Negotiation Article Critique
Formal academic paper with introduction, thesis and conclusion at least 1 outside source, more is better
Textbook – Lewicki, Roy J., Saunders, David M., and Barry, Bruce. 2010. Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Provide a summary and critique of the above article.
Approximately 1/3 of the paper should be a summary
2/3 of the paper should offer a scholarly critique
For a scholarly critique, you can illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the article. You should also connect the work to course materials and other ideas that you have encountered in conflict resolution. You can use your insights as a scholar, but you should also use other scholarly sources(at least 1) to offer insights regarding the article’s strengths and weaknesses. (For instance, other theories that contradict or add to what they are saying, other related aspects of negotiation that the author did not consider, strengths or weaknesses in their research methods or sources, insightful or problematic analyses that they made, and so on.)
The aim of the critique is to critically analyze the article, however, that does not mean to criticize based solely on your own personal and unsubstantiated opinion. Rather you must aim to be objective in your analysis by looking at both the strengths and weaknesses of an article compared against a number of criteria.
The best critique would look at the article from several different perspectives
You should question the premise and underlying assumptions of the article and the authors reasons for writing it, who published it and its overall scholarly merit.
Negotiation Article Critique
Article – Peacebuilding in the Era of Trump: Deal or No Deal?
APA format
4 pages
Formal academic paper with introduction, thesis and conclusion at least 1 outside source, more is better
Textbook – Lewicki, Roy J., Saunders, David M., and Barry, Bruce. 2010. Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Provide a summary and critique of the above article.
Approximately 1/3 of the paper should be a summary
2/3 of the paper should offer a scholarly critique
For a scholarly critique, you can illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the article. You should also connect the work to course materials and other ideas that you have encountered in conflict resolution. You can use your insights as a scholar, but you should also use other scholarly sources(at least 1) to offer insights regarding the articles strengths and weaknesses. (For instance, other theories that contradict or add to what they are saying, other related aspects of negotiation that the author did not consider, strengths or weaknesses in their research methods or sources, insightful or problematic analyses that they made, and so on.)
The aim of the critique is to critically-analyze the article, however that does not mean to criticize based solely on your own personal and unsubstantiated opinion. Rather you must aim to be objective in your analysis by looking at both the strengths and weaknesses of an article compared against a number of criteria.
The best critique would look at the article from several different perspectives
You should question the premise and underlying assumptions of the article and the authors reasons for writing it, who published it and its overall scholarly merit.
Use these questions as your guide in the critique
– What was the major purpose or theme or premise the author was trying to convey in this writing
– On what evidence did the author base their points? [citing facts from several cases to support a major point is one method]
– What logical argument did they use to go from evidence to conclusion? [conclusions must logically follow form the analysis]
– What might the authors motivation be for writing the article?What is their unique or different perspective when compared with others writing on this topic?
– Are the authors arguments backed-up by facts, figures, and quotes from reputable sources? [Wikipedia is not. how do we know a journal is reputable? Double-blind peer reviewed]
– What is the authors professional background and what is their institutional affiliation? [are they legitimate authority on the topic they are writing about?]
Peacebuilding in the Era of Trump: Deal or No Deal?
By: Denise Crossan
Introduction
No easy, single definition captures the range of activities encompassed within the discipline of peacebuilding (Cunliffe 2017). But from what we know about President Donald Trump’s past, it seems fair to assume that the job title “peacebuilder” – whichever definition one chooses – has never before featured on his résumé. But today, the world finds itself confronting the reality that the most powerful position in the world is occupied by a person whose career is replete with litigation and conflict, and who has displayed limited knowledge of historical peace efforts and an outright disdain toward those institutions established to preserve peace.
Such deficiencies could, in theory, be overcome. Indeed, simply drawing from a plethora of general business literature would suggest the following: surround yourself with experts, get to know your customers, understand their pain, and be prepared to fail quickly and learn. In his first eighteen months in office, however, Trump has displayed a resistance to listening to anyone except himself to guide him in sensitive diplomatic situations. Indeed, this dogmatic style of negotiation is exactly what his supporters had hoped Trump would bring to the presidency.
But how will Trump’s negotiation style influence peacebuilders of the future? Could his antagonistic and bombastic approach to negotiation actually bring peace to intractable conflicts around the world where others have failed? And how might the era of Trump influence our approach to peacebuilding going forward?
Although Trump seems for the most part unconstrained by any particular political or humanitarian ideology, preferring instead to rely on his visceral and chameleon-like instincts to construct a positive image of himself, he does follow a loose set of rules that he has described as his key to success, as laid out in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal (1987). In this self-congratulatory business manual, Trump applied thick layers of his favored “truthful hyperbole” to recommend ten business practices that, he claimed, built his financial fortune and fame. Once the reader wades through the commentary that seems only to prove Trump talks incessantly on the telephone, chapter two reveals Trump’s golden rules of negotiation, summarized as: think big, protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself, maximize your options, use your leverage, enhance your location, get the word out, fight back, deliver the goods, contain the costs, and finally, in all of this effort, have fun (Trump 1987: 45-64). Eerily, we now read these rules with new eyes, as we see how they have been applied to running the administration and have thus affected the world, where Trump’s success and subsequent sense of self-worth appear inextricably linked to the protectionist economy of the United States and its new status as a nationalistic and isolated actor in a seemingly hostile and unfair world.
If Trump lives by a set of rules of negotiation for his personal success, then perhaps, by comparison, so do peacebuilders. Both sets of rules arise from unique lived experiences that have deeply shaped their form and purpose. In “The Emerging Tool Chest for Peacebuilders,” Chadwick Alger (1996: 21) laid out his “inventory of the available instruments for pursuing peace.” He described each tool for peace, twenty-two in total, chronologically and explained how each builds upon the other. Whereas Trump’s list arose from a relatively narrow range of individual experiences gleaned largely from within one industry, Alger’s peace tools reflect his consideration of some of humanity’s worst conflicts and atrocities.
As Alger’s article illustrates, great peacebuilders, motivated to prevent these events from ever happening again, have created charters, enacted international laws, and built such institutions as the United Nations to maintain a unified collaborative approach for maintaining and promoting peace around the world through such mechanisms as the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council and Security Council, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, more recently, the Sustainable Development Goals. These entities reflect the universal collective goals – peace, fairness, equality, justice – of their founders.
Trump’s attempts at playing the peacebuilder range from the pragmatic (at best) to the divisive and incendiary. From his recently espoused “one state/two states; whatever works for you” approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict, which he has also characterized as simply “a real estate deal” (Liebermann 2018), to his inability to explicitly condemn the right-wing extremists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Trump is, perhaps unwittingly, flouting the established conventions of peacebuilding. Thankfully, he is apparently personally untouched by first-hand experience of violent conflict – and with his lack of experience, and overt admiration for despots and dictators, it appears that his approach to peacebuilding echoes his simplistic business mantra: think big, fight hard, keep pushing until you get what you want, have fun, and look good while doing it. Indeed, never before has the United States commander in chief been referred to so openly as “disruptor in chief” (Sieb 2017; Wade 2018). In stark contrast, effective peacebuilding work, as Rachel Cunliffe wrote (2016: 93), “depends on effective practitioners who know their own biases and assumptions and who are critical of the structures within which they work and that they seek to deconstruct and confront, and which too frequently hold them in place.”
Perhaps Trump and his principles and practice represent the latest cycle in the history of humanity’s low points. We can only hope that Trump’s greatest deal will be to catalyze peacebuilders to rise, strengthen, and create new tools for promoting peace, spurring us all to work toward a greater good in the world.
The following is a Summary of the Chapters in the text needed to complete the assignment
CHAPTER 1: Nature of Negotiation
Definition and Overview (should not be in the map): Negotiation is an activity, usually in form of a dialogue with the aim of resolving differences in interests between or among existing parties.
Negotiation is what we do in works of life ranging from domestic, business, social and political relationships. Strong negotiations skills will enhance your chances of succeeding in your relationships
Its purpose is to enable individual parties reach an agreement that is acceptable to them.
N1 – Characteristics of negotiation
1) Involves two or more parties: a) individuals, b) Groups, c) Organizations, etc
2) Conflict of needs and desires – parties have disagreed on a common interest
3) Parties choose to negotiate or not – subject to the likelihood of getting a better deal
4) A “give and/or take scenario exists – either party is ready to make a sacrifice for a reward
5) Parties prefer to resolve differences
6) Existence of negotiating factors
a. Tangible factors – crucial and would be managed (price, terms of agreement)
b. Intangible factors – underlying psychological motivations that could influence outcome negotiations
i. Need to win the other party
ii. Need to look good, competent and tough
iii. Need to defend an important principle – eg moral, social beliefs
iv. Need to appear fair and honourable
N2 – When not to negotiate… Do not negotiate when,
1) You could lose everything
2) You are sold out – running out of capacity in business
3) Demands are unethical (avoid the wrath of the law)
4) You don’t have time (time constraints exist)
5) Your counterparty acts in bad faith (you can’t trust the other party)
6) Waiting would improve your position (delays might make you benefit from technological or policy changes)
7) You are not prepared (adequate preparation pays in negotiations)
N3 – Interdependence of goals (needing each other to achieve the desired outcome. Interdependence occurs in three conditions
1) Distributive (mutually exclusive with only one winner) now loosing prominence
2) Integrative situation (mutually inclusive as in a “Win-Win” negotiation) focus is now centered on this as a plausible goal of negotiations: eg a singer and an instrumentalist can make a great music band
3) Existence of BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – refers to the state, manner and extent of interdependence between parties
N4 – Common Differences in Negotiators (they impact the negotiators attitude)
1) Interests – objectives or goals may be in disagreement
2) Judgment about the future (general understanding of opportunities around)
3) Risk tolerance – while one party may love risks, the other may not
4) Time preferences – desired time to seal the deal or receive consideration may differ
N5 – Conflict in Negotiations (conflict is a perceived divergence of interest) we look at conflict under the following heads
1) Levels of conflict
a. Intrapersonal or intrapsychic – lies within an individual in form of ideas, thoughts, emotions, values etc
b. Interpersonal – between individuals (workers, spouses, siblings)
c. Intragroup – within a group. Eg; team – like Group one, family, organizations, political parties
d. Intergroup – between groups, organizations etc
2) Demerits of Conflicts
a. Breeds unhealthy competition
b. Distorts perception
c. Breeds emotionality – could arouse anger of pity
d. Reduces quality of communication
e. Likelihood of rigid commitments
f. Increases level of differences
3) Conflict Management Strategies– these are coordinated measures and efforts directed at minimizing or resolving differences in a negotiation
a. Contending – having little concern for the other party
b. Yielding – caring less about own objectives or outcomes
c. Inaction – indifference about whose goals are paramount
d. Problem solving – aimed at maximizing overall outcomes in a negotiation
e. Compromising – Moderate efforts towards ensuring neither party loses
Chapter 2_Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining
Distributive bargaining is used to describe a competitive situation. It is also known as a “win-lose” bargaining.
Here, the goals of one party is often fundamental and directly conflicts with the goals of the other party
Reasons why a negotiator should be familiar with distributive bargaining
a. They face interdependent situations
b. Distributive bargaining strategies are often used by people
c. Crucial for the “claiming value” stage of a negotiation
Fundamental choices in negotiations
a. Reach a deal with the other party
b. Reach no agreement at all
Important considerations in negotiations
• Determine a settlement point
• Have a bargaining mix
• Discover the other party’s resistance point
• Influence the other party’s resistance point
Tactical tasks in negotiation
1. Assess the other party’s target, resistance point, cost of terminating negotiations through;
a. Indirect assessments
b. Direct assessments
2. Manage the other party’s impressions through;
a. Screening activities
b. Direct action to alter impressions
3. Modify the other party’s perceptions
4. Manipulate the actual costs of delay or termination through;
a. Disruptive action
b. Alliance with outsiders
c. Schedule manipulation
Positions taken during negotiations
a. Opening offers
b. Opening stance
c. Initial concessions
d. Role of concessions
e. Pattern of concession making
f. Final offers
Closing the deal
a. Provide alternatives
b. Assume the close
c. Split the difference
d. Exploding offers
e. Sweeteners
Hardball tactics: designed to force the other party to do what he/she would not have done under normal conditions
Dealing with hardball tactics
a. Ignore them
b. Discuss them
c. Respond in kind
d. Co-Opt the other party
Typical hardball tactics
a. Good cop/bad cop
b. Lowball/highball
c. Bogey
d. The Nibble
e. Chicken
f. Intimidation
g. Aggressive behavior
h. Snow job
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
