Find A Real-World Or Fictional Situation

Find A Situation A Real World Situation Or A Fictional Situation W

Find a situation (a real-world situation or a fictional situation) with two or more parties of jurisdiction or interest over a specific project or policy (public/private partnership, intergovernmental). At least one of the parties needs to be a governing board or elected officials. In 750-1,000 words, do the following: Explain the participants in the situation. (power involved, interest, requirement) Explain the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties. Recommend strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation (at least one of the parties needs to be elected officials or a governing board) Recommend different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get their interest or requirements met. Discuss how each party determines the value of what they are negotiating for and what they are willing to give up. Discuss what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation or leave the table (how much leverage does each party have). Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: 2.4: Recommend strategies for negotiating various agreements; 3.4: Recommend strategies to build relationships and advocate with elected or governing board officials. Rubric Attempt Start Date: 02-May-2019 at 12:00:00 AM Due Date: 08-May-2019 at 11:59:59 PM Maximum Points: 100.Files BROWSE FROM MY COMPUTER More options for File Upload © 2019 BNED LoudCloud LLC Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Tech Support [ Ver: 5.4.1-865 ] In the lecture the professor gave us these notes. For section three: 1) section three should lead into section four. 2) Section four must mention BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement 3) Pick 2-3 negotiation tactics and how they relate to the scenario. 4) Don't do section 5 and 6 as is. Discuss more about how much each party has and how much leverage they have.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary governance and project management scenarios, understanding the dynamics between multiple parties—particularly when involving public officials—is essential for effective negotiation and conflict resolution. This paper explores a fictitious yet plausible scenario involving a municipal government and a private development company collaborating on a significant urban renewal project. The scenario illustrates critical concepts such as power, influence, negotiation tactics, valuation of interests, and leverage, highlighting strategies to foster productive relationships and reach mutually beneficial agreements.

The principal participants in this scenario consist of the municipal government’s city council, including elected officials, and a private real estate development firm. The city council exerts formal authority through policy-making, budget approval, and oversight responsibilities, while the development firm holds stakeholder influence via financial investment, industry expertise, and project vision. The city officials' interest focuses on economic revitalization, community benefits, and political support, whereas the private firm’s interest lies in profit realization and project feasibility. These interconnected interests set the stage for negotiations, often requiring balancing public good with private gain.

Power dynamics in this scenario are rooted in formal authority and resource control. The city council possesses legal authority to approve or reject project proposals, condemn land, and impose regulations. Conversely, the development firm wields influence through economic leverage, project innovation, and potential job creation, which can sway public opinion and political support. The government’s requirement is to serve community interests while adhering to political mandates, and the private company’s requirement is to maximize profit margins within regulatory constraints. This interplay of power and interest necessitates strategic negotiation, emphasizing relationship-building and understanding of each party’s influence.

In distinguishing influence from negotiation, influence involves the capacity to sway the other party’s decisions indirectly, through reputation, alliances, or social pressure. Negotiation, however, is a direct, deliberate process aimed at reaching an agreement. For instance, the city council may influence public opinion to pressure the private firm into concessions without direct negotiations, whereas negotiations involve formal discussions where both parties articulate interests, propose compromises, and seek consensus. Building trust and credibility beforehand facilitates smoother negotiations, making relationship-building strategies such as consistent communication, transparency, and joint problem-solving essential.

Effective negotiation strategies require preparation, including understanding each party’s BATNA—Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. For the city, BATNA might be pursuing other development avenues or projects, while for the private firm, it could be investing elsewhere or delaying development. Knowing their BATNAs allows each party to gauge the value of the current negotiation and their willingness to compromise. For example, if the firm’s alternative is a more profitable project elsewhere, their leverage diminishes, prompting concessions to secure the current deal. Conversely, if the city’s BATNA involves halting development altogether, they might accept less favorable terms to avoid underinvestment in the community.

Negotiation tactics such as principled negotiation, use of objective criteria, and the anchoring technique support conflict resolution in this case. Principled negotiation emphasizes mutual interests and objective standards, fostering collaboration over confrontation. The use of objective criteria—such as market value, environmental standards, or urban planning regulations—helps anchor negotiations in reality rather than power dynamics alone. Anchoring involves setting initial offer points to influence the negotiation range. For example, the city might propose community benefits that set the tone, while the developer counters with economic incentives. These tactics, aligned with the scenario, facilitate progress toward an agreement that maximizes benefits for both.

Section four’s focus—leveraging the concept of BATNA—provides critical insight. When both parties understand their alternative options, they can better assess their bargaining power. If either side’s BATNA is strong, they hold more leverage and can demand more favorable terms. For instance, if the developer’s BATNA is relocating the project to another jurisdiction with fewer restrictions, their negotiation position weakens, prompting the city to offer more concessions. Conversely, if the city’s BATNA is to delay or deny the project, the developer might be more amenable to compromises. These leverage considerations directly influence each party’s willingness to accept or walk away from negotiations.

In conclusion, effective negotiation between a public governing body and a private enterprise hinges on understanding each party’s power, interests, and alternatives. Building relationships through transparent communication and trust enhances the likelihood of mutually beneficial agreements. Employing strategic negotiation tactics—such as principled negotiation, objective standards, and anchoring—helps parties navigate conflicts effectively. Moreover, a thorough assessment of one’s BATNA and leverage ensures that each side negotiates from a position of strength, fostering outcomes that serve both public interests and private ambitions. Such strategic approaches are essential in complex interorganizational negotiations within government and private sectors, ultimately contributing to sustainable and successful project implementation.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2020). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thompson, L. (2015). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Pearson.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reason and purpose. Penguin.
• Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2011). Facilitating negotiation success: The role of emotion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 702–721.