Would students please note that achievement of the learning outcomes for this assessment is demonstrated against the assessment criteria shown below (which are not necessarily weighted equally). All marks/grades remain indicative until they have been considered and confirmed by the Assessment Board
Assessment Criteria
Marks Awarded
Marks Available
1
Provision of sufficient contextual content and supporting insight into the central issue of conflict; the origins, scope, people and impact
25
2
Identification and analysis of potential areas of collaboration and a clear rationale for adopting a negotiating strategy with the other party
30
3
Propose a contextually relevant route to achieve resolution, using evidence and ideas by way of support, which link to the scenario in part A, below.
25
4
Select and analyse an alternative approach to negotiating to demonstrate depth of learning – with a clear indication as to where this route may be used effectively. Original designs, supported by theoretical insights will attract additional marks.
20
Executive MBA – Negotiating To Yes – Assignment – 2017
As with so many academic bodies of knowledge, negotiation is no exception, in that formal definitions of negotiation vary. However, theorists do accept certain basic tenets. The most prevalent is the assumption that parties who negotiate agree in at least one fundamental respect; there is a shared belief that their respective purposes will be better served by entering into negotiation with the other party.
Contextualise a negotiable issue which has occurred within an organisation with which you are familiar, or, alternatively draw on a similar issue from a case study or the business media and provide a critical insight into the origins of the conflict between the two parties and the styles with which the conflict is evident.
Identify and synthesize the differing and mutual interests held by the two parties to demonstrate the parameters within which compromise and collaboration may be reached.
Propose a route by which conflict resolution may be achieved, drawing on both your selected example and relevant academic theory in order to achieve a solution which is agreeable to both parties.
Critically evaluate analternative negotiating approach that may be applicable to business scenarios.
Guidance:
Marks will be awarded for business standard presentation. The submission should have a brief introduction and be divided into clear sub-sections. The work should be completed with a brief summary and reinforcement of the main points; no theory should be used at this stage.
Note: correct Harvard referencing throughout – and a reminder that academic work is evidence based and that theory should be used in the four main sections of the assignment.
Masters level Marking Criteria
No work has been submitted in the time allowed, or the work submitted demonstrates little or no understanding of the task or the subject matter. This may be evident where the work is substantially incoherent, irrelevant or lacking in factual content, or where these shortcomings are present in combination such that the work as a whole is unsound. Major errors of fact, or evidence of substantially poor cognitive or other relevant skills will also lead to a fail.
Fail:
Marks below 30%
The work shows some knowledge and required skills are present to a degree. There may be appreciable error or omission of facts, poor structure, misdirection to the task, or poor conceptualisation or illustration of the work. Evidence of analysis and evaluation is weak. There will be indications in the work that the candidate is capable of improving it by further application to the task
Fail:
Marks in the range
30% – 39%
The work contains sufficient descriptive information. There is some analysis and explanation with appropriate illustration and example, and some attempt to evaluate. The work will generally be coherent and relevant, it will contain some useful proposals or solutions related to familiar solutions and there will be some attempt at originality. It will be communicated clearly.
Pass:
Marks in the range of
40% – 49%
The work contains all the necessary contextual information. There will be adequate analysis, explanation and conceptualisation, with appropriate illustration and example, and sound attempts to evaluate and judge. The work will be substantially coherent and will contain relevant and feasible proposals or solutions related to familiar situations, some responses to uncertainty or ambiguity and some acknowledgements of the implications of change.
Pass:
Marks in the range of
50% – 59%
The work will contain complete explanations using most available information. There will be substantial analysis; the ability to recognise evidence, use ideas, conceptualise, evaluate and judge in familiar situations will be clearly demonstrated. Proposals or solutions will be contextually relevant and useful, with substantial evidence of the skill necessary to operationalize them in a variety of situations, including those in which uncertainty, ambiguity or change are present. The work will provide evidence of originality and of useful knowledge transfer to novel situations. It will be coherent and convincing.
Pass:
Marks in the range of
60% – 69%
The work will clearly demonstrate the ability to analyse accurately, reliably and fully, all relevant information; to use evidence; to conceptualise, evaluate and judge; to propose and operationalise effective solutions, and to show substantial originality and creativity in a variety of familiar situations or in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty or change. It will demonstrate valuable knowledge transfer and propose feasible solutions for a wide range of situations. Evidence of the ability to innovate will be present.
Pass:
Marks in the range of 70% and above
please use those and the below Negotiation Case Study Links:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279477545_International_Business_Negotiations_A_case_stud
y_of_Philips
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/case-studies/repsol-ypf-b-considering-options
http://www.brighthubpm.com/methods-strategies/106943-negotiation-tips-for-project-managers-learningfrom-historic-cases/
https://www.cedr.com/skills/studies/
https://hbr.org/2012/11/deal-making-20-a-guide-to-complex-negotiations
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/apple-v-samsung-an-example-of-negotiation-inbusiness-gone-bad/
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=drlj
http://cws.cengage.co.uk/martin3/students/Case%20study%202.pdf
b23a-7377528ac0d9&v=&b=&from_search=8
22.-negotiation-insights-final-mp-08.05.13.pdf 9810681437.pdf Case Studies_ The Ways to Achieve More Effective Negotiations.pdf Case study 2.pdf HBR_2015_Control_the_Negotiation_Before_it_Begins.pdf
Please use the following references:
Cox, G. (2012), How to Achieve Win-Win Outcomes. Harlow: Pearson Education.
This book is outside the scope of our collection, but may be available from an alternative source
De Barr, B. and De Janasz, S. (2013), Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
This book is outside the scope of our collection, but may be available from an alternative source
Falcao, H. (2010), Value Negotiation: How to Finally Get the Win-Win Right. Harlow:
Lewicki, R. J. and Hiam, A. (2010), Mastering Business Negotiation: A Working Guide to Making Deals and Resolving Conflict. Chichester: John Wiley.
Nikolopoulos, A. (2011), Negotiating Strategically. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ury, W. (2012), Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Random House Books.
Ward, D. (2012), Contract Negotiation Handbook: Getting the Most Out of Commercial Deals. Chichester: John Wiley