints can also be created for other categories of exercises. According to the standards of Watkins (1999), the types presented here are relatively low to moderately complex. We do not delve further into the discussion of categorizations and definitions in this article.

We first give a brief overview of the process of writing negotiation simulations and describe two different avenues to initiate the process and select one of the types. In this context, we take a look at the foundations on which the proposed blueprints build and that authors need to provide: the scenario and the pedagogical objectives.

The focus of this article then lies in presenting the different types of simulations. We first provide an assessment of which topics the respective types are particularly suitable for teaching. Additionally, we offer some general guidelines for designing and utilizing each type in the classroom (or training). The main emphasis of the sections is on the tables, which specify the following elements: parties, decision problem, interests and options, and alternatives. Following the framework of Ebner and Efron (2013), these are fundamental elements involved in any negotiation. Finally, we provide one or more examples of negotiation simulations for each type, to which authors can refer during the writing process.

Simulation testing and teaching already have been well covered by Bell and Valley (2020), so we touch upon them only briefly. At the end of the article, we share our experiences with simulation‐writing classes.

In this article, we draw on our experience writing, assessing, testing, and using hundreds of negotiation simulations for our negotiation courses, workshops, and negotiation competition (The Negotiation Challenge: https://thenegotiationchallenge.org). The blueprints included in this article have been tested with graduate students enrolled in our simulation‐writing classes and with colleagues, who requested our support in the process of developing their own negotiation simulations. Their valuable comments and feedback have helped us shape this manuscript.

The purpose of this article is to serve as pedagogical material supporting negotiation instructors and students in writing negotiation simulations. Although our perspective and focus may be influenced by our backgrounds in the fields of economics and business, this article is written for—and will be of benefit to—all negotiation teachers and trainers.

We see two alternative pathways to employing this practical guide for writing simulation exercises (Figure One). The upper pathway involves commencing with a pedagogical objective, identifying a fitting scenario, and subsequently delving into the simulation development process. Alternatively, it can be advantageous to initiate the process directly with a scenario (lower pathway). Pedagogical objectives and scenarios play a central role as the bases and starting points for the process of writing simulations. Therefore, we intend to examine their significance in greater detail.

The first among the five principles offered by Bell and Valley (2020) is “Define the purpose.” In this regard, the starting point can be the intention to write a simulation for specific participants and with a specific pedagogical objective. “Who are the participants that will be taught? What exactly will be learned? Answering these questions will yield the negotiation exercise's ‘purpose,’ which we define as the exercise's planned learning outcomes with consideration for the intended audience” (Bell and Valley 2020: 60). This approach is rooted in the belief that negotiation simulations serve as purposeful instructional tools that can be effectively utilized in teaching and training settings (Druckman and Ebner 2010).

There are many pedagogical objectives of negotiation simulations. Negotiation simulations can be used as illustrative tools exemplifying concepts and principles introduced during the training, such as reservation points or BATNA. They can facilitate the development of specific negotiation competencies, including active listening, managing emotions, understanding interests and options, creating trust, and building relationships. Negotiation simulations offer a context for practicing negotiation preparation effectively and provide opportunities to observe the effects of specific negotiation tactics. They are indispensable for practicing how to devise effective negotiation strategies and flexibly adapt them to the dynamics of the negotiation process. Negotiation simulations can be used to illustrate power, its dynamics, and its impact on negotiation outcomes. They can foster cultural sensitivity, teach how to negotiate in teams, and help students understand the ethics of negotiation. These are only a subset of the pedagogical objectives attainable through negotiation simulations. It is important to acknowledge that the range of potential pedagogical objectives can be substantially expanded to encompass diverse desired outcomes of negotiation workshops and courses.

To utilize this practical guide effectively, once the pedagogical objectives have been defined, the next step is to determine which type of simulation best aligns with them. The simulation types correspond to different types of negotiations, each characterized by their own structure and required negotiation competencies (Smolinski and Xiong 2020). Usually, there is a natural connection between pedagogical objectives and simulation types. For example, teaching value claiming is the easiest in distributive simulations and teaching value creation requires integrative simulations. Some pedagogical objectives, however, offer more flexibility in selecting the negotiation type, for example, understanding alternatives and defining a BATNA.

Accordingly, on the upper pathway illustrated in Figure One, the definition of the negotiation exercise purpose serves as the basis for selecting the appropriate simulation type. The objective is to identify a type that is particularly well suited for the intended purpose. This selection process aligns with the second principle outlined by Bell and Valley (2020): determining the format. This article operationalizes this principle and as noted above, offers detailed instruction for six predefined simulation types: short introductory, distributive, integrative, multi‐issue, multiparty, and multiparty multi‐issue simulations. These simulation types are appropriate for a wide spectrum of the most common pedagogical objectives.

We start the introduction of each type with an evaluation of the educational content. This guidance aims to aid in the selection process. However, these assessments represent key areas of focus, and the simulation types can be used to teach other content, whether or not related to negotiation.

After a type has been chosen, the next step involves identifying a suitable scenario. It is crucial for the scenario to align with the chosen simulation type. This connection will be explored in more detail in the following section.

The starting point for the development of a negotiation simulation can also be a scenario. The pedagogical objectives of the simulation emerge as a result of this process; initially, no pedagogical objectives are defined. The task is to find the appropriate simulation type for the chosen scenario.

A scenario describes a set of circumstances (Ebner and Druckman 2012; Bell and Mandell 2018); it is occasionally referred to as a storyline or plot (Druckman and Ebner 2013). It specifies what the negotiation is about, such as a real estate sale, an employment contract, a cooperation agreement, or an international border dispute. The purpose of a scenario is to bring the negotiation to life and make it tangible, while also generating interest in its subject matter (Jones and Bursens 2015; Germain‐Thomas et al. 2019). Some scenarios allow for exploration of a broad range of topics beyond negotiation techniques. For example, the topic of international business development is explored in King Polo (Smolinski 2018a). Authors can have a clear idea of the scenario and then search for a suitable simulation type. In this case, the second step strictly follows the first. Alternatively, the process can be iterative, with authors having only a basic idea of a scenario and then refining it through the choice of a type. The different types can then be understood as options for shaping the scenario. Let us take the example of Power Media (Kesting 2018a). The fundamental scenario here revolves around purchasing advertising space at a favorable price. The focus lies on price negotiations between the media company and the newspaper. The emphasis on price suggests a scorable simulation type. Furthermore, one can consider whether the focus should solely be on price or if other issues should be introduced. In this case, the decision has been made to prioritize value claiming, leading to the selection of a scorable distributive negotiation simulation. The types can thus help reveal possible options that were not initially considered, thereby supporting the development of a scenario.

After the decision has been made to choose one of the types, the next step is the implementation—the actual writing process—which is the main focus of this article. Bell and Valley's (2020) third principle provides a general suggestion to maintain focus at this point. However, they do not give instructions on how to construct a negotiation simulation. Before delving into the introduction of the six different types of simulations, we provide a few general guidelines that are relevant to all types.

The instructions for the simulations can be divided into general and confidential instructions. Confidential instructions are necessary to share private information known only to one party. Goals and interests can be set out in confidential instructions, as well as exclusive information such as BATNAs or hidden agendas. Mutual ignorance and information asymmetry are essential elements of many negotiations (Kesting and Nielsen 2020). General instructions represent common knowledge: I know that the other person also knows, and she knows that I know, and I know that she knows that I know, etc. (Aumann 1976). General instructions may be distributed in advance of the class session without the risk of information being inappropriately disseminated, which might be the case when confidential instructions are distributed in advance. This reduces the time required for preparation during the class session.

While designing negotiation simulations, it can be helpful to introduce agents (friends or lawyers) who negotiate on behalf of their constituency, as in Knudsen Printing Angels (Kesting 2020b). In such simulations, the negotiators are third parties and can conduct the negotiation in a much more credible manner. They probably will not have the emotions of the actual protagonists, and their knowledge will be limited to what the protagonists have shared with them, so it is credible that they will not know every detail. Interesting information asymmetries and principal‐agent tensions can be incorporated in this way.

Additional information on the background of the negotiation can be shared in the instructions. It is interesting to see what influence seemingly irrelevant information can have on the course of negotiations. For example, in a simulation about a company acquisition, we implied that both sides were interested in sailing. Many students took up this topic in the negotiation. While sailing is completely irrelevant to an acquisition, it can play a role in relationship building.

To fulfill their purpose, negotiation simulations need to pose a certain challenge. Challenge means the difficulty the negotiators experience and the problem they need to solve to reach an agreement (Ebner and Druckman 2012). This challenge is an essential characteristic and distinguishing feature of the various negotiation simulation types. It is easy to incorporate a challenge in distributive negotiations where there is a direct conflict built into the parties' interest structure; the challenge then consists in both sides trying to claim as much value as possible. In integrative negotiations, the challenge may lie in resolving a tension between cooperative value creation and the necessity of value claiming. In our experience, it is more difficult to incorporate a challenge in non‐scorable simulations, in which the focus lies on communication and the search for creative solutions. This is explained in detail below.

The challenge triggers the parties' interactive communication process, the so‐called negotiation dance (Raiffa 1982), and is the basis of the learning process. Without such a challenge, an agreement is quickly reached and the intensity of interactions between the negotiating parties is limited. Negotiation simulations should also offer a wide spectrum of possible agreements and not have obvious focal points that lead all negotiations to similar outcomes. In such cases, the result of the negotiation is determined less by the negotiator's behavior and more by the negotiation setting.

We advise moving on to the negotiation at the end of the instructions: “You are now looking forward to your meeting with your counterparts, which will start very soon.” It can be beneficial to provide information regarding the location or circumstances of the negotiations, including details on where and how they will take place. For example, in negotiation simulations we designed during the pandemic, we frequently used the following statement: “Due to travel restrictions, the negotiations can only be conducted online.” It is also often useful to provide details on the status of the negotiations—for example, that there have already been preliminary talks and the parties have clarified certain elements of the negotiation.

It can also be useful to summarize the key points of the negotiation at the end of the instructions (“in brief”). This section has proven to be very helpful in solidifying the core elements of the instructions and avoiding misunderstandings; it should not contain any new information. However, this does not apply to short introductory negotiation simulations (the first type below), which are so brief that they do not require a summary. We also advise refraining from including an “in brief” section in non‐scorable negotiation simulations, in which the challenge must be discovered through communication. In such cases, an “in brief” section may reveal too much information.

Above all, in our experience, it is very important to formulate instructions clearly and precisely, especially when numbers or statistics are involved. The basic rule is that everything that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood by some negotiators. This can take negotiations in a completely different direction than intended and students may miss out on accomplishing the learning goals. Options and payoffs, reservation points and limits—as well as negotiation objectives—must be explained clearly. Including illustrative examples of potential negotiation outcomes is helpful. However, instructions should only be as long as necessary, as they are often read in class and take time away from the negotiation.

After identifying the scenario and negotiation type, one may turn to the tables below that correspond to the chosen negotiation type. The tables outline the information that must be included in the text or can be provided if the simulation writer chooses to do so. Drawing on this information and the general design principles presented by Bell and Valley (2020), a simulation can be tailored to the selected scenario. It is important to note that the order of information in the tables does not dictate the order of information in the simulation; that decision should be made on an individual basis. Below the tables, we provide concrete examples for each type, offering further guidance and orientation.

The simulation types included in this article do not follow a strict typology. They are inspired by Raiffa's (1982) taxonomy, which sorts negotiations into different “types of disputes”: two parties, one issue; many issues; and many parties. Integrative negotiations have significant win‐win potential (Walton and McKersie 1965; Raiffa 1982). Scorable negotiations can be resolved through agreements that can be measured and ranked (Smolinski and Kesting 2013).

The simulation types we chose are not mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive. The selection of the negotiation simulations is driven by our desire to cover a wide scope of pedagogical objectives. It reflects our personal experiences and includes the simulation types we have systematically tested and used in our teaching.

We also have developed other types of negotiation simulations that could not be included here due to space constraints. They include negotiations with an ultimatum, negotiations with a third party (e.g., a mediator), and simulations inspired by ongoing or completed negotiations such as trade wars or climate talks. We also see possibilities for broadening the challenge in non‐scorable negotiations—for example, by integrating ethical dilemmas or cultural differences that are not addressed here.¹

These are very simple simulations that include one or two issues and are used at the beginning of negotiation courses and workshops, mainly as a practical introduction to the topic of negotiation. These simulations are well suited to introducing and explaining the basic concepts (e.g., BATNA, reservation point, and ZOPA) and structure of negotiations. With a broad ZOPA, these simulations lead to a wide distribution of outcomes and therefore are useful for demonstrating the importance of negotiation skills for achieving a compelling outcome. The negotiators receive short, role‐specific confidential instructions, which include a brief description of the negotiation setting and allow for a wide range of potential results.

These simple simulations can also be used as short teasers; for example, to explain briefly what negotiations and negotiation research are all about. These simulations are easy to write and a great way to get started with simulation writing. To fulfill their purpose as a first, short introduction or teaser, it should be possible to run these simulations in 5–15 minutes in a 1:1 constellation (a pair sitting next to each other). The instructions should not be longer than one page, preferably only half a page. In such simulations, negotiators need to settle a simple issue or issues, typically a price—for example, for a second‐hand car or cell phone.

An example of such a simple scorable distributive negotiation is The Transformer Sale (Kesting 2020a), which involves the sale of an electrical device to a manufacturing company. In this simulation, the parties are briefly named, and the negotiated object, the transformer, is described in one sentence. Indications of value are based on the past purchase price of the device. These simulations involve one‐shot transactions; a further relationship between the parties is unlikely. The instructions include some additional information on the intended use of the transformer. Only the BATNAs are described; no reservation prices are indicated. Therefore, the simulation is well suited for addressing the relationship between BATNA and reservation price. The instructions for the buyers include confidential information that due to a fire, they urgently must purchase the transformer. As a result, the buyer is willing to pay a very high price and the ZOPA is unusually large. This simulation can also be used to discuss the meaning of information in negotiation, and whether, and under what circumstances, one should share sensitive information.

The challenge in scorable distributive negotiations results from directly opposing interests. Scorable distributive negotiation simulations are not suitable as brief introductions or teasers; they must be much more comprehensive and include significant background information. They allow for a thorough discussion of value claiming, including reservation points, BATNAs, ZOPAs, aspirations, anchoring and negotiation openings, concession making, objective criteria, and narratives, as featured in Thompson's ten slicing strategies (Thompson 2020). Other tactics and unethical behavior, such as deception, can also be discussed (Dawson 1995). In addition, the preparation of distributive negotiations and their process can be discussed.

In our experience, it is best if the participants negotiate these simulations in small groups. This promotes learning through the exchange of ideas and strategies and allows more students to get to know each other. The groups should not be so large that it is difficult for everyone to contribute; 2:2 and 3:3 constellations usually work well. Online, we recommend 3:3 combinations to prevent students from being left alone if the connection of one participant fails.

These simulations are richer in design than the first type, so students need more time to deal with the material and negotiate an agreement. Time frames of 20–30 minutes for preparation and 20–30 minutes for negotiation are usually appropriate. However, this reflects our own experiences and may vary depending on the cultural context and one's teaching style.

An example of a scorable distributive negotiation simulation is Power Media (Kesting 2018a), which focuses on the purchase of online advertising space by a media agency. The simulation instructions provide background information on the organizations that the protagonists represent, online marketing in general, the business to be negotiated, pricing, BATNAs, and aspirations. The appendix for the seller includes information about past business transactions. The simulation instructions present two different narratives: one involving regular online advertising with a list price of €40.00, and the other involving remaining spaces at a much lower price of €0.60. Against this background, the simulation is particularly suitable for a discussion of the importance of narratives and objective‐appearing rationales for value claiming. A particular difficulty is that the instructions require the media company to impose its asking price; it is therefore not possible to meet in the middle. At the same time, a trusting business relationship must be established. This allows for a discussion of the relationship between substantive and relational outcomes in distributive negotiations. In this context, it makes sense if the counterparts give each other feedback after the negotiation based on the Subjective Value Inventory (SVI) (Curhan et al. 2006).

This simulation type is particularly suitable for introducing and/or illustrating value creation, including topics such as integrative strategies, trust, communication, relationship building, interests, collaborative problem‐solving, and creativity (Thompson 2020). Depending on how they are designed, these simulations are suitable for either introducing, deepening the understanding of, or practicing principle‐based negotiation (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991). Since non‐scorable simulations rarely require calculations, they are suitable for negotiators who are uncomfortable with numbers. When well written, they are popular because they are often richer and more realistic than quantitatively focused simulations and foster collaboration between the parties. These simulations are particularly suitable for discussing industry‐specific topics or relevant aspects of managerial disciplines beyond negotiation.

Non‐scorable integrative negotiation simulations are especially difficult to write. The challenge involves more than opposing interests on just one issue, and the structure and composition are not as distinct as in other simulation types. The focus here is on presenting a situation; numbers play only a minor role or do not appear at all. As a result, nuances have a much greater significance than in the other types of simulation. It is therefore particularly important to test the text to determine how it is understood by negotiators. Focus and clarity are important; we advise not overloading the text with too much information. We recommend keeping the text short for this type of simulation as well, around 4–6 pages per role plus appendix. We again recommend conducting negotiations in 2:2 or 3:3 constellations. In our experience, these negotiations take a little longer, about 30 minutes for preparation and 30–45 minutes for negotiation, perhaps longer for more difficult negotiations.

Here we provide examples for the three options to create the challenge in the types of negotiation simulations mentioned above: construction of a misunderstanding, building or rebuilding trust, and a joint search for solutions. An example of a simulation of a misunderstanding that leads to a conflict is Knudsen Printing Angels (Kesting 2020b). Although the simulation appears to be primarily about paying for a delivery with which the customer is not satisfied, the real interests of both protagonists lie much deeper. The simulation involves an old family history, a generation gap, personal relationships, fairness, and recognition. The mistake is caused by misunderstandings and negligence on both sides. As a result, there are no substantial conflicts of interest, and the negotiators' challenge is to uncover this through communication. The invoice for the delivery represents a distributive trap—there is a risk of haggling over the invoice instead of focusing on the real problems. The negotiators are represented by agents acting as impartial intermediaries, removing personal emotions from the negotiation process and focusing on achieving the best results. The confidential simulation instructions introduce the protagonists and explain how the conflict arose from each protagonist's point of view. The other side is shown as the cause of the conflict. The decision‐making problem for the negotiators is to resolve the conflict on behalf of the parties. They need to understand the different dimensions of the problem and find creative solutions.

An example of a simulation that calls for parties to build trust between them while maintaining their demands is Risk Capital (Kesting, forthcoming), which simulates a funding negotiation between a start‐up and investors. In this simulation, the founders of the start‐up are under pressure because they did not arrange for alternative financing. If this negotiation fails, the founders must give up their start‐up. Their negotiating position is, therefore, extremely weak. The founders' instructions indicate that the investors could take advantage of their strength and demand better conditions for themselves. This impression seems to be confirmed by the demands of the investors. In fact, however, the investors consider their demands to be fair and their challenge is to convince the founders that their demands are fair. They must navigate the challenging task of building trust while simultaneously asserting their demands. This means that the simulation can be used particularly well to discuss how to build trust and claim value at the same time. In the instructions, the concept of risk financing (including the evaluation of start‐ups) is explained, as many negotiators might not be familiar with this topic, and the context of the conflict is described in detail. Special emphasis is placed on overcoming any negative impressions that the parties may have gained from their past encounters, with a primary focus on negotiating the best possible outcome.

An example of finding common solutions in a negotiation simulation is Plato's Academy (Smolinski 2018b), in which the parties negotiate Aristotle's ideas for reforming the Platonic Academy. This type of simulation can be described as historic fiction, where fictional elements are set against a historical background. For the reasons outlined above, the negotiation is again conducted by third parties, in this case by students of the conflicted protagonists. It is about a typical generational conflict, in which the younger generation is pushing for a change in the traditional ways. This simulation is designed to practice principle‐based negotiation, identify and understand interests, and generate creative solutions that can fulfill such interests. The conflict between Plato and Aristotle, prominently described in the simulation, compels the parties to persuade each other that their respective visions for the Academy are superior and worth pursuing. However, many negotiators fail to realize that resolving this conflict requires engaging in a cooperative search for solutions, rather than insisting solely on their positions. Despite their radically different visions, the prosperity of the Academy remains the main shared interest of both Plato and Aristotle and together they can achieve much more than each of them on his own.

This type of simulation is particularly suitable for teaching the meaning of comparative priorities, value engineering, and efficiency in multi‐issue negotiations (Raiffa 1982) and post‐settlement settlements (Raiffa 1985). It can also be used to discuss topics such as preparation, information exchange, the balance between value creation and claiming, and relationship building. These simulations must be scorable to work out the logic of multi‐issue negotiations, which makes them challenging to write and negotiate. However, it is easy to build up an interesting challenge and an integrative potential with this simulation type. Maximizing the payoff requires cooperation, although there is a risk in revealing priorities.

The instructions for this simulation type focus on describing in detail the issues to be negotiated. Clarity and comprehensibility are particularly important here. Many negotiators find numbers and formulas difficult so it is necessary to be as simple as possible. Discussion of the negotiation issues usually requires 4–6 pages per role. Negotiations are again conducted in 2:2 or 3:3 constellations. The simulations require about 15–30 minutes of preparation and 30–45 minutes of negotiating.

An example of a scorable multi‐issue negotiation simulation is Oasis Shipping, Inc. (Kesting 2018b), which involves a sale and re‐lease negotiation between a shipping company and an investor. There are three issues for negotiation: the selling price of the ships, the leasing rate, and the contract period. The shipowner's priorities are the selling price and the contract period; the investor's priority is the leasing rate. The focus of the negotiation is on recognizing these different priorities. The special feature of this case is that it does not set upper limits for the purchase price or the leasing rate, meaning that the profit can be increased infinitely for both parties. This is instructive in showing how competitive value claiming and a lack of cooperation can hinder profit maximization. In our experience, nearly all teams overlook this unlimited potential and are surprised when it is raised for discussion during the debrief.

This simulation type is particularly useful for discussing the difficulty of communicating with multiple parties and issues of power and influence (Raiffa 1982; Thompson 2020). Depending on the construction, these simulations can also be suitable for discussing the relative character of potential fairness standards. Most of these simulations are not, or are only slightly, integrative. In this section, we present the variant with multiple parties and one issue. Non‐scorable, multiparty, multi‐issue simulations are discussed in the next section.

The design of this simulation type focuses on the presentation of the quantitative relationships between negotiated issues, and these provide the framework around which the simulation is developed. It is again important to formulate the facts as clearly and simply as possible. Background information is valuable to make the case more realistic so that negotiators can build their narratives and arguments around it. As with other simulation types, the negotiations are best carried out in groups of two, that is, with three parties 2:2:2. However, it is also possible to reduce this simulation type to the payoffs that can be obtained by the parties and present it as a game as in the pure Coalition Game discussed by Raiffa (1982) and Thompson (2020). This lends itself to a discussion of the vicious cycle and other topics.

An example of a scorable multi‐issue negotiation simulation is The Right Team to Work With (Kesting 2022). This simulation takes the form of a 2:1 constellation in which two negotiators compete to work with the third negotiator. Specifically, two banks compete to carry out a financial transaction for an industrial company. The core question is to what extent the two banks enter into a bidding war and what the outcome of this battle will be. One of the banks must be part of the project due to its expertise, while the other can be excluded. It is interesting how often such exclusions occur when the simulation is conducted, even though the bank that can be excluded can make the best offer for a part of the project. The simulation is therefore very well suited to discussing influence, as well as cooperation and the question of who is a friend and who is a foe.

These simulations are particularly appropriate for advanced modules or advanced courses. They tend to be rather complex, demanding comprehensive negotiation skills; they are therefore ideal as a compelling highlight at the conclusion of a course or workshop. While these simulations are highly popular, they can be lengthy and challenging both to develop and to negotiate. The multitude of diverse interests may permit a win‐win outcome for all parties in certain instances, though such opportunities might be limited. This type of simulation is particularly well suited for illuminating a variety of different positions in a negotiation. An example is the Colombian peace negotiation, in which not only the government and FARC‐EP—but also the establishment, the industry, the farmers, and the drug lords—had their own interests that shaped the negotiations (Kesting et al. 2022).

The construction of these simulations is even more open than in the non‐scorable integrative negotiation simulations described above and can accommodate many variations. One possible structure is two coalitions of three negotiators each and several negotiation issues. The negotiators within the coalitions have different confidential instructions and are guided by different, sometimes conflicting, interests. As a result, the simulation is very difficult and places high demands on the efficiency of the negotiators and their structured approach. We advise explaining the background of the negotiation in the general instructions, which can be quite comprehensive. The confidential instructions should then be rather short, 1–4 pages. Negotiations are conducted in 3:3 constellations. It is necessary to give the negotiators ample time to prepare, as they need to share information and develop a common strategy. The preparation in the coalitions should take 60 minutes, and the negotiation itself should take 45–60 minutes.

Other configurations of this type are simulations with multiple parties and multiple issues without coalitions, possibly with a mediator.

An example of a non‐scorable multiparty multi‐issue integrative negotiation simulation is Iliad Reloaded (Kesting 2013). In this historical scenario, Odysseus' idea of the horse is rejected and the Trojan War is to be ended through negotiation. Many negotiators enjoy following in the footsteps of mythical heroes. The general instructions give only an overview of the causes and course of the Trojan War and introduce the negotiation's protagonists—Paris, Hector, and Priam on the Trojan side; and Achilles, Agamemnon, and Menelaus on the Achaean side. The roles are symmetrical, with Priam's and Menelaus's similarity in interests (resulting in partially identical instructions) constituting a constructive force in the negotiations, whereas Hector and Agamemnon are suspicious but willing to compromise. Paris is interested only in Helen and Achilles cares only about his own glory, which may become disruptive to the negotiation process. There are conflicting interests within the coalitions. For example, Priam and Hector are willing to sacrifice Helen for peace but Paris is not; and Achilles is not committed to the Achaeans and wants to continue the war for his further glory. With its multifaceted interest structure, the simulation places high demands on communication as well as creativity, as when the negotiators must find ways to appease the Greek gods or a solution for Paris and Helen that is acceptable to all. Compensation claims bring a distributive element to the negotiation, but only marginally. The focus of the negotiations is on ending the war and resolving the conflict.

Along with Bell and Valley (2020), we advise testing simulations before using them in a classroom setting. This helps to determine and refine the pedagogical objectives and identify mistakes and inconsistencies in the text—for example, in numbers—which are not uncommon in the iterative development process of negotiation simulations. Regardless of whether authors commence their simulation development process by defining their pedagogical objectives explicitly (upper pathway) or their pedagogical objectives are implied by the selection of a simulation type (lower pathway), this phase allows them to identify and/or refine their pedagogical objectives and verify their attainability.

Moreover, testing helps to verify the negotiators' perceptions and understanding of the information in the text, which can significantly deviate from the authors' intentions. There can be an unintentional focal point that causes all testing dyads to reach similar agreements, or the negotiation can go in a completely different direction than intended. Once detected, these shortcomings are usually very easy to fix during the subsequent revision process. The observation of actual negotiations based on a developed simulation and subsequent discussions with the testers also provide the authors with valuable input for developing the corresponding teaching notes.

Teaching notes often are required to publish negotiation simulations and are also useful for sharing with colleagues. Moreover, writing teaching notes can equip instructors for effectively debriefing simulations and align with Bell and Valley's (2020) fifth principle: “Plan the debrief.” It is best to start the teaching notes with an abstract in which the scenario and pedagogical objectives are presented briefly. It can also be useful to summarize the cornerstones of the simulation in a table, setting forth information such as the type of negotiation it simulates, the topics covered, the number of people, and the simulation's time frame. This should be followed by a thorough explanation of how to carry out the simulation in the classroom, especially in relation to the distribution of the instructions, the briefing, the conduct of the negotiation, and the debriefing. The use of the simulation in online courses should also be addressed, followed by a discussion of the pedagogical objectives, which should be the teaching notes' focus. Teaching notes should build a bridge between theory and practice. They should identify the critical points that participants should explore during the negotiation, link them to relevant theory, and provide discussion questions to guide the debriefing process and prompt participants to reflect on their negotiation strategies, decisions, and outcomes. It is helpful to use a simulation a few times in class before writing the teaching notes.

In our experience, simulation writing classes are very popular, in terms of both enrollments and course evaluations. Students enjoy the satisfaction of developing something of their own and appreciate the possibility of using the simulations they write in their teaching or in negotiation competitions. However, students in these classes require much support and feedback from the instructor to achieve good results.

Instructors may incorporate the teaching of simulation writing into other negotiation courses or may design discrete classes around the topic. In either approach, instruction may be organized into three parts:

• A kick‐off meeting in which the objectives of the course are explained and an introduction to writing simulations is provided.

• A mid‐term meeting in which students present their ideas for simulations and their proposals for implementing them. This ensures that students start to tackle the project and provides an opportunity for early feedback.

• A final meeting in which all negotiation simulations are tested. By then, participants should have completed a draft of their simulation, which can be used for testing. This should be sent to the instructor before the final meeting. During the final meeting, the instructor can give feedback on the draft and the participants can give feedback based on their experience of carrying out the simulation. After the meeting, the participants should have some time to incorporate the feedback into their simulations before their final drafts are submitted to the instructor.

This article presents a practical guide to designing effective negotiation simulations, building on previously established fundamental principles for their design. There are various simulation types, each with its specific format, structure, and constituent parts. It is easier to write negotiation simulations when we understand the simulation types and the various schemes for writing them. We have outlined the structure and essential elements of six types of simulations that cover a wide spectrum: short introductory, distributive, integrative, multi‐issue, multiparty, and multiparty multi‐issue. The article discusses each simulation type's pedagogical use, construction basics, and core elements, including parties, decision problems, interests, and options. It also provides examples to illustrate the different types of negotiation simulations.

We hope that a better understanding of the diverse types and structures of negotiation simulations and their constituent elements will empowers educators to craft effective and engaging negotiation exercises that foster valuable learning experiences for their students.