Online Free Samples

Negotiation Assignment On Three Phases Of Business Mediation

Question

Task:
Stage 1: Pre-negotiation
You must answer the following questions:

1. What is your thinking style preference form – monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, anarchic – and what is your thinking style scope – internal, external?

Attach copies of completed Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Style Inventories.

2. Are your thinking style preferences – form and scope – optimal for conducting this negotiation?

Explain your answer.

3. What adjustments (if any) could you make to adapt to a more optimal thinking style for this negotiation?

4. What is your client’s BATNA? What is your client’s reservation value?

5. What is the other party’s BATNA? What is the other party’s reservation value?

6. What is the ZOPA range? What is your strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA?

Include at least fifteen academic references in your answers to the above questions with a minimum of five references coming from academic journals.

Stage 2: Negotiation
You must:

1. Enter negotiations with your counterpart for the sale and purchase of the commercial asset;

2. Maintain a communications log that captures the date, method, items discussed, and outcomes of each communication.

Attach copies of any communications that confirm agreed price.

Stage 3: Post negotiation
You must prepare a 1 page letter to your client advising the outcome of the negotiation.

Answer

Stage 1 : Pre- negotiation
1. Personal thinking style preference and thinking style scope
It is mentioned in this negotiation assignment that the best thinking style preference for the researcher is hierarchic where the individual has a separate prediction for the situations, tasks, and projects which allows the creation of goals in a hierarchy manner. The researcher will always love to do multiple things under the given time limit for the completion of the goals. The researcher can able to make a separate priority for getting all the things done. As said by Lewicki et al. (2016), the hierarchic people must be adaptive in different settings to create priorities for finishing certain things to be completed under the given or fixed timeline. It is important for the researcher to create a separate plan or strategy before implementing the work.

The thinking style scope that will be followed by the researcher is external which allows him to work with other groups through interactions to improve the progress the project work. As said by Mazei et al. (2015), every individual prefers to work with other people or comfortable with group settings. Majority of these people who prefers external thinking scope are extroverts.

2. Define thinking style preference and scope in this negotiation assignment
The researcher is a hierarchic individual who always set a plan or guidelines before the negotiation with another party. As said by Gelfand and McCusker (2017), a hierarchic person could easily achieve their desired goals during the time of the negotiations because he had created a separate priority and identified the weakness of the other parties for a successful negotiation process. The researcher who is following oligarchic always allows negotiations with different negotiation approaches to improve the negotiation process. As said by Brett and Thompson (2016), the oligarchic individual is also the part of hierarchic thinking process that can do multiple things in the given time frame. The external thinking style scope will help the researcher to find out the best suitable ways to make win-win situation during the negotiation by collecting information with the help of a team. However, an anarchic individual always has their own prediction for the negotiation process and they always tend to highly systematic. As said by Gascón et al. (2016), the individual always tries to take a more random approach to all the problems to make the negotiation process successful.

b>3. The requirement of adjustment for adapting optimal thinking style for negotiation
It is mentioned in this negotiation assignment that the researcher needs to be global for predicting the negotiation process which requires engagement with large abstract ideas. The researcher can able to deal with big ideas and clients during the time of the negotiation process. As said by Zhang et al. (2016), the researcher could able to encourage the more thinking process to create major plans before starting the negotiation process. However, the researcher who is a local individual always engaged with concrete and specified tasks. As said by McGraw (2017), the researcher during the time of the negotiation needs to display all style to enjoy the tasks provided by the company. The researcher during the time of the negotiation process can focus only on one task where they could able to keep track with all the details and can able to focus on the specified situations for the successful negotiation process. As said by Simmons-Mackie and Elman (2015), the hierarchic individual can always set separate priorities for the individuals to improve negotiation process.

4. Clients BATNA and reservation value
The client had developed different sets of actions if there is no agreements are being reached among the other parties. As said by Bogart et al. (2016), it is important to improve the ideas and converting all the practical options into a win-win situation in the negotiation process. BATNA is the best alternative to all the negotiated agreements to enter into the negotiation process, which provides the best alternative during the negotiations process. The client is going to improve the negotiating power to determine all the reservations points that would be used by the clients during the time of negotiations. If the clients negotiate with another party at a higher price then another party will not be going to accept the deal. As said by Sert and Jacknick (2015) in this negotiation assignment, the client's BATNA can only be fulfilled by listing out the alternatives a weakness of the other parties to provide the right deal to gain a successful negotiation process. As said by Shang and Yang (2015), the client must calculate the lowest valued deal so that the deal could easily be accepted by the other party and could rule out other parties BATNA.

5. Other party’s BATNA and reservation value
The other party had collected information from all types of open sources and experts to make the negotiations process on their side and not for the client's side. According to Cao et al. (2015), the collected information the other party had created a preliminary assumption of the client's business background and personal qualities before starting the negotiation process. The other party had already tested and adjusted all the assumptions during the time of the negotiation process to make the client satisfied by providing equal opportunity to them. The reservation value of the other clients is the least favorable point where one of the party needs to accept the negotiated agreement to complete the negotiation process. As said by Aslani et al. (2016), the other parties had created the minimum amount they would going to accept during the negotiation terms so that they could pitch the high amount of money to the clients. The other party then can able to make sure they at least close the deals with the minimum price they had set for the clients during the time of the negotiation process.

6. ZOPA range and strategy for claiming a large portion of ZOPA range
ZOPA range mentioned in this negotiation assignment is the zone for making possible bargaining when there is a presence of more than two negotiating parties. As said by Elfenbein (2015), both the parties sometimes compromises and strikes a separate deal to gain win-win situations in the negotiation process. For claiming large portions using the ZOPA range the researcher needs to create a final settlement for reaching out a final agreement so that both the parties could able to seek out final goals by incorporating ideas of the two negotiating parties.

As said by Jacobs (2016), the ZOPA range can only present is there is any kind of overlap between the parties who are willing to gain a win-win situation in the negotiation process. The researcher needs to find out all the negative bargaining zones so that it could lead to failure in the negotiation process. It can be easily overcome if they are able to learn all the needs and desires of other parties.

Stage 2: Negotiation

Date

Communication Method

Items Discussed

Outcome

12.7.19

Telephone

Introduction  of the terms that  are present in the commercial assets  and the benefits that will be gained by the other party if they buy the commercial assets

 The other party had  accepted the terms and want to visit the commercial assets for positive confirmation provided by the researcher

14.8.19

Face to Face

Introducing the total price of the commercial assets and providing the contract for the commercial asset so that the other party takes time to read out the agreement provided by the party

 The client did not accept the total price that had been pitched by the party for selling the commercial site as they had pitched total 300,000 million dollars but the other party wants to buy the asset at 250,000 million dollar

16.08.19

Face to Face

Discussing the benefits and profit they will gain if the other party buys the commercial assets Setting up minimum pitch rate for the other party to make sure they gain a win-win situation in the negotiation process.

 The client is still not satisfied and did not agree to buy the commercial assets at 300,000 million dollars even if they get benefits from it. However, the clients are not willing to close the deal as they wanted to buy the commercial asset very badly.

20.08.19

Face to Face

Finalizing the deal with the other party with at least a minimum price to bring a win-win situation in the negotiation process and both the party could get satisfaction from the negotiation process.

  The client had finally agreed to pay total 270,000 million dollars for the commercial assets  and the other party   had able to achieve profit  because their minimum pitching value was 230,000 million dollars but the other party agreed to pay 270,000 million dollars for commercial asset


Stage 3: Post negotiation process

To,
Mr. Roberts Johnson
Owner of the company XYZ
   Sub: Outcome of the negotiated terms
Sir,
    The other part had agreed the terms and conditions provided me where you had set the minimum pitch for amount 230,000 million dollars but we had achieved a large portion of the amount with the amount of 270,000 million dollars. Another party was highly satisfied with the benefits and profit they will be going to gain if they buy the commercial asset provided by you. The deal had been closed under a win-win situation in the negotiation process. The other party was really happy to see that commercial assets provided by the clients. All the communications are being through telephone and face to face meeting in our office for finalizing the total deal provided in the commercial assets to make sure the other party is comfortable with us during the time of the negotiation process.

The larger portion of the zone range had been recovered by us which is one of the positive messages for us because according to the outcome of the negotiation process it could be found out that both the party had gained success in the completion of the negotiation process. There was a rise of the negative bargaining to overcome the negotiating parties to learn about the needs and desires of the other parties. I had found that another party is willing to buy the new commercial asset as they will be going to gain huge benefits if they buy the commercial that had sold by the client’s organization. It has taken time to convince the clients to buy the commercial assets at the price 270,000 million dollars as they think that the price provided by us is much higher than they had expected. However, the other party agreed with the amount we had suggested at the end of the deal and another party was happy that they had gained a minimum amount from 300,000 million dollars to buy the commercial assets.

Regards,
John Wick

Reference List
Aslani, S., Ramirez?Marin, J., Brett, J., Yao, J., Semnani?Azad, Z., Zhang, Z.X., Tinsley, C., Weingart, L. and Adair, W., 2016. Negotiation assignment Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), pp.1178-1201.

Bogart, C., Kästner, C., Herbsleb, J. and Thung, F., 2016, November. How to break an API: cost negotiation and community values in three software ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 109-120). ACM.

Brett, J. and Thompson, L., 2016. Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, pp.68-79.

Cao, M., Luo, X., Luo, X.R. and Dai, X., 2015. Automated negotiation for e-commerce decision making: A goal deliberated agent architecture for multi-strategy selection. Decision Support Systems, 73, pp.1-14.

Elfenbein, H.A., 2015. Individual differences in negotiation: A nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), pp.131-136.

Gascón, S., Murenu, E., Masserdotti, G., Ortega, F., Russo, G.L., Petrik, D., Deshpande, A., Heinrich, C., Karow, M., Robertson, S.P. and Schroeder, T., 2016. Identification and successful negotiation of a metabolic checkpoint in direct neuronal reprogramming. Cell stem cell, 18(3), pp.396-409.

Gelfand, M.J. and McCusker, C., 2017. Metaphor and the cultural construction of negotiation: A paradigm for research and practice. The Blackwell Handbook of Cross?Cultural Management, pp.292-314.

Jacobs, J.V., 2016. A review of stairway falls and stair negotiation: Lessons learned and future needs to reduce injury. Gait & Posture, 49, pp.159-167.

Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B. and Saunders, D.M., 2016. Essentials of negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.

Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P.A., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Bilke, L. and Hertel, G., 2015. Negotiation assignment A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological bulletin, 141(1), p.85.

McGraw, D.M., 2017. The story of the biodiversity convention: from negotiation to implementation. In Governing global biodiversity (pp. 7-38). Routledge.

Sert, O. and Jacknick, C.M., 2015. Student smiles and the negotiation of epistemics in L2 classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, pp.97-112.

Shang, W. and Yang, L., 2015. Contract negotiation and risk preferences in dual-channel supply chain coordination. International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), pp.4837-4856.

Simmons-Mackie, N. and Elman, R.J., 2015. Negotiation of identity in group therapy for aphasia: the Aphasia Café. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, pp.1-12.

Zhang, S.B., Fu, Y.F., Gao, Y. and Zheng, X.D., 2016. Influence of trust and contract on dispute negotiation behavioral strategy in construction subcontracting. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(4), p.04016001.


Get Top Quality Assignment Help and Score high grades. Download the Total Assignment help App from Google play store or Subscribe to totalassignmenthelp and receive the latest updates from the Academic fraternity in real time.

Negotiation Management Assignment


Amazing Features

  • Plagiarism Free Work
  • Lowest Price Guarantee
  • 100% Money Back Guarantee
  • Top Quality Work
  • On Time Deliver
  • 24 x 7 Live Help


AU ADDRESS
9/1 Pacific Highway, North Sydney, NSW, 2060
US ADDRESS
1 Vista Montana, San Jose, CA, 95134
CONTACT

+61-3-9005-6676

ESCALATION EMAIL
support@totalassignment
help.com