Analysis and reflection paper
Order Instructions:
Guidelines: There will be 5 – 6 questions for you to answer. These will be a combination of personal and analytical questions so you may use first person. There is a minimum requirement of five sources (including the textbooks) and I ask that you try and use more journals and print related sources rather than just pure online sources. Please use Microsoft Word with standard margins, double-spaced with a works cited page at the end. Although you do not need a formal cover sheet, please place your name, class and date at the top of the first page. Also, please designate if you are in the MGT 3303 or SCM 3303 course. Finally, the paper should be 4 – 6 pages in length in terms of text excluding works cited.
Questions:
1) Discuss a time when you found yourself in a position where you negotiated in real life.
a) Tell me about the circumstances and how did things turn out for you and the other party. b) Looking at the materials from class, which set of principles do you think you utilized in the negotiation (tactics, techniques etc.). Also, what did the other party utilize (again, tactics, techniques etc.) in their aspect of the negotiation?
2) Reflect upon these three definitions of negotiations:
Lewicki et al – Negotiations is a process by which two or more parties attempt to resolve their opposing interests
Jim Camp – Negotiation is the human effort to bring about agreements between two or more parties with all parties having the right to veto
a) Compare and contrast both of these two definitions to each other. Demonstrate where they are both similar and also quite different. While I know you don’t have the work from Jim Camp, his definition should give you plenty to work with for this paper.
b) In all honesty, which definition seems to work best for you? In other words, when you think of how you approach negotiations, which definition applies more towards how you view and act in a negotiation situation and tell me why.
3) Think about a time when you had to negotiate with someone who was at greater level of power than you.
a) What was the situation exactly and what was at stake for you or the people that you were negotiating for?
b) Which approach did you use in order to be effective? If you weren’t effective, what do you think happened that caused you to not get the desired results? Knowing what you now know, what would you have done differently?
4) Tell me about a situation where you had alternatives or BATNA’s in mind. What was the situation, and did the other side have BATNA’s?
a) In your experience (whether it relates to the above question or in any other instance) do (or did) BATNA’s actually work for you in negotiation situations?
b) Does the concept of win-win also something that agree with or do you find yourself more inclined to follow the win-lose ideology?
5) Inevitably, negotiations can result in conflict. Reflect upon the time when conflict arose as a result of a negotiation in your life.
a) What happened during the negotiation situation that caused conflict to occur? Was the problem related to you or the other party?
b) Looking at the elements of effective conflict management, which elements did you use during the conflict? Also currently, which style do you prefer to use now when conflicts arise?
*Extra Credit Bonus Question worth 5 points towards your lowest grade*
Discuss how relationships are valued and viewed in negotiations.
a) How important is it to you to establish and or maintain a relationship when you are negotiating?
b) In terms of meeting new business partners, how are relationships valued in different cultures? Contrast how Western and non-Western cultures view and value the importance of relationships in negotiation situations. Provide some examples and are there points that can be taken from various cultures in terms of how to work with relationships during negotiations?
SAMPLE ANSWER
Analysis and Reflection paper
#1 a).
I happened to have been involved in a negotiation with my cousin Erick in 2012. It was summer and I wanted us to spend our holidays in at the coast so that we could enjoy the breeze from the beach, and dine in the flashy restaurants at the coast. On the other side, Erick wanted us to visit some of our relations upcountry and visit some of the flashy hotels in the region. We had budgeted for a period of one week for our holidays, and both of us wanted to have enough time to cool our minds from the busy academic year that we had experienced that year. In relation to this, both of us had the same interest, which was to relieve ourselves from the stress of learning. Moreover, both of us wanted us wanted to have enough time to enjoy a variety meals, which could be found in either the hotels or restaurants. However, we had differing opinions in terms of where we wanted to spend our holidays. As such, we agreed to send three days at the coast and the other four days upcountry. This agreement benefited both of us in that we had enough time to cool our minds, enjoy various meals and coastal breeze, and visit our relations.
b)
In the negotiation, I applied the principle of focusing on interest and not positions. As such, I focused on the interest that both of us had as opposed to our positions on where to spend the holidays. Consequently, the two of us had to apply the principle of looking for alternatives that could satisfy our interests (Kazakevicue 158). As such, we agreed to spend art of the time at the coast and the other part upcountry. Here, we managed to achieve mutual gain. Furthermore, both us applied the concept of insisting on objective criteria in that we ensured that we relived ourselves from the stress of learning, and enjoyed a variety of meals.
#2
In the definition of negotiation provided by Lewicki et al., it is considered as collaborative process in which two or many individuals try to resolve their opposing views or interest. In relation to this, my cousin Erick and I wanted to resolve our opposing interests in that Erick wanted us to spend our holidays upcountry, while I wanted us to spend the holidays at the coast. On the other hand, Jim Camp defines negotiation as the effort of human to establish agreements between two or many parties I which all parties have the right to veto. In relation to this, Erick and I were decided to look for a common consensus in which both of us offered opinions.
a)
The definitions of negotiation provided by Jim Camp and Lewicki et al. are similar in that they both refer to it in terms of looking for solution for two or more parties’ opposing views. On the other hand, the definition offered by Lewiki et al. focuses on the resolution of opposing interest from one party’s point of view, while Camp’s definition focus on the resolution of opposing views from the point of view of all parties involved (Collisson 198). As such, Camp’s definition emphasizes on mutual gain as opposed to the definition of Lewicki et al.
b)
In my opinion, the definition provided by Lewicki et al. offers the best approach to negotiation. One of the aims of negotiation is ensuring that a party’ interests are fulfilled. Anytime I am involved in a negotiation, I often try to ensure that most my interests are satisfied. As such, this definition works best for me as opposed to Camp’s definition, which is based on the agreement formed on the opinions of the opposing parties.
#3
a)
I remember being involved in a negation with my dad about where I was to attend my high school learning. I wanted to learn in one of the high schools in the city, whereas my dad wanted me to attend a high school that was located in a remote area. I preferred the city to the remote place as it could give me chance to get exposed to new ideas and friends whom I considered civilized and trendy. On the contrary, my dad argued that the city life could hinder my education as it could expose me to bad company. Thus, my getting exposed to new ideas and fashionable friends what at stake.
b)
I was forced to employ the win-lose approach or the distributive negation. This approach is founded on the idea that one individual can manage to win only at the expense of the other person. One of the characteristics of this approach is that the dominant strategies include withholding of information and manipulation (Tastan 1343). I knew that my dad loved me so much that he did not like to see me get hurt or sad. As a result, used emotional blackmail to get my plea had. I decided to be sad and emotional when my dad insisted on me learning at the school located in the remote region. I refused to eat or talk to anyone and this strategy managed to be effective I that my dad allowed me to study in the city.
#4
BATNA refers to the course of action or step that will be adopted by a party in case the current negotiations fail thereby making it difficult for an agreement to be achieved. BATNA acts as the principle focus and the driving mechanism behind successful negotiators (Dana 87). While in high school, my dad did not want me to have a girlfriend or be involved in any issue of boyfriend-girlfriend affair. However, I was attracted strongly to a girl called Liza who was also attracted to me. In contrast, Liza’s parents had no problems with her having a boyfriend. Our problem came when Liza insisted that we had to make our relationship known to our parents. I knew that this issue could bring problems in our relationship since my dad could not consent to our affair. Therefore, I had to find a BATNA, which was to take her to my uncle who had no issues with boyfriend-girlfriend affair. Liza only wanted our relationship to be known to our relations and this action could make her satisfied in case she insisted on me taking her to my parents. In like manner, she embraced this idea and we continued dating throughout our high school learning.
b)
In my experience, I believe that BATNA’s often work effectively in situations of negotiations. BATNA’s often provide appropriate solution in cases where two or more parties cannot agree at each other’s’ view by providing a neutral ground. Thus, BATNAs are effective in negation situations where the parties involved have robust stands or positions.
b)
In my view, I believe that the concept of win-win is ineffective and unrealistic. In a negation, the interest of one party often ends up prevailing over the interest of the other. Moreover, it is difficult to find a situation in which all parties in a negation end up being satisfied fully. As such, one party often feels more satisfied than the other (Collisson 195). Therefore, the concept of win-lose happens to be more realistic to me than that of win-win.
#5
a)
Indeed, negotiations can lead to conflicts. Conflict can be defined as a process that commences when a party perceives or feels that other party has affected negatively something the other party cares about. In negotiation situations in which the parties involved believe that their needs cannot be met, conflicts often arise (Sierau 227). I happened to have this experience with my friend, Edward. We had been saving money together and wanted to open a small business that could deal with groceries. As such, we had to negotiate on how we could share our profits. Edward had enough of free time, which meant that he could spend more time in the grocery than I could, which made him to demand for a bigger share of the profits. On the other hand, my financial contributions to the business were slightly more than Edward’s, and I wanted to earn a bigger share than him. Thus, the problem was related to both of us. As a result, we could not reach a common agreement since each of us felt that our needs could not be met even on a fifty-fifty basis. Thus, a conflict emerged and we were forced to abandon our plan and split our capital in terms of our contributions.
b)
Effective conflict management elements include listening, understanding the conflict, empathy, and agreement. Unfortunately, I did not apply any of these elements in my negotiation with Edward (Dana 76). As such, we did not manage to agree with each other. We needed to have taken adequate time to understand the conflict, listen at each other, and empathize with each other. These steps could have helped us reach a common agreement. Currently, any time I am involved in a conflict, I always apply these three elements to arrive at a satisfying agreement.
#6
a)
In my view, maintaining a relationship during negotiation is vital as it helps in ensuring that the parties involved in the negation do not cross each other’s boundary. Moreover, it provides a platform on which the parties involved in the negotiation can view and understand each other’s views.
b)
Various cultures have different approaches of handling negotiation from the viewpoint of relations. In western cultures, the aspect of relationship is not emphasized during negotiations. On the contrary, non-western cultures such as African prioritize the aspect of relationship during negotiations. As such, they tend to arrive at agreements that are based on maintaining the relationships of parties involved in negotiations (Dana 192). For instance, negotiations that involve members of the same kin are often conducted in a manner that preserves the kinship involved between the parties involved.
Works Cited
Collisson, Brian. “Failing to See Eye to Eye: The Role of the Self in Conflict Misperception.” American Journal of Psychology 16(2014): 193-200
Dana, Daniel, Conflict Resolution. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Kazakevicue, Aiste. “Adlerian Lifestyle and Conflict Resolution Strategies in a Lithuanian Organization.” Journal of Individual Psychology 2(2013): 156-167
Sierau, Susan; Herzberg, York. “Conflict Resolution as Dyadic Mediator: Considering the Partner Perspective on Conflict Resolution.” European Journal of Personality 26(2012): 221-232.
Tastan, Nuray. “Effect of Father-Child Bonding on Conflict Resolution During Emerging Adulthood.” Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 41(2013):1339-1345.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!