Module Five Assignment Guidelines And Rubric

Module Five Assignment Guidelines And Rubrichtmlwcm 510 Module Five A

Develop four questions to ask Alice Jones, senior Netflix executive, during an upcoming negotiation session. These questions should help craft an integrative bargaining proposal that aims for a mutually beneficial outcome, addressing both extrinsic and intrinsic interests. The questions must cover all four categories: open, closed, alternative, and leading, as follows:

• Open-Ended or Socratic Questions: Begin with who, what, when, where, how,, and why. Example: “Why aren’t you taking some time off?”
• Closed Questions: Answerable with “yes” or “no”. Example: “Are you ready to begin?”
• Alternative Questions: Offer options. Example: “Do you want to start the meeting at 3:00 or 4:00?”
• Leading Questions: Aim to solicit a particular point of view. Example: “The new vacation policy is very fair, don’t you think?”

Your questions should focus on understanding Alice Jones’ interests, such as her career plans, personal interests, or challenges, to determine her zone of potential agreement (ZOPA) and her best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Ensure questions are within legal limits, avoiding topics such as age, marital status, disabilities, religion, race, or pregnancy-related questions. Explain how each question’s type influences the negotiation, including whether it promotes a win-win situation, seems manipulative or fair, and how it might be perceived by the respondent. Use credible scholarly sources to support your analysis and compare the value of each question type in advancing integrative bargaining.

Additionally, prepare a 2–3 page paper, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with one-inch margins, citing at least three scholarly sources in APA format. Attach the table of questions as an appendix. Optionally, create a professional 2–3 slide presentation with speaker notes, formatted according to APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

Negotiation is a strategic communication process that involves understanding both parties’ interests to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. In preparing for a negotiation with Alice Jones, a senior executive at Netflix, it is essential to craft questions that not only gather vital information but also foster an environment conducive to integrative bargaining. This approach emphasizes collaboration and mutual gains, which are critical when dealing with high-level stakeholders whose interests often extend beyond immediate financial outcomes.

The four categories of questions—open-ended, closed, alternative, and leading—each serve unique purposes and influence the negotiation dynamics differently. Open-ended questions facilitate exploration of underlying interests and motivations. For example, asking, “What are your long-term strategic goals for Netflix?” encourages elaboration and reveals priorities that might align with the negotiator's proposals. These questions foster trust and deeper understanding, which are vital for uncovering integrative solutions.

Closed questions, such as “Are you satisfied with the current content licensing agreements?” are efficient for confirming specific details. While they provide clarity, overuse can limit dialogue and reduce the opportunity for discovery. Therefore, they should be used judiciously within a broader strategic questioning framework. Such questions are perceived as neutral and non-manipulative if applied appropriately.

Alternative questions offer choices, helping the respondent consider options without feeling pressured. An example could be, “Would you prefer to focus on expanding original content or improving distribution channels?” This encourages collaborative thinking and expands the possibilities for value creation within the negotiation. It signals flexibility and can lead to creative solutions benefitting both parties.

Leading questions attempt to steer the respondent toward a particular viewpoint, which can risk perceptions of manipulation but are useful if applied ethically. For instance, “Given Netflix’s success with original programming, wouldn’t you agree that investing more in this area aligns with your strategic vision?” This type of question emphasizes shared interests and can guide the conversation towards mutually advantageous areas.

The value of each question type depends on context and intent. Open-ended questions advance the understanding of interests, essential for integrative bargaining. Closed questions clarify specifics, providing a factual basis for negotiation. Alternative questions generate options, fostering collaboration and expanding possibilities. Leading questions, while potentially perceived as biased, can be effective if used carefully to highlight shared goals and mutual benefits.

From a legal and ethical standpoint, all questions must respect boundaries such as prohibitions against inquiries into age, marital status, disability, religion, race, or pregnancy. Ensuring compliance enhances fairness and builds trust, which are fundamental to effective negotiation. Questions that infringe on prohibited topics risk damaging relationships and may be legally invalid or unethical.

In conclusion, crafting a balanced set of questions across all four categories enhances the prospects for successful negotiation. Each type plays a specific role: open questions uncover interests, closed questions confirm facts, alternative questions explore possibilities, and leading questions subtly guide the conversation towards mutual gains. Thoughtful application of these questions, grounded in ethical considerations and strategic intent, can foster trust, open communication, and ultimately, the achievement of a win-win outcome.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thompson, L. (2012). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson Education.
• Sebenius, J. K. (2002). 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Harvard Business Review.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam Books.
• Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Human Resource Management. Organizational Dynamics, 22(4), 47-56.
• Raiffa, H. (2002). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.
• Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2014). What do Do We Know About Negotiation?: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(8), 1396–1399.
• Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1994). Accountability in Negotiation: A Cognitive Perspective. Organization Science, 5(3), 417-433.