26 Jan · Critical Thinking: Does

Module 1 – Case

HUMAN ELEMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS

Case Assignment

Begin by reading:

Stuhlmacher, A., & Adair, B. (2014). Chapter 10: Personality and negotiation. In Benoliel, M. (Ed.), Negotiation excellence: Successful deal making. 2nd. Ed. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company. [EBSCO eBook Collection]

After reading this assignment, prepare a 3- to 4-page paper in which you discuss the extent to which you agree that being prepared to interact empathically and congenially and to apply the concept of mutuality with those at the negotiating table is key to preparing for success in any negotiations.

Explain your reasoning, give some examples and offer some theoretical support from your readings. Draw on the background readings and search in the Trident Online Library to find some papers/articles to support your argument and show them in the reference list.

Upload your assignment to the Case 1 Dropbox. Be sure to review your TurnItIn Originality report. If the score is over 20%, you may not be writing in your own words, and you will need to contact your professor and arrange to revise and resubmit your assignment.

Assignment Expectations

The Case papers in this course will be evaluated using the criteria as stated in the Case rubric. The following is a review of the rubric criteria:

· Assignment Requirements: Does the paper directly address all aspects of the assignment? Have the assignment instructions been followed closely?

· Critical Thinking: Does the paper demonstrate a college

level of analysis, in which information derived from multiple sources has been critically evaluated and synthesized in the formulation of a logical set of conclusions? Does the submission demonstrate that the student has read and understood the background materials for the module and can apply them to the assignment?

· Writing and Assignment Organization: Is the essay logical, well organized, and well written? Are the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate for college-level work? Are section headings included? Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of responding, or is justification/support instead conveyed through excessive use of direct quotations?

· Use of Sources and Mechanics: Does the submission demonstrate that the student has read and understood the background materials for the module and can apply them to the assignment? If required, has the student demonstrated effective research, as evidenced by student’s use of relevant and quality sources? Does the student demonstrate understanding of a consistent (e.g., APA) style of referencing, by inclusion of proper citations (for paraphrased text and direct quotations) as appropriate? Are appropriate sources from the background material included? Have all sources cited in the paper been included on the Reference page?

· Timeliness: Has the assignment been submitted to TLC (Trident’s learning management system) on or before the module’s due date?

Module 1 – SLP

HUMAN ELEMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS

Imagine you are the owner of a small electrical company. You have been penalized $14,000 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for what you consider to be petty violations. You do not think you should have been cited for two of the three violations which were identified as “Serious” violations.

1. There was an open elevator shaft 30 feet from where your electrician was working.

2. Someone cut the grounding prong off of one of your extension cords.

3. Your electrician did not cover an open circuit breaker box that was energized, which exposed other workers to potential electrical shock hazards.

In addition, you consider your company’s safety program to be one of the best in the industry, having won several awards from the local Safety Council. You also have not had a recordable injury for more than 5 years.

You do not think you should have been cited for the elevator shaft, since it was not very close to where your electrician was working (so the employee wasn’t really exposed to the hazard). He didn’t even have a reason to go near the shaft, and it wasn’t your company’s responsibility to put up a guard rail (the carpenters are supposed to do that).

You do not think you should be cited for the electrical cord because you have repeatedly instructed your workers not to do this, and you have a program to check for ground prongs daily (though your foreman sometimes forgets to do this).

You decide to set up an informal settlement conference to try to settle the case with the Area Director. You heard conflicting stories related to her willingness to negotiate in good faith, however.

A framing contractor (who is admittedly a bit of a “hothead”) stated that the Area Director is “a jerk” and that she “has it in” for construction contractors. He stated, “I showed her how her inspector was clearly wrong and all she would do was give me a 20% penalty reduction. She wants to put us all out of business.” A roofing contractor stated, however, that you just need to get on her good side. He stated that the Area Director was very accommodating and that she withdrew two out of four serious citations tied to an inspection conducted at one of the roofer’s sites. He ended up with a 65% penalty reduction overall.

In this scenario, you are the business owner and are entering into a negotiation with a federal manager to reduce the penalties issued against your company. You really do not know what to expect. For this assignment, please review the background materials and prepare a 2- to 3-page paper in which you:

Outline the key tenets of emotional intelligence and discuss how an awareness of emotional intelligence and the human element can be useful going into such a negotiation.

Upload your assignment to the SLP 1 Dropbox. Be sure to review your TurnItIn Originality report. If the score is over 20%, you may not be writing in your own words, and you will need to contact your professor and arrange to revise and resubmit your assignment.

SLP Assignment Expectations

The SLP papers in this course will be evaluated using the criteria as stated in the SLP rubric. The following is a review of the rubric criteria:

· Assignment-Driven Criteria: Does the paper cover all key elements of the assignment in a substantive way?

· Critical Thinking: Does the paper demonstrate a college level of analysis in conceptualizing the problem? Are viewpoints and assumptions critically evaluated and synthesized in the formulation of a logical set of conclusions? Does the submission demonstrate that the student has read and understood the background materials for the module and can apply them to the assignment?

· Scholarly Writing/Oral Communication: Does the student demonstrate college-level skill in scholarly written/oral communication to an appropriately specialized audience?

· Assignment Organization and Quality of References: Does the student demonstrate understanding of a consistent (e.g., APA) style of referencing, by inclusion of proper citations (for paraphrased text and direct quotations) as appropriate? Are appropriate sources from the background material included? Have all sources cited in the paper been included on the Reference page?

· Timeliness: Has the assignment been submitted to TLC (Trident’s learning management system) on or before the module’s due date?