Explore BrainMass
Share

MATERIAL USED FOR HISTORICAL NEGOTIATION

This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Re-enact and analyze a historical negotiation scenario

In this two part project your group will re-enact a historical negotiation scenario. Each group will then write an analysis of the scenario and submit it in the Small Group Discussion Boards.

Part 1 (Group): Re-enact a historical negotiation scenario through role play and imagined dialogue
As a group, choose a well-documented negotiation scenario from history. The scenario could be a business acquisition, a labor/management dispute, or a political disagreement-any situation that involved a negotiation process between two (or more) parties, whether or not the situation was settled successfully. After your group has decided on the scenario, each student should choose a role from among the various parties in the negotiation. For example, if your scenario is a U.S. baseball strike, different students would play the roles of the baseball players' union, the team owners, the baseball commissioner, the courts, etc. If there aren't enough roles for each student, then share role duties with another student.

Once you have chosen your roles, do some background research on your party's motives and interests in the negotiation. Then use the Small Group Discussion Board or Chat rooms to create an imagined dialogue between the various negotiating parties. Think about your party's feelings, motives, and interests, and present them by posting snippets of dialogue on the Small Group Discussion Board. Ask questions of your opponent. Hide information from your opponent if your party did so in real life. Propose and respond to settlements. Perhaps your party isn't even aware of his or her interests, in which case you can present this lack of awareness by being vague in your dialogue.

Example dialogue:

BASEBALL PLAYERS' UNION: The players have decided to strike because they aren't happy with their contracts.

STADIUM FOOD VENDORS: A strike might force the cancellation of the entire season! This could ruin my business!

FANS: You already earn extremely large salaries. What more could you want?

BASEBALL PLAYERS' UNION: Our terms are as follows: [terms X, Y, and Z]

TEAM OWNERS: Couldn't we finish this season and just keep negotiating?

BASEBALL COMMISSIONER: I propose the following: [settlement proposal X]

and so on.

Don't worry if the dialogue isn't completely historically accurate. What matters most is that you present your party's known position and actions as fully and accurately as possible so that you and your group have enough information to analyze during the second part of the project. Be sure to preface your bits of dialogue with your party's name so that other students know who you are representing. Use your imagination and have fun! If possible try to choose a time when everyone is available to participate synchronously (this isn't absolutely necessary, but it will help make the dialogue more spontaneous and fun). If this proves to be too difficult to coordinate, then summarize your parties' positions, motives, and interests in longer, more comprehensive dialogue posts.

Part 2 (Group): Analyze the negotiation scenario
Divide the work among group members. Summarize and analyze the negotiation in a 3-5 page project. In your analysis be sure to address the following:

Who were the parties?
What was the final outcome?
What were the alternatives to a negotiated agreement? Were the parties aware of these alternatives?
What were each party's set of interests? Were the parties aware of their interests?
How did the parties create or claim value?
Indicate whether any party made any of the following cognitive mistakes in the negotiation:
Assuming a fixed-pie perspective
Lack of awareness of framing effects
Nonrational escalation of conflict
Negotiator overconfidence
Negotiator egocentrism
Anchoring
Ignoring the cognition of others
If cognitive mistakes were made, how did they affect the negotiation? How might the parties have acted differently?

Submit a final draft in APA 5th edition format.

How the heck am I supposed to do this?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 21, 2019, 12:31 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/strategy-and-business-analysis/material-used-for-historical-negotiation-71438

Solution Preview

MATERIAL USED FOR HISTORICAL NEGOTIATION

Wal-Mart's labor practices spur NLRB to schedule a court date
Kansas City Business Journal - November 9, 2001
by Brian Cookson
Staff Writer
"In this case, we determined that there is evidence of that," said F. Rozier Sharp, regional director of the NLRB's regional office in Overland Park.
The NLRB, responding to an unfair labor practice charge filed in August by Teamsters Local 955, found enough evidence to schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge on Jan. 23.
If the Teamsters are successful, it could provide a much-desired foothold for organized labor. Wal-Mart has never signed a collective bargaining agreement with a union.
Wal-Mart could avoid a hearing by posting notices saying the retailer will not oppose employees talking to union representatives.
"We tried to settle it," Sharp said. "The employer didn't want to settle."
It won't post notices because that would be an admission of guilt, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jessica Moser said. The charges are unfounded, she said, and Wal-Mart management has good relationships with employees and hasn't done anything to compromise that.
Bob Jacobi, executive director of the Labor-Management Council of Greater Kansas City, said Wal-Mart usually doesn't make concessions to unions or anyone else. It generally takes disputes and litigation as far as the system allows.
Jacobi said that could be partly because Wal-Mart doesn't want to look like an easy target for lawsuits. The retailer has proved especially tough to crack for unions.
In Jacksonville, Texas, meat cutters voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. After they organized, Wal-Mart switched to prepackaged meat. Wal-Mart officials said that the incidents were not related and that all the meat cutters were offered other Wal-Mart jobs.
But the stakes could be higher in ...

Solution Summary

Re-enact and analyze a historical negotiation scenario

$2.19