WCM 510 Module Seven Small Group Discussion Guidelines

Wcm 510 Module Seven Small Group Discussion Guidelines And Rubric Pot

Your active participation in the two small group discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions are designed to help you make meaningful connections between the course content and the larger concepts and goals of the course. These discussions offer you the opportunity to express your own thoughts, ask questions for clarification, and gain insight from your classmates’ responses and instructor’s guidance.

There are two small group discussions in this course, occurring in Modules Four and Seven. For each, you will work in small assigned groups to complete specific tasks that support the final project, which involves creating an analysis and negotiation coaching recommendations for executive leadership due in Module Ten. To prepare, read the assigned material and take notes to aid your discussion posts. After each discussion, you will evaluate your participation and that of your group members using a group member evaluation form, submitted by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of the same week.

Group work involves: posting a list of potential concessions for Sharon Slade by Thursday at 11:59 p.m., then collaborating over the next few days to finalize the top three concessions by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. These activities will help inform your final project, specifically the section on negotiation tactics and strategies.

Paper For Above instruction

Analysis of Potential Concessions in Salary Negotiation at Netflix

Negotiating employment terms, especially in sensitive cases such as dismissals or layoffs, requires a careful understanding of strategic concessions that can facilitate agreement. In the context of Netflix, where Sharon Slade, the Chief Human Resources Officer, may negotiate with an employee like Alice Jones, understanding the key elements—Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), flexibility points, and legal vulnerabilities—is essential. This paper will analyze three potential concessions that Netflix's HR leadership could consider to close negotiations with Alice Jones, emphasizing strategic considerations that align with her ZOPA and BATNA, the company's areas of flexibility, and legal vulnerabilities involved.

First, it is important to examine the ZOPA and BATNA for both parties. Alice Jones’s BATNA might involve seeking employment elsewhere or pursuing legal actions such as age discrimination claims, especially considering the risk factors associated with her being potentially over 40, a protected class under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Sharon Slade’s BATNA might be to implement a formal severance package or uphold employment policies that could be challenged or defended legally. Understanding these positions helps frame what concessions might be effective in reaching agreement.

Potential Concession 1: Modification of Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

One viable concession involves modifying or extending the existing PIP. If Alice perceives the current PIP as a pretext for termination based on age, offering a revised, constructive performance improvement plan with clear, achievable goals could serve as a middle ground. This concession aligns with Netflix’s flexibility, as HR policies often allow for the extension or modification of performance management procedures. Moreover, this concession reduces the legal vulnerability risk by demonstrating good-faith efforts to improve performance without immediate termination, which can be a defense against claims of discriminatory dismissal.

Potential Concession 2: Position Reassignment or Internal Transfer

Another area where Netflix can demonstrate flexibility is offering Alice a different position within the organization, possibly at a similar or slightly adjusted level. Position reassignment can mitigate legal risks associated with age discrimination claims by demonstrating that the company is making reasonable accommodation or considering internal mobility opportunities. It also aligns with Netflix’s flexible HR policies, which include shifting employees to different roles during restructuring processes. This concession might satisfy Alice’s desire to retain employment, while enabling Netflix to avoid potential litigation or negative publicity associated with termination based on age or performance.

Potential Concession 3: Outplacement Benefits and Severance Payment

A third strategic concession involves offering outplacement services and a severance package that exceeds the standard policy, possibly including extended healthcare benefits or pension considerations. While some of these benefits, such as accrued vacation pay, might be governed by formal policies, additional outplacement support can serve as a goodwill gesture that enhances Netflix’s legal and public image. Given the risks associated with age discrimination claims, offering a broader severance package demonstrates Netflix’s willingness to handle the situation ethically, potentially deterring legal action and providing a cushion for the employee during transition.

In addition to these concessions, legal vulnerability considerations are paramount. Age discrimination claims require the employer to demonstrate that employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Offering concessions that focus on repositioning or enhancing support services minimizes the risk of perceived discriminatory motives. Also, documenting the negotiation process and decisions is crucial to defending against possible legal claims, serving as evidence that the company acted in good faith and offered reasonable accommodations.

In conclusion, effective concessions in negotiations between Netflix’s HR leadership and an employee like Alice Jones should consider the strategic positioning of involved parties, areas of organizational flexibility, and legal vulnerabilities. Modifying performance plans, reassigning roles, and providing extended termination benefits are three viable concessions that balance organizational interests with legal and ethical responsibilities. These concessions foster a collaborative negotiation environment, reduce legal risks, and can lead to mutually satisfactory agreements, reinforcing Netflix’s reputation for fair and respectful treatment of employees.

References

  • Baron, R. M., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Negotiation (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.
  • Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
  • Gelfand, M. J., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Negotiation and Conflict Management: Theories and Models. In M. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 479-498). Sage.
  • Holmberg, S., & Geers, K. (2020). The Legal Aspects of Employee Negotiations: Navigating Discrimination Laws and Employer Responsibilities. Journal of Employment Law, 34(2), 156-172.
  • Levit, H., & Landa, D. (2015). Employment Discrimination Law. Aspen Publishers.
  • Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond. Bantam.
  • Neale, M. A., & Brett, J. M. (1989). The Role of the Negotiator’s Bargaining Zone and the Ability to Read Other’s Intentions. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 124-137.
  • Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
  • Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam.
  • Walsh, M., & Bartunek, J. M. (2015). Navigating Workplace Negotiations: Strategies for Success. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 77-85.

Related Assignments