# Negotiation Mapping

Participants draw visual mind maps outlining the advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of a contentious issue, then pair up to build a shared map focusing strictly on common ground and concrete commitments.

**Time:** 50 minutes. Source specifies 50 minutes total; step durations are tuned to fit exactly within 50 minutes.
**People:** 6 to 20. Individual mapping, paired mapping, then whole-group presentations.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Map individual perspectives visually on a shared dispute to identify common ground and specific commitments for resolution.
**Use it when:** Use when a team or group is stuck on a divisive operational or strategic issue and needs to step back from verbal debate to find points of agreement.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group has not identified a single common dispute yet, or when active hostility makes paired collaboration unsafe.

## Materials and tools

- Sheets of 11x17-inch or flipchart paper (at least 2 per participant)
- Colored felt-tip markers (at least 3 different colors per person)
- Wall-safe painter tape for posting maps
- Facilitator-drawn sample map prepared from participant_materials guidelines

## Before participants arrive

1. Draw a sample map on an 11x17 sheet using the layout described in participant_materials and post it where all participants can see it.
2. Clear sufficient wall space so all participants can hang their posters simultaneously.

## Say this to open

We are facing an unresolved issue where people see different trade-offs. Today we will use negotiation mapping to get our views out of our heads and onto paper. Instead of debating verbally, you will map out the advantages, disadvantages, and ripple effects as you see them. After that, you will find a partner with overlapping ideas and build a joint map limited strictly to what you both agree on and what you are willing to do.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce the issue and mapping rules (3 minutes)

State the specific issue to be mapped. Show the sample poster. Explain the visual layout: center symbol for the core topic, separate branches for advantages and disadvantages using distinct colors, and secondary twigs for consequences. Emphasize that rough doodles, symbols, and brief phrases work better than sentences.

### 2. Draw individual maps (12 minutes)

Participants work independently in silence. Each person writes the issue title and draws a central icon, branches out several advantages and disadvantages using distinct colors, adds consequence sub-branches, and sketches quick icons. Stop at 12 minutes and distribute tape.

### 3. Conduct gallery walk and pair up (5 minutes)

Everyone posts their map on the wall. Participants walk the room silently to review each other's maps. Each person finds a partner who shares at least one or two items. Clarify that it is acceptable if one person listed an item as an advantage while the other listed it as a disadvantage. If an odd person remains, form one trio.

### 4. Create collaborative agreement maps (15 minutes)

Pairs (and any trio) take a fresh sheet of paper and markers. Partners compare maps and draw a new joint map that includes only the areas where they reach consensus. The joint map must add an outer branch layer stating specific actions each partner is willing to commit to doing.

### 5. Present collaborative maps (10 minutes)

Each pair takes up to 60 seconds to hold up their shared map and read aloud their agreed actions. Limit remarks strictly to what the partners agreed to do. Enforce the 60-second cap strictly so all pairs present within the 10-minute block.

### 6. Debrief and schedule next steps (5 minutes)

Facilitate a brief group reflection on common patterns across the posters using the debrief questions. Take up to 3 observations from the room. Collect the commitment sheets to frame the agenda for the next planning session.


## Debrief questions

- Looking across all shared maps, what common ground emerged that was not visible during spoken debates?
- What difference did using drawings and branches make compared to arguing the points verbally?
- Which committed actions on these posters can we implement immediately?

**Finished output:** A collection of individual visual maps and paired consensus maps showing agreed facts and concrete commitments.

## Remote

Use an online digital whiteboard (such as Miro or Mural). Each participant receives an individual frame with digital sticky notes, drawing tools, and preset branch colors. For the gallery walk, participants pan across frames. Pairs move into breakout rooms with a shared canvas frame to build their joint agreement map and action branches.

## Hybrid

In-person participants map on physical 11x17 paper while remote participants use a digital whiteboard. In-person participants take photos of their maps to upload to the whiteboard before the gallery walk. Form all-remote pairs and all-in-person pairs so partners can inspect maps and sketch together smoothly.

## Access and participation choices

- Visual drawing is optional; participants who prefer text can use bulleted lists, boxes, and text labels instead of sketches.
- Anyone may choose to focus their map on neutral operational facts rather than personal feelings, or pass on presenting verbally during the paired share.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants spend all their time drawing elaborate illustrations instead of capturing the dispute.**

Remind the room to use rough doodles, icons, and short labels rather than art. Call time markers at 5 and 10 minutes.

**A pair gets trapped arguing over their points of disagreement while making the shared map.**

Intervene and remind them of the rule: do not debate disputed items. If both do not immediately agree on an item, leave it off the shared sheet and map only what is undisputed.


## Terms used here

- Negotiation Mapping: A visual brainstorming method where participants draw branches of advantages, disadvantages, and consequences around a central problem to locate areas of mutual agreement.

## Participant material: Sample Negotiation Map Layout

FACILITATOR SAMPLE MAP LAYOUT:

Center circle:
- Label: 'Shift Course to Online Only'
- Icon: A laptop computer with a question mark

Green branches (Advantages):
- Branch 1: 'Wider Reach' -> Sub-branch: 'Attract distant students' -> Sub-branch: 'Higher enrollment numbers'
- Branch 2: 'Schedule Flexibility' -> Sub-branch: 'Self-paced learning' -> Sub-branch: 'Fewer room conflicts'

Red branches (Disadvantages):
- Branch 1: 'Lost Studio Contact' -> Sub-branch: 'No hands-on critique' -> Sub-branch: 'Drop in technical craft quality'
- Branch 2: 'Tech Barriers' -> Sub-branch: 'Unequal student software access' -> Sub-branch: 'High frustration'

Outer Agreement/Action layer (for shared map demonstration):
- Branch: 'Hybrid Pilot Course' -> Commitment: 'Develop 1 blended test syllabus by next month'

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Thiagi GameLetter (December 2006), featuring the activity 'Negotiation Mapping' by Regina Rowland, adapted from 'Mapping Inner Space' by Nancy Margulies and Nusa Maal.

The original newsletter issue (TGL December 2006) contained multiple articles. The old database record mistakenly indexed the editorial column ('Untraining the Trainer') instead of the standalone structured sharing activity. We recovered 'Negotiation Mapping' by Regina Rowland published in that same issue. The original instructions suggest a 50-minute total but listed steps that totaled 55 minutes (15 min individual, 20 min pair, 20 min presentation). UWT tightened the step sequence to exactly 50 minutes (3 min setup/rules, 12 min individual mapping, 5 min gallery walk, 15 min paired work, 10 min presentations, 5 min debrief). Presentation turns are fixed at up to 60 seconds per pair so 10 pairs fit within 10 minutes. A text specification for the sample demonstrator map is added to participant_materials so facilitators can reproduce it directly.

[thiagi.net](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/december2006.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/tgl-december-2006/