Assessment Information
Subject Code: MBA506
Subject Name: Thinking Styles, Negotiation and Conflict Management
Assessment Title: Negotiation Role Play & Summary 1
Weighting: 30%
Total Marks: 30
Due Date: Monday of Week 8, 11.55 pm AEST
.
Assessment Description
. ..
You will engage in a negotiation for the sale and purchase of a commercial asset such as a business or a piece of real estate.
You may be nominated to represent the vendor and will receive email instructions from the vendor company CEO including:
1. Appointment to represent the company as their agent for the sale of the commercial asset;
2. Specific details about the commercial asset;
3. Information about the status of current negotiations with an alternative potential purchaser;
4. Information about a new potential purchaser;
5. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the purchaser.
Alternatively, you may be nominated to represent the purchaser and will receive email instructions from the purchaser company CEO including:
1. Appointment to represent the company as their agent for the purchase of the commercial asset;
2. Specific details about the commercial asset;
3. Information about alternative assets the company is considering purchasing instead;
4. Information about the vendor;
5. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the vendor.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
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 level – internal, external?
Attach copies of completed Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Style Inventories.
2. Are your thinking style preferences – form and level – 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?
.
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.
.
.
Stage 3: Post negotiation
You must prepare a short report (1 page) to your client advising the outcome of the negotiation.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
Criteria F (Fail)
0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction)
75% - 84%
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Mark
Assessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 80 MARKS
Pre-negotiation
Thinking style analysis Non submission of thinking style preferences. Optimal thinking style preferences not discussed or inaccurately identified. Insufficient consideration of adaptations to optimal thinking style preferences. Personal thinking style preferences identified but insufficient explanation of optimal thinking style preferences. Need to more effectively contemplate potential for adaptation to optimal thinking style preferences. Reasonable examination of personal thinking style preferences with identification of optimal thinking style preferences supported by some explanation. Reasonable discussion of adaptations to optimal thinking style preferences.
Appropriate canvassing of personal thinking style preferences with accurate identification of optimal thinking style preferences supported by logical explanation. Comprehensive discussion of adaptations to optimal thinking style preferences. Fully considered personal thinking style preferences with accurate identification of optimal thinking style preferences supported by thoughtful explanation. Insightful and innovative adaptations to optimal thinking style preferences discussed. /20
Pre-negotiation
BATNA & ZOPA analysis Failure to identify either BATNAs, either reservation values, or ZOPA range. Illogical or poorly explained strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Reasonably accurate identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Further and more detailed contemplation required for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Close to accurate
identification of both
BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA outlined in sufficient detail. Both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range accurately identified. Logical strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA well explained. Precise identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Innovative and effective strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the
ZOPA clearly articulated. /20
Negotiation Poorly drafted communications log demonstrating little to no effort to implement strategy for claiming the
greater proportion of the ZOPA and no adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments. Communications log indicates reasonable implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA but either requires more detail or greater effort in negotiation. Adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments are evident but could have been stronger. Competent implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA evidenced by communications log. Sufficient adaptive behavior demonstrated in response to negotiation process developments. Communications log demonstrates successful implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Negotiation process developments met with adaptive behavioral responses. Detailed communications log demonstrating effective implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA together with highly adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments. /20
Post negotiation Report indicates negotiation not successfully concluded or less than 30% of ZOPA claimed. Reasonably well drafted
report indicating successful negotiation with over 30% of ZOPA claimed. Competent report indicating successful negotiation with over 50% of ZOPA claimed. Well drafted report indicating successful negotiation with over 70% of ZOPA claimed. Clear and concise report indicating successful negotiation with over 90% of ZOPA claimed. /20
Structure Format and Presentation (Consistent across all courses) OUT OF 20 MARKS
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Marking Rubric
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization. Body paragraphs do not refer back to or relate to main arguments. Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,” “another example is….” Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow; there is little progression of ideas. Little or no transitions between paragraphs. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout and relate body paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally well organized. Better transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Paragraphs relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas & arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Sound transitions between paragraphs. Major arguments are effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions between paragraphs. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody paragraph, with ideas always related back to main arguments. /4
Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks
direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique considered all the relevant issues and made important observations made from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression of arguments. Fully considered all the relevant issues and made significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /4
Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains much informal language. Uses “I” or
“you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs more sentence variety. Attention needed with diction. Contains informal language or conversational tone, or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is appropriate. Diction is clear, but could be more effective. Language is academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, and concise. Sentence variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /4
Format of answer consistent with question requirements and
KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing, spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing,
fonts, and other editing requirements. Some requirements not met. Meets editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /3
In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Good referencing, largely inline with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Very good referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Excellent/appropriate referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. /3
Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - more than 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - 5% of requirement Word count is within
+ / - 0% of requirement /2
Comments:
/80
/20
/100
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.