Posted: September 6th, 2023
Negotiation Theory and Practice for Project Management.Assessment 3
Negotiation Theory and Practice for Project Management.
Trimester 3, 2022
Duration This assessment is due 04:30pm Saturday 12th November 2022.
Please submit a Word doc via the Turnitin link on Moodle
Directions to students This assessment task contains 2 sections. Both parts must be completed. This assessment is marked out of 100.
Section A (60%):
Section B (40%):
(Instructions: Use 12 point Times New Roman Font, 1.5 line spacing and 2.54cm margins. Each answer has a one half page maximum limit.
Length : 5 Questions Exactly full 2 pages in total.(References in 3rd
(If examples are asked for make sure to include them with an explanation – don’ t just list the
November 2022 OPS 938 Negotiation & Theory for Project Management T3 Page 1 of 3
Optional/example guidance notes: If you use references they should only be from academic journals, industry publications and other relevant secondary sources. Also, remember to define key terms and use examples where appropriate. You may use illustrations to help support your answer. Do not use the same examples. DO NOT copy and paste.
Clearly number each answer in Parts A and B.
You must write your answer with your own words and submit a separate sheet with your student number and full name on the cover page via Moodle / Turnitin.
the answers should be provided in only 2 pages overall (i.e. the equivalent of one double- sided page). Therefore, to mee t this requirement, you must write your reflection concisely, with only relevant content to each question.
Do not use bullet points – the responses are to articulate your analysis
Section A: 3 Questions (Worth 60 marks)
ALL questions to be answered. Each question is worth 20 marks
What does it mean to take an ‘other-directed’ approach when negotiating? List some examples of one sided and other-directed thinking and behaviour. How can we be ‘other-directed’ without this involving agreeing with the other party?
Use an example from your experience or case study covered in class to substantiate your response.
Negotiators face challenges at the start of a negotiation including “separation”? What are the challenges and how might these challenges be met? Use an example from your personal experience or case study and explain the consequences of “separation”.
Metaphors are often used to aid in explaining how to navigate the Negotiation process, describe one of these metaphors and explain how this assists in being able to ‘Grasp the big picture’ when preparing for a negotiation. How is this beneficial?
Page 2 of 3
Section B: 2 Questions (Worth 40 marks)
ALL questions to be answered. Each question is worth 20 marks
You are negotiating on behalf of the board of directors of a company that would share the benefits of a merger through economies of scale and lower costs through rationalising duplicated operations. Each company established teams of negotiators to develop a strategy and brief you on the terms of the merger. The negotiation would need to reach agreement on financial and operational issues as well as governance issues (how the merged company would be managed).
What challenges do you think the negotiators might face in managing these negotiations? (To answer this question, use an example form your own experience or think of two well-known similar companies – two retail chains, transport companies, car dealers or telcos.)
Give original examples. Support your answer using theory and evidence from knowledge covered in this course. Do not use the same examples previously used.
Two companies, parties to a contractual dispute, are due to attend mediation. However, they have agreed to attend only because their contract contains a disputes clause that requires them to go to mediation before they can initiate legal proceedings against the other (which they both want to do). You are the mediator. What actions might you take to improve the mediation? Give original examples. Support your answer using theory and evidences from knowledge covered in this course.
An other-directed approach to negotiation is one in which the negotiator focuses on the interests of both parties and seeks to find a solution that benefits both. This approach is in contrast to a one-sided approach, in which the negotiator focuses on their own interests and is willing to sacrifice the interests of the other party.
There are many benefits to taking an other-directed approach to negotiation. First, it can help to build trust and rapport with the other party. When the other party feels that you are genuinely interested in their needs, they are more likely to trust you and be willing to work with you to find a solution. Second, an other-directed approach can help to create a more positive and productive negotiating environment. When both parties feel that they are being heard and understood, they are more likely to be open to compromise and find a solution that works for everyone.
There are many examples of one-sided and other-directed thinking and behavior. For example, a one-sided negotiator might focus on their own needs and ignore the needs of the other party. They might also try to use threats or intimidation to get what they want. In contrast, an other-directed negotiator would try to understand the needs of the other party and would be willing to compromise in order to find a solution that benefits both parties.
It is possible to be other-directed without agreeing with the other party. For example, you might disagree with the other party’s position, but you can still listen to their concerns and try to find a solution that takes their needs into account.
One example of how to be other-directed in a negotiation is to use active listening. Active listening involves paying attention to what the other party is saying, asking clarifying questions, and summarizing their points. This shows the other party that you are listening to them and that you are interested in understanding their point of view.
Another example of how to be other-directed in a negotiation is to focus on the interests of both parties. This means trying to understand what each party wants to achieve from the negotiation and then trying to find a solution that meets the needs of both parties.
One of the challenges that negotiators face at the start of a negotiation is “separation.” This refers to the need to separate the people from the problem. In other words, it is important to focus on the issue at hand and not to let personal feelings or emotions get in the way.
There are a number of ways to meet this challenge. One way is to establish clear ground rules at the beginning of the negotiation. These ground rules should state that all parties will be treated with respect and that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Another way to meet the challenge of separation is to take a break from the negotiation if emotions start to run high. This will give everyone a chance to cool down and come back to the table with a fresh perspective.
One example of how “separation” can impact a negotiation is when two people who are in a personal relationship are trying to negotiate a business deal. If they are not able to separate their personal feelings from the business deal, it can be very difficult for them to reach an agreement.
Another example of how “separation” can impact a negotiation is when two parties have a history of conflict. If they are not able to put their history aside and focus on the current negotiation, it can be very difficult for them to reach an agreement.
One metaphor that is often used to aid in explaining how to navigate the negotiation process is the “iceberg.” This metaphor suggests that there is more to a negotiation than what is immediately visible. Just like an iceberg, there is a lot of hidden information and interests that can influence the outcome of a negotiation.
To be successful in a negotiation, it is important to be able to “see” the hidden information and interests. This can be done by asking questions, listening carefully, and paying attention to nonverbal cues. Once you have a good understanding of the hidden information and interests, you can start to develop a strategy for reaching an agreement.
The “iceberg” metaphor is a helpful tool for understanding the negotiation process. It can help you to identify the hidden information and interests that can influence the outcome of a negotiation. By understanding these hidden factors, you can increase your chances of success in the negotiation.
The negotiators in a merger negotiation face a number of challenges. These challenges include:
Different goals and priorities: The two companies involved in the merger may have different goals and priorities. For example, one company may be more focused on growth, while the other company may be more focused on profitability. These different goals and priorities can make it difficult to reach an agreement.
Lack of trust: The two companies involved in the merger may not trust each other.