Rubic Print Format Course Code Class Code ADM 560 Xc0823

Rubic Print Formatcourse Codeclass Codeadm 560adm 560 Xc0823w5benchmar

Rubic_Print_Format Course Code Class Code ADM-560 ADM-560-XC0823W5 Benchmark – Negotiation Techniques 100.0 Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (87.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned Content 70.0% Explain the participants in the situation. 10.0% Explanation of participants in the situation is missing. Explanation of participants in the situation is vague and inconsistent. Explanation of participants in the situation is present. Explanation of participants in the situation is present and clear. Explanation of participants in the situation is clear and concise. Explain the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties. 10.0% Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is missing. Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is vague and inconsistent. Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is present and connected to some research. Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is present, clear, and connected to research. Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is clear, concise, and connected to research. Recommend strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation. (comp. 3..0% Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is missing. Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is vague and inconsistent. Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is present and connected to some research. Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is present, clear, and connected to research. Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is clear, concise, and connected to research. Recommend different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met. (comp 2..0% Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is missing. Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is vague and inconsistent. Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is present and connected to some research. Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is present, clear, and connected to research. Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is clear, concise, and connected to research. Discuss how each party determines the value of their negotiation. 10.0% Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is missing. Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is vague and inconsistent. Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is present. Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is present and clear. Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is clear and concise. Discuss what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation. 10.0% Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is missing. Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is vague and inconsistent. Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is present. Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is present and clear. Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is clear and concise. Organization and Effectiveness 20.0% Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Format 10.0% Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment to style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment to style, and format is free of error. Total Weightage 100%

Paper For Above instruction

Negotiation is a fundamental skill crucial across diverse contexts such as business, diplomacy, and everyday personal interactions. At its core, negotiation involves two or more parties striving to reach an agreement that satisfies their respective interests, often through a process of dialogue and compromise. Understanding the participants involved, their roles, motivations, and strategies is essential to conducting successful negotiations. This paper explores the key participants involved in negotiation situations, the distinction between influence and negotiation, strategies to foster relationships, negotiation techniques, and how parties gauge value and make decisions during negotiations.

Participants in Negotiation Situations

The primary participants in a negotiation include negotiators, stakeholders, and mediators. Negotiators are individuals or entities directly involved in the bargaining process. They represent each party's interests and possess the authority to make commitments or concessions. Stakeholders extend beyond those directly negotiating, including individuals or groups affected by the outcome, such as employees, customers, or shareholders. Their influence can shape the negotiation's scope and targets. Mediators or facilitators serve as neutral third parties who assist in guiding the process, ensuring fair communication, and helping parties find mutually acceptable solutions.

Difference Between Influence and Negotiation

Influence and negotiation, while related, serve different functions within the realm of interpersonal and organizational interactions. Influence refers to the capacity to sway others' attitudes or behaviors without the formal bargaining process. It often involves persuasion, authority, or charisma to shape decisions or opinions. Negotiation, however, is a structured process where parties communicate explicitly to reach an agreement, often involving give-and-take. Research indicates that influence can be a tool within negotiation but does not necessarily involve formal bargaining, whereas negotiation encompasses a formal exchange aimed at resolving specific issues (Thompson, 2015).

Strategies to Build Relationships Before Negotiation

Effective relationship-building strategies ahead of negotiation focus on trust, communication, and understanding. Establishing rapport through open and honest communication lays the foundation for cooperation. Demonstrating preparedness and understanding the other party’s needs shows respect and fosters trust. Active listening, empathy, and showing genuine interest in the counterpart's perspective are pivotal. Additionally, engaging in informal interactions or shared activities can help deepen interpersonal connections. These approaches are supported by research emphasizing that strong relationships lead to more cooperative and successful negotiations (Kumar & Puranik, 2016).

Negotiation Techniques to Meet Interests and Requirements

Different negotiation techniques include interest-based bargaining, BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), anchoring, and framing. Interest-based bargaining involves focusing on underlying needs rather than positions, promoting mutually beneficial solutions (Fisher & Ury, 2011). BATNA provides a fallback plan if negotiations fail, empowering parties to negotiate with confidence. Anchoring involves establishing a reference point early in the process, which influences subsequent offers. Framing presents issues in ways that highlight benefits to the other side, encouraging acceptance of proposed solutions. These techniques facilitate the fulfillment of interests and increase the likelihood of reaching satisfactory agreements (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2016).

Determining the Value of Negotiations

Each party determines the value of a negotiation based on various factors, including tangible outcomes such as price, delivery terms, or legal clauses, and intangible factors like reputation, trust, and future relationship potential. Parties assess the value by analyzing their alternatives, the strength of their negotiating positions, and the importance of the issues at stake. Valuation can also be influenced by emotional and psychological considerations, which shape perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. Understanding how each side perceives value helps in crafting proposals that align with their priorities, increasing the chances of agreement (Raiffa, 2002).

Factors Influencing Agreement Decisions

Several factors influence the decision-making process within negotiations. These include the perceived fairness of the deal, the importance of the outcome, relationship dynamics, and external pressures such as market competition or legal constraints. Parties are more likely to agree when they believe the terms are equitable, the benefits outweigh the costs, and the relationship remains viable post-negotiation. Additionally, emotional factors such as trust or distrust can significantly sway decisions. Understanding these factors enables negotiators to tailor their strategies to facilitate agreement (Shell, 2006).

Conclusion

Negotiation is a complex process that involves multiple participants, strategic influence, relationship management, and careful evaluation of value and decision factors. Recognizing the roles of different participants and understanding the distinction between influence and negotiation enhances the effectiveness of bargaining outcomes. Building pre-negotiation relationships, utilizing effective techniques, and understanding how each party perceives value are crucial for reaching mutually acceptable agreements. Ultimately, success in negotiation hinges on the ability to balance assertiveness with empathy, ensuring that all parties feel satisfied with the outcome.

References

• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Kumar, R., & Puranik, N. (2016). Negotiation Strategies in Business. Journal of Business Studies, 22(4), 45-60.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2016). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Raiffa, H. (2002). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson Education.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Bantam Books.
• Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Viking.
• Seppälä, E. & Fredrickson, B. (2012). The Joy of Negotiation: Building Connections for Better Deals. Harvard Business Review.
• Kelman, H. C. (2006). Social Influence and Negotiation. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 321-339.