Individual_negotiation_reflective_portfolio

Individual_negotiation_reflective_portfolio - INDIVIDUAL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
INDIVIDUAL NEGOTIATION REFLECTIVE PORTFOLIO The aim of this reflective portfolio is to discuss my observations and reflections on the three negotiation simulations namely used car dealership, e-mail negotiations and MPT, NTT and TIO, Central Digital and Pacific Communications which were conducted from week 7 to 11. Secondly, to discuss the observation on the preparation leading up to the Final Group Simulation; this will include observations of the team meetings, decision making processes, the communication and interaction of team members and the team dynamics. Thirdly, to indicate an in depth negotiation plan for the Final Group Negotiation Simulation and finally to critically reflect on the Final Group Negotiation Simulation. In addressing all the above mentioned issues, there will be an application of appropriate cultural, communication and negotiation theory/ries for each issue. 1. REFLECTION OF THE THREE NEGOTIATION SIMULATIONS The three negotiation simulations conducted between weeks 7 to 11 were the very challenging mainly because they were the initial ones to prepare the group for the final negotiation and the parties involved did not have a lot of experience at the initial stages with negotiations simulations. They however served as a good foundation in preparation of the upcoming negotiation simulations. In all three negotiation simulations, preparation was conducted although with more efficiency with the later negotiations than with the first. It was realised early on by the group 1 members that preparation was of utmost importance to the success of the desirable outcomes as it allowed members to identify issues that were to be discussed and prioritise those issues, prepare for the counterarguments prior to meeting the other group (Carell and Heavrin, 2008). This allowed team members to work as a cohesive group in that preparation gave members to allocate roles based on the level of expertise in a particular area, this will then allow members to conduct research in both the area they’ve been allocated and the background information about the other team. The nature of the negotiation was different in each simulation and therefore a different strategy had to be used for each. Strategy in this context can be defined as the general plan to achieve the goals of the group in a negotiation and the action progression that will direct the group to the ultimate realization of the identified goals (Watkins, 2002). What was uniform however in all three simulations was the identification of the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
groups ultimate objectives (tangible and intangible) regardless of which strategy members decided to take (Lewicki, Barry and Sauders, 2007). This included highlighting multi-goal packaging, listing priorities from major to minor, and assessing trade-offs among multiple goals (Quinn, 1991). For a used car dealership simulation, we were to be a dealership of used cars and one group member took role the role of a salesperson, the other was a sales manager who would ultimately agree to a particular settlement and other group
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/28/2011 for the course MB 10 taught by Professor Yhx during the Spring '11 term at Newcastle.

Page1 / 7

Individual_negotiation_reflective_portfolio - INDIVIDUAL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online