Education

The intent of the SLP is for you to apply the theoretical and general aspects covered in each of the modules. You will do this by preparing a series of five mini workshops for educational leaders.
First read the article* below (by Shapiro) and then prepare a 12-15 slide PowerPoint presentation or a 2-3 page paper in which you:
1. Introduce the workshop participants to the “core concerns” framework, and then critically reflect on the possible application of the core concerns framework in Lakeview Woods School.
2. Use a practical example from Lakeview Woods School to illustrate the points that you make to your workshop participants.
• Shapiro, D. (2006). Teaching students how to use emotions as they negotiate. Negotiation Journal. 22(1), 105. Retrieved November 26, 2010 from ProQuest
SLP Assignment Expectations
Before submitting your work each module for my review, be sure to edit and refine your work in accordance with the following expectations:
1. Does your work address each of the above items in a thorough and detailed manner?
2. Do you cite supporting references for all key points made throughout your presentation?
3. Does your work demonstrate an in-depth understanding of applied concepts?
4. Does your presentation and writing demonstrate graduate level skills, including:
o Introduction explicitly stating the topic and purpose of the presentation.
o Well-developed comments detailing the specified concepts and principles.
o Concluding remarks.
o Final reference list page, listing all references supporting citations throughout the presentation.
o Required Reading
o Carver, C. (2010). Negotiator styles and bargaining. The Negotiation Experts. Retrieved May 25, 2011 from http://www.negotiations.com/articles/negotiation-style/
o
o Shapiro, D. (2006). Teaching students how to use emotions as they negotiate. Negotiation Journal. 22(1), 105. Retrieved May 25, 2011 found in Proquest
o
o Reference Text (Modules 1-5)
o
o In this course you will be introduced to a number of negotiation principles and concepts. The following book, although slightly dated, represents a seminal work in the field of Negotiation, and serves as a useful reference guide and starting point if you need to clarify concepts (in each of the modules).
o
o Saner, R. 2004. Expert Negotiator. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
o
o Module 5 Overview
o Roger Fisher and William Ury have contributed a new and interesting method, to the field of conflict resolution. Their “Principled Negotiation” method, is in essence an interest oriented approach to negotiation, having the parties reach an agreed solution, by going through a collaborative process.
o
o The authors argued that most negotiations take the form of positional bargaining. This form does not produce good results, and brings much adversary behaviors to the negotiating table, as there are TWO opposing sides, each wishing to get as much of “the pie” as possible.
o
o They further argued, that a good agreement, is defined by being: “wise and efficient, and which improves the parties’ relationship”. Our overall consideration should be to satisfy our interests, and retain good working relations, between the negotiating parties.
o
o Thus, they advocate the concept of a collaborative win-win approach. The principles being: (a) Separate the people from the problem; (b) Focus on interests, not positions; (c) Generate options for mutual gain; (d) insist on using objective criteria.
o
o The benefits of collaborative negotiating are:
o
o Keeping the relationship between the two parties intact. When negotiations go well, they become trust building blocks, contributing to lowering tensions, and approaching future disagreements as such, and not reach escalated levels of full scale conflicts and “wars”.
o
o Collaborative negotiating is fairly simple to learn and implement. It is more of a straightforward structured technique, than a sophisticated and complex strategy.
o
o It is time saving, as both sides are focused on working together on mutual solutions, and not “playing” power games or stalling tactics.
o
o The core of this process, is creative problem solving. Therefore more options and better ones are generated by the parties, than would have surfaced in a non-collaborative meeting.
o
o Principle I – Separate the People from the Problem
o
o People have the propensity of identifying themselves and becoming personally involved in their side’s position. This will result in them responding and reacting to our responses, in a personal manner, to the extent of it being a personal attack on them.
o
o Once we separate the people from the issues, both sides can focus on the issues, and also retain a professional working relation between them.
o
o We must address the issue of difference itself, keeping ourselves and the discussions focused, and ensure that it does not become personal. As this can and will only waste time, and lead us away from the substantive “heart of the matter”.
o
o Do not attack your counterpart personally, and if you suffer a personal attack, keep your cool, and avoid an emotional reaction.
o
o Fisher & Ury, identify three people-related problems: Perceptions, Emotions, and Communications. Problem I – Perceptions
o
o There is never an absolute truth, or an objective reality. People perceive and interpret the world and its issues, in different ways.
o
o And in our case, these perceptions, are the key to identifying the problem at hand, and the possible solution.
o
o The fundamental point, is to understand the other side’s viewpoint of the matter. We need to approach the negotiations, without regarding the other side as the “enemy” or that they are only interested in beating us in a competitive duel.
o
o Neither they, nor ourselves, are to be blamed for the conflict, and when we reach the proposal phase, we should attempt to present an appealing and feasible one. (this is not a scene from the “God-Father”, where an “offer they can’t refuse” is made!).
o
o As discussed in our previous module, the discussion phase, is to iron out the different understandings of the problem, so as to proceed with a shared understanding.
o
o Problem II – Emotions
o
o Negotiations, can be short or very long in the making. But it is understandable that emotional reactions may surface. From low-level anxiety, to a full demonstration of fired temper or fear.
o
o The problem is that these emotions, become intertwined and with the “real” issues, making them difficult to identify, and harder to respond to.
o
o First and foremost, we need to accept that a display of emotions, may surface, at some point or another, at the table. we should never dismiss or ridicule them, but attempt to understand the reason underlying this display or outburst.
o
o An emotional response from us, to an emotional expression displayed by the other side, may only make a bad situation, worse. Many times, showing empathy and genuine consideration, may help in lowering the intensity of the emotional feeling.
o
o I would like to add, that many times, negotiations are carried out in continuous and very stressful meeting or meetings. Physical fatigue and tiredness, play a substantial part in the ability to focus, and many times, nervous emotional outbreaks occur, due to lack or minimal hours of sleep.
o
o Problem III – Communication
o
o Fisher & Ury, break the communication problem, into three types:
o
o Not Speaking – there are instances where the negotiators, are not actually talking to one another, or addressing their counterparts, but are “grandstanding”, and presenting a “show” for the benefit of some external audience, or their principles “standing in the wings”.
o
o Not Listening – while side A is talking, side B is busy preparing and planning their own next-steps or responses. Not to mention, the extreme rudeness of the act, the non-listener, is missing and losing many pieces of important information.
o
o Misunderstanding – although, they may be speaking, and they may be listening to one another, this does not preclude the possibility of a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
o
o The skillful, negotiator, will always directly address and listen to his counterpart, with full attentiveness. This is done, by asking clarifying questions and summarizing the major points, to ensure that both are: “reading the same music from the same sheet”.
o
o If both sides, approach the table, regarding their fellow negotiator, as such, and not as an adversary, it is with great likelihood, that there will be no side-sliding from the main issues, to tangent personal problems.
o
o Principle II – Focus on Interests, not Positions
o
o Interests vs. Positions
o
o Fisher & Ury in their own words say: “Your position is something you have decided upon, your interests are what caused you to so decide”.
o
o Here in essence is the difference between interests and positions. The former being an outcome or result we wish to achieve, while the latter, is our stance or opinion on the issue.
o
o We need to identify our own interests, and then decide on our tactical positions. But, this is only half the work. We need to understand what the interests of our negotiating partner are (what are his needs and wants), and attempt to find mutual and shared interests, or in other words: “Look for common ground”.
o
o This cannot be done by “hiding” your interests. On the contrary, you work collaboratively with the other side, by exchanging information.
o
o When negotiating, the discussion phase is aimed to meet this end.
o
o Defining the Problem
o
o Problem definition is easier said than done. It needs to be depersonalized, and should focus on the interests, not on the positions. Furthermore, it is important to reach agreement on this problem definition.
o
o When it is so defined, chances for a solution, that will satisfy both sides, are greatly improved.
o
o Note – Accepting the point, that both problem and solution, should be interest oriented, is the key to “integrative bargaining.” By adopting this approach, we immediately are on the path of collaboration and not confrontation, a path leading to a win-win outcome.
o
o Principle III – Generate Options for Mutual Gain
o
o Brainstorming When negotiators have identified the problem and their interests, and found common ground between them, they can begin the process of generating possible solutions. A possible solution , is one that addresses, presents and provides an answers for both sides’ interests.
o
o If a session of Brainstorming, is initiated by the parties, they can “put on the table” possible solutions, to be seen and evaluated by all present. This technique, allows for creativity, taking one idea and adding and bettering it. many times brainstorming, enhances “thinking outside the box”.
o
o To maximize the outcome of a brainstorming session, it is generally broken down into three parts: Idea Generation, Idea Evaluation, and Choosing a Solution.
o
o Idea Generation
o
o This is the “fun part”, but also the most creative. Everyone is encouraged to “throw-in” an idea, suggestion or solution. There is no criticism or ridicule, as this will call off the willingness to participate, and diminish the creativity flow.
o
o Note – if each side is represented by a team, all participate, regardless of their: title, rank or function. good ideas, are not limited to come solely from the “boss”!
o
o All “contributions” are quickly recorded “as is”, with no commentary or evaluation, generally on a blackboard or flip chart, in clear view of all participating.
o
o Idea Evaluation
o
o The negotiators, now need to develop criteria, in the light of which they will evaluate the generated list of ideas and suggestions. they will carefully check for feasibility and whether the proposed solution meets the basic requirements and/or constraints.
o
o The idea, is to reduce the list to a smaller number of possible and realistic solutions.
o
o Choosing a Solution
o
o The “short list”, is subjected to an enhanced scrutinizing analysis. It is common practice, to use models of evaluation and assessment, and to take the “good parts” from one suggestion to improve on another.
o
o The outcome is a solution that meets all criteria, and serves best the interests of both parties, maximizing their mutual and collaborative gains.
o
o The stage is now ready, to turn the agreed solution, into a written document summarizing the points agreed, and serving both sides as a binding contract.
o
o Principle IV – Insist on Using Objective Criteria
o
o Both sides should avoid measuring their decisions, based on their personal (and biased) feelings and emotions, or subject to external pressures. In many cases both sides can (and should) find and agree to objective standards.
o
o When negotiating a house sale in a specific neighborhood, there are published data sheets of similar transactions, that can serve as reference. objective criteria can also be derived from the following possible sources: Scientific and/or technological data; standards commonly used by professional bodies; legal precedents pertaining to our issue.
o
o It may be surprising, but most people share a common sense of “fairness”. Proposing a fair standard, or fair solution, is accepted as such, and is rewarded by similar responses. An objective criteria, is similarly regarded as being “neutral” or “fair”, and can be accepted as a mutual agreed standard.
o
o Principle V- Know your BATNA
o
o When negotiating, one needs to have a sound idea of ones options and alternatives. Negotiating is between two sides, in most cases of different power. Not always is the solution that both sides can concoct between themselves, preferable to the alternative, of not reaching an agreement.
o
o It is more than reasonable for me to reject a poor agreement and leave the negotiating table, if I assess that my overall situation will not be improved by this agreement. Fisher & Uri explain (page 104): “the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating.”
o
o To what do I compare, the proposed solution? To my BATNA.
o
o My BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement), is my “walk-away-price”, or in other terms: the course of action I will take if I do not reach an agreement.
o
o Without having a clear BATNA, I am negotiating in the dark. I must have a clear knowledge of my options and alternatives, so as to have a clear benchmark, against which, I can measure the proposed solution. Otherwise I may find myself accepting an agreement that is far worse than the one I might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than I might otherwise achieve.
o
o Example: If I am negotiating a new job offer, I need to compare it to my current one, or if I am not employed, to the consequences of a prolonged additional search.
o
o So, to conclude: (a) A well prepared BATNA, allows me to assess at all times my negotiating status; (b) The whole negotiation process and its outcome, need to fulfill the basic requirement of improving my situation relative to my BATNA.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!

BUY ANSWERS
  • 30% DISCOUNT ON ALL ORDERS!!!
  • Enter the code: AE30
toggle