# Negotiation Debrief: [Negotiation name and date] > A structured debrief for any negotiation you have just finished, real or role-played. It records what was agreed, > computes the value you claimed and the value the deal created against your plan, reviews the process round by > round, checks for a better package both sides would prefer, assesses the relationship and the ethics, and turns > all of it into lessons and a short list of changes for next time. > It is for MBA students after each course role-play and for professionals after real negotiations. > Source basis: Raiffa (1982, 1985) for value creation, Pareto efficiency and post-settlement settlements; Curhan, > Elfenbein and Xu (2006) for subjective value; Kolb (1984) and Gentner, Loewenstein and Thompson (2003) for learning > from experience and comparison. The worked example continues the fictional Corvane Robotics job offer from > mba/mba-negotiation-planner, and every number in it was computed in Python. > Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked *Example*. ## Document control | Field | Value | |---|---| | Negotiation | [Example: Senior Product Manager offer, Corvane Robotics] | | Plan used | [Link or file name of the planner, version] | | Date of negotiation | YYYY-MM-DD | | Date of debrief | YYYY-MM-DD (within 24 hours) | | Counterpart | [Name, role, organisation] | | Format | [Video call / in person / email / mixed] | | Observer or coach | [Name, if any] | | Reviewed by | [Mentor, coach or study partner] | | Version | [0.1] | | Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD | ## Contents - [How to debrief](#how-to-debrief) - [1. What was agreed](#1-what-was-agreed) - [2. Outcome against targets: value claimed and created](#2-outcome-against-targets-value-claimed-and-created) - [3. Process review](#3-process-review) - [4. Post-settlement check](#4-post-settlement-check) - [5. Relationship and subjective value](#5-relationship-and-subjective-value) - [6. Ethics check](#6-ethics-check) - [7. Lessons](#7-lessons) - [8. Next time](#8-next-time) - [Debrief quality checklist](#debrief-quality-checklist) - [Common mistakes](#common-mistakes) - [Sources and further reading](#sources-and-further-reading) - [Revision history](#revision-history) - [Standard and licence note](#standard-and-licence-note) ## How to debrief Experience alone does not make better negotiators; reflection on experience does. The debrief follows the experiential learning cycle (Kolb 1984): describe what happened, analyse why, draw a general lesson, and plan a concrete change to test next time. Comparing several negotiations side by side helps you extract the principle rather than the surface story: in experiments, students who compared two cases were more likely to apply a negotiation strategy later than students who studied the same cases one at a time (Gentner, Loewenstein and Thompson 2003). ```mermaid flowchart LR A["1 Facts: what was agreed"] --> B["2 Numbers: value claimed and created"] B --> C["3 Process: offers, concessions, questions"] C --> D["4 Post-settlement check"] D --> E["5 Relationship and 6 ethics"] E --> F["7 Lessons across negotiations"] F --> G["8 Changes for next time"] G --> H["Next plan (mba/mba-negotiation-planner)"] ``` The worked example: Amara Okafor accepted a revised offer from Corvane Robotics after four exchanges. Her plan had a reservation value of 35.0 points (derived from a written offer from Rival A), a target of 70.0 points and an opening of three MESOs at 80.0 points each, all on the scoring system in the planner. ## 1. What was agreed | Issue | Agreed term | Written where | Open points | |---|---|---|---| | Base salary *(Example)* | USD 165k | Revised offer letter, 2nd version | None | | Signing bonus *(Example)* | USD 20k | Offer letter | Repayment clause if leaving within 12 months: ask HR | | Equity grant *(Example)* | USD 160k at grant, 4-year vesting | Offer letter; grant terms in the equity plan | Grant date and valuation basis to confirm | | Start date *(Example)* | 4 weeks after signing | Email from recruiter | None | | Remote days *(Example)* | 2 per week | Email from hiring manager | Not in the letter: request it in writing | | Title *(Example)* | Senior Product Manager | Offer letter | None | | [Issue] | [Term] | [Document] | [Open point] | Outcome in one line: [Example: agreement reached; Rival A declined politely on the same day.] ## 2. Outcome against targets: value claimed and created Definitions used here, for a multi-issue deal scored in points: $$ \text{surplus}_{\text{me}} = S_{\text{me}}(\text{deal}) - RV_{\text{me}}, \qquad \text{surplus}_{\text{them}} = S_{\text{them}}(\text{deal}) - RV_{\text{them}} $$ $$ \text{value created} = \text{surplus}_{\text{me}} + \text{surplus}_{\text{them}}, \qquad \text{share claimed} = \frac{\text{surplus}_{\text{me}}}{\text{value created}}, \qquad \text{efficiency} = \frac{\text{value created}}{\max_{x}\big[S_{\text{me}}(x) + S_{\text{them}}(x)\big] - RV_{\text{me}} - RV_{\text{them}}} $$ | Symbol | Meaning | |---|---| | $S_{\text{me}}, S_{\text{them}}$ | Scores of a package on each side's scoring system (theirs estimated) | | $RV_{\text{me}}, RV_{\text{them}}$ | Reservation values in points | | $\max_{x}[\cdot]$ | Highest joint score over all packages (the best point on the Pareto frontier) | | share claimed | Your part of the value the deal created | | efficiency | How much of the available value the deal captured | For a single-issue deal, use price instead of points: value created is the ZOPA width actually realised (the buyer's reservation price minus the seller's), and the buyer's share claimed is (buyer's reservation price minus agreed price) divided by that width. **Scored deal (*Example*).** | Issue | Agreed | Amara points | Corvane points (est.) | |---|---|---|---| | Base | USD 165k | 30.0 | 10.0 | | Signing bonus | USD 20k | 10.0 | 3.0 | | Equity | USD 160k | 13.0 | 5.0 | | Start | 4 weeks | 0.0 | 20.0 | | Remote | 2 days | 3.0 | 8.0 | | Title | Senior PM | 10.0 | 0.0 | | **Total** | | **66.0** | **46.0** | In Excel: `=SUM(C2:C7)` for each column, with each cell from `=INDEX(points_row, MATCH(term, options_row, 0))`. **Outcome against the plan (*Example*).** | Measure | Value | Excel formula | |---|---|---| | My score vs reservation value | 66.0 vs 35.0: surplus 31.0 | `=66-35` | | Their estimated score vs reservation value | 46.0 vs 30.0: surplus 16.0 | `=46-30` | | Value created | 47.0 points | `=31+16` | | Share claimed by me | 66.0% | `=31/47` | | Highest joint score available | 120.0 (from all 1,440 packages) | Enumerated in the calculation script | | Value available above both reservation values | 55.0 points | `=120-35-30` | | Efficiency | 85.5% | `=47/55` | | Gap to target | -4.0 points (66.0 vs 70.0) | `=66-70` | | Target achievement | 88.6% of the way from reservation value to target | `=(66-35)/(70-35)` | | Base salary share of the ZOPA | 71.4% | `=(165-157.5)/(168-157.5)` | In money (first year, *Example*): the first offer gave USD 155k cash and USD 30k a year of equity at grant value (USD 185k a year in total); the deal gives USD 185k of first-year cash including the one-off bonus and USD 40k a year of equity (USD 225k). Equity values are at grant and are uncertain; see career/offer-comparison for a fuller comparison. ```vega-lite { "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json", "description": "Pareto frontier of all packages vs offers made and the deal (Amara points vs Corvane estimated points). Example data.", "width": 380, "height": 300, "layer": [ { "data": { "values": [ {"c": 0, "e": 100}, {"c": 7, "e": 98}, {"c": 13, "e": 95}, {"c": 17, "e": 93}, {"c": 18, "e": 92}, {"c": 23, "e": 90}, {"c": 28, "e": 87}, {"c": 30, "e": 85}, {"c": 33, "e": 83}, {"c": 35, "e": 82}, {"c": 38, "e": 80}, {"c": 40, "e": 78}, {"c": 45, "e": 75}, {"c": 48, "e": 70}, {"c": 50, "e": 68}, {"c": 55, "e": 65}, {"c": 58, "e": 60}, {"c": 60, "e": 58}, {"c": 65, "e": 55}, {"c": 68, "e": 50}, {"c": 70, "e": 48}, {"c": 75, "e": 45}, {"c": 78, "e": 40}, {"c": 80, "e": 38}, {"c": 85, "e": 35}, {"c": 88, "e": 28}, {"c": 90, "e": 25}, {"c": 93, "e": 18}, {"c": 95, "e": 15}, {"c": 98, "e": 8}, {"c": 100, "e": 0} ] }, "mark": {"type": "line", "point": true, "interpolate": "step-after", "opacity": 0.6}, "encoding": { "x": {"field": "c", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Amara points", "scale": {"domain": [0, 100]}}, "y": {"field": "e", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Corvane points (estimated)", "scale": {"domain": [0, 100]}} } }, { "data": { "values": [ {"label": "R0 Corvane first offer", "c": 30, "e": 76}, {"label": "R1 Amara MESO-A", "c": 80, "e": 38}, {"label": "R2 Corvane", "c": 51, "e": 60}, {"label": "R3 Amara", "c": 78, "e": 35}, {"label": "R4 Corvane", "c": 61, "e": 50}, {"label": "R5 Amara", "c": 73, "e": 41}, {"label": "Deal", "c": 66, "e": 46}, {"label": "Target", "c": 70, "e": 48} ] }, "mark": {"type": "point", "filled": true, "size": 90}, "encoding": { "x": {"field": "c", "type": "quantitative"}, "y": {"field": "e", "type": "quantitative"}, "shape": {"field": "label", "type": "nominal", "title": "Offer"}, "color": {"field": "label", "type": "nominal", "title": "Offer"}, "tooltip": [{"field": "label", "type": "nominal"}, {"field": "c", "type": "quantitative"}, {"field": "e", "type": "quantitative"}] } }, { "data": {"values": [{"rv": 35}]}, "mark": {"type": "rule", "strokeDash": [4, 3]}, "encoding": {"x": {"field": "rv", "type": "quantitative"}} }, { "data": {"values": [{"rv": 30}]}, "mark": {"type": "rule", "strokeDash": [4, 3]}, "encoding": {"y": {"field": "rv", "type": "quantitative"}} } ] } ``` Reading the chart: the dashed lines are the two reservation values, so any package up and to the right of both is a deal both sides prefer to walking away. The deal (66, 46) sits inside the frontier: two frontier packages, (68, 50) and (70, 48), give both sides more. My table: | Measure | Value | Formula | |---|---|---| | My score / their estimated score | [ ] / [ ] | | | My surplus / their surplus | [ ] / [ ] | | | Value created / share claimed | [ ] / [ ] | | | Efficiency | [ ] | | | Gap to target / target achievement | [ ] / [ ] | | ## 3. Process review **Offer timeline (*Example*).** | Round | Who | Base | Bonus | Equity | Start | Remote | Title | Amara | Corvane (est.) | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | R0 | Corvane | 155 | 0 | 120 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 30.0 | 76.0 | | R1 | Amara (MESOs, Corvane chose A as closest) | 170 | 20 | 200 | 4 | 1 | Senior PM | 80.0 | 38.0 | | R2 | Corvane | 160 | 10 | 160 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 51.0 | 60.0 | | R3 | Amara | 170 | 10 | 200 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 78.0 | 35.0 | | R4 | Corvane | 165 | 10 | 160 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 61.0 | 50.0 | | R5 | Amara | 165 | 20 | 200 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 73.0 | 41.0 | | R6 | Corvane, accepted | 165 | 20 | 160 | 4 | 2 | Senior PM | 66.0 | 46.0 | **Concession pattern (*Example*).** Amara's own offers fell 80.0, 78.0, 73.0, then she accepted 66.0: steps of 2, 5 and 7 points, growing. Corvane's offers fell (on Amara's estimate of its points) 76.0, 60.0, 50.0, 46.0: steps of 16, 10 and 4, shrinking. Shrinking steps signal a limit; growing steps signal that more is available. Corvane's pattern was textbook; Amara's last step was the largest and was made in one move, without a trade. **Process questions.** | Question | My answer | |---|---| | Who made the first offer, and did it anchor the discussion? | [Example: Corvane's written offer; Amara's MESOs re-anchored on equity and bonus.] | | Which questions from my plan did I ask? What did I learn? | [Example: Q1 and Q3. The launch date drives everything; base is constrained by pay equity.] | | What did I share that I planned to protect, or the reverse? | [Example: said "I could start in 4 weeks" before asking for anything in return.] | | When did the negotiation turn, and why? | [Example: R4, when the manager said the start date was the only fixed point.] | | Which tactics did they use, and how did I respond? | [Example: a 48-hour deadline in R6; I accepted instead of asking for a day.] | | Did I reopen my plan when I learned something new? | [Example: no; I kept asking for remote days, which matter little to me and a lot to them.] | ## 4. Post-settlement check Raiffa (1985) proposed that parties who have reached an agreement keep it as a floor and look together for a package both prefer, adopting it only if both agree. The scoring system makes the search mechanical: list the packages that score at least as well as the deal for both sides. | Package | Change from deal | Amara | Corvane (est.) | Both better? | |---|---|---|---|---| | Deal *(Example)* | | 66.0 | 46.0 | | | P1 *(Example)* | Equity 160 to 200, remote 2 to 1 days | 70.0 | 48.0 | Yes (+4.0, +2.0) | | P2 *(Example)* | Frontier point (68, 50) from the enumeration | 68.0 | 50.0 | Yes (+2.0, +4.0) | | [Package] | [Change] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | P1 is Amara's own target package. She could propose it to the hiring manager as "one more day in the office in exchange for the larger grant", presented as a joint improvement with the current deal as the fallback. Whether to do so depends on the relationship and the moment; she wrote the idea down for her first-quarter check-in instead. ## 5. Relationship and subjective value Curhan, Elfenbein and Xu (2006) found that negotiators value four things besides the economic outcome: feelings about the instrumental outcome, about themselves, about the process, and about the relationship. Their questionnaire is published with the paper; the prompts below are original and only follow the four dimensions. | Dimension | Prompt | My rating (1 to 7) | Their likely rating | Evidence | |---|---|---|---|---| | Outcome | Was the outcome fair and better than my alternatives? | *Example:* 6 | 5 | Above RV; close to target | | Self | Did I act in line with my values and keep face? | *Example:* 5 | 6 | Rushed the last step | | Process | Was I heard; was the process fair and efficient? | *Example:* 6 | 6 | Manager thanked me for the clear packages | | Relationship | Did trust grow; would we want to work together? | *Example:* 6 | 6 | Manager offered an onboarding call | | [Dimension] | [Prompt] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | Relationship actions: [Example: thank-you email to the hiring manager and recruiter the same day; ask for the remote arrangement in writing in a friendly tone.] ## 6. Ethics check | Question | Answer | Evidence | |---|---|---| | Did I state anything I knew to be false? | *Example:* No | Described the Rival A offer as written, without inflating it | | Did I hide a material fact the other side was entitled to know? | *Example:* No | | | Did I promise anything I cannot deliver? | *Example:* No | | | Did the other side use a tactic I consider unethical? How did I respond? | *Example:* No; the deadline was real | Recruiter explained the approval cycle | | Would I be comfortable if the full exchange were made public? | *Example:* Yes | | See mba/mba-ethics-guide and the ethics range in Lewicki and Robinson (1998). ## 7. Lessons | # | Lesson (general principle) | Evidence from this negotiation | Seen before? | |---|---|---|---| | L1 *(Example)* | Plan the last concession as carefully as the first | Growing steps 2, 5, 7; the last 7 points went in one move | Yes: RP-03 in class | | L2 *(Example)* | Ask for what is cheap for them and valuable for me | Asked for remote days (5 points to me, 15 to them) instead of equity | No | | L3 *(Example)* | Never give a high-value item for them without a trade | Offered a 4-week start before asking for anything | Yes: RP-05 | | L4 *(Example)* | MESOs reveal priorities: read the choice before countering | Corvane chose MESO-A (early start, more office days), then countered on base, bonus and equity but kept the 4-week start | No | | L[n] | [Lesson] | [Evidence] | [ ] | Comparison across debriefs: list the lessons you have now seen in two or more negotiations. Those are your patterns, and they are the ones to work on. ## 8. Next time | # | Change I will make | How I will know I did it | Next opportunity | |---|---|---|---| | N1 *(Example)* | Write the concession steps on paper and look at them before every counter | Steps shrink in the next debrief | Course RP-07 | | N2 *(Example)* | Ask "what is easy for you to give?" before proposing any trade | Question appears in my notes | Course RP-07 | | N3 *(Example)* | Ask for a pause before accepting under a deadline | No acceptance on the same call | First-quarter review | | N[n] | [Change] | [Evidence] | [When] | ## Debrief quality checklist - [ ] Terms recorded from the written agreement, with open points listed. - [ ] Deal scored on the same system as the plan, on both sides. - [ ] Surplus, value created, share claimed and efficiency computed. - [ ] Offer timeline rebuilt and concession pattern described. - [ ] Post-settlement check done. - [ ] Relationship and ethics assessed with evidence. - [ ] Lessons written as general principles with evidence. - [ ] No more than three changes, each observable, copied into the next plan. ## Common mistakes 1. **Judging the outcome by feel.** Satisfaction and economic value often diverge; compute both. 2. **Comparing with the opening instead of the reservation value.** "I got 82% of what I asked for" says nothing about how good the deal was. 3. **Changing the scoring system after the fact.** Re-weighting issues to make the deal look better hides the lesson. If the weights were wrong, record that as a lesson. 4. **Ignoring value created.** A high share of a small pie is not a win when a larger pie was available. 5. **Narrative instead of analysis.** A debrief that retells the conversation without the offer timeline cannot find patterns. 6. **Blaming the counterpart.** "They were tough" is not a lesson. Ask what you could have done differently given that they were tough. 7. **Too many lessons.** Ten lessons produce no change. Pick three. 8. **Lessons tied to the surface story.** "Ask Corvane about launches" will not transfer; "ask what their deadline drives" will. 9. **Debriefing days later.** Memory fills gaps with what you wish had happened. 10. **Sharing confidential role information after class.** Debrief with your own information and what the instructor releases. ## Sources and further reading - Raiffa, H. (1982). *The Art and Science of Negotiation*. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. - Raiffa, H. (1985). Post-settlement settlements. *Negotiation Journal*, 1(1), 9-12. - Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., and Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 91(3), 493-512. - Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., and Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 95(2), 393-408. - Kolb, D. A. (1984). *Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development*. Prentice Hall. - Schön, D. A. (1983). *The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action*. Basic Books. - Thompson, L., and Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 47(1), 98-123. - Lewicki, R. J., and Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 17(6), 665-682. Further reading (named only): Thompson, *The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator*; Malhotra and Bazerman, *Negotiation Genius* (2007); Lewicki, Barry and Saunders, *Negotiation*. Open resource: OpenStax, *Organizational Behavior*, chapter "Conflict and Negotiations" (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior. ## Revision history | Version | Date | Author | Change summary | |---|---|---|---| | 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Your name] | First debrief, within 24 hours | | 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Your name] | *Example:* Added the counterpart's revealed priorities; re-estimated their points | ## Standard and licence note Structure aligned with the negotiation analysis of Raiffa (1982, 1985), the subjective value framework of Curhan, Elfenbein and Xu (2006) and the experiential learning cycle of Kolb (1984). The text, prompts and worked example are original; the subjective value questionnaire is not reproduced. Corvane Robotics and Amara Okafor are fictional. This debrief template is independent and not affiliated with or endorsed by any business school, publisher or negotiation programme. Template licence: MIT.