Business – Negotiation
Individual Reflective Essay – Manor Drive Simulation Exercise
• The individual reflective essay will be based on the role-play simulation exercise.
• The video-recordings are important for me to grade you (please refer to the marking grid).
This will be recorded by the observer/timekeeper.
• The essay is 1000 words (+/- 10%) and is the reflection based on the character you played and how the negotiations went. The group leader/observer will complete this essay from an observer’s perspective of how the negotiations went.
Your reflective essay should answer the following:
Write a short summary on the role you played in the negotiation simulation role-play exercise, and the ultimate outcome.
Briefly narrate what was done right and wrong in the negotiations. Consider including the following points:
• The most important things you and your opponent did right in your negotiations;
• The most important things you and your opponent did wrong in your negotiations;
• How and why these things were important and had a consequential impact on the negotiation outcome;
• what you learned from this.
Prepare your assessments based on the marking grid.
• Learning objectives achieved:
• research, plan, and produce written assignments to acceptable academic standards;
• demonstrate an awareness of cultural differences and the skills needed to work effectively in multicultural environments internationally;
• assess the way in which legislation and government policy influences the business environment in national and global contexts.
Marking grid for reflective essay and video-recording:
|Exce lle nt||Ve ry good||Good||Pass||Ve ry poor|
|Participant‘s role :|
|All group m em bers s hould participate in the negotiation (apart from the group leader)|
|The negotiation s hould be com pleted within the s tipulated tim e i.e. 40 m inutes .|
|Com plete Tas k 1 by 10th Decem ber for the debriefing s es s ion.|
|Group Le ade rs’ role :|
|Ens ure all partcipants were addres s ing the is s ues in the negotiation and no one was digres s ing from this .|
|Ens ure the tim e-keeping done properly (s tart and s top the cam era, ens ure the team com pleted the negotiations in 40 m inutes etc.).||`|
|Com plete Tas k 1 by 9th Decem ber for the debriefing s es s ion.|
|Re fle ctiv e e ssay:|
|Did the es s ay have an introduction and a conclus ion.|
|Was the es s ay within the word lim it.|
|Was the link to the video provided in the es s ay docum ent.|
|Did the es s ay addres s what went right and wrong in the negotiations effectively.|
|Did the es s ay dis cus s the BATNA, ZOPA and other s trategies us ed by negotiators effectively.|
|Was the negotiation outcom e clearly dis cus s ed.|
Points to note while writing the essay:
• Write the essay reflecting on the role you played and how the negotiations went.
• Reflect on how the relevant theories, concepts, frameworks and academic literature (journal articles, textbooks) that you learned during the course shaped your judgement and decision- making.
• Analyse, synthesise and critique theories and literature as you write. Do not use random blogsites and websites like Wikipedia, Investopedia etc.
• Follow Harvard Referencing Style for your references. Tables, diagrams, references, footnotes and appendices will not be included in the word count, citations within the content will be included in the word count.
Instructions for group leader
• Please remember to start and stop the camera on time.
• Please ensure the team is not digressing from the negotiations and discussing other matters not related to the case.
• Please ensure there is no last-minute changing of the roles (this will not be fair to other group members).
• Please reiterate to the group that pre-rehearsing is not possible and their individual
• preparation time is 1 hour.
• Please ensure the negotiation is completed within the stipulated time of 40 minutes.
My role – Group Leader
• 6 participants from Africa, UK, China
• Time zone was between UK and China
• See attached participants roles
Note: My observation was that everyone performed well. 40mins was utilised. 2 participants disagreed
4 agreed for the construction to go ahead. 6 participants laid out their objections and how this would impact on the community. The main company was happy to listen and agreed to raise issues with management.
Cultural Dimensions Theory
• Low power distance nations embrace egalitarianism and an open approach to discussions;
high power distance nations embrace hierarchy;
• Collectivist nations emphasize on the well-being of the group; individualistic nations place more emphasis on attaining personal goals;
• In high uncertainty avoidance nations, there is low tolerance for uncertainty and risk-taking;
in low uncertainty avoidance nations, there is more tolerance for ambiguity and risk taking;
• Masculine societies are more assertive and competitive than feminine societies who concentrate more on being modest and nurturing in their approach;
• Long-term oriented cultures are focused on the future when compared to short-term cultures that focus more on quick results.
Chudzikowski, K., Fink, G., Mayrhofer, W. and Migliore, L. A. (2011). ‘Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal.
Hofstede, G. (2011). ‘Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context’, Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), pp. 2307-0919.
Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M. and Shoham, A. (2007). ‘Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies’, Journal of business research, 60(3), pp. 277-284.
Hall’s High-/Low Theory
• Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., and Huckins, A. (2012). ‘Conflict Styles and High–Low Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension’, Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 64–73.
• Kim, D., Pan, Y. and Park, H. S. (1998). ‘High‐versus low‐Context culture: A comparison of
Chinese, Korean, and American cultures’, Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), pp. 507-521.
• Korac‐Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., Korac‐Kakabadse, A. and Savery, L. (2001). ‘Low‐and high‐ context communication patterns: towards mapping cross‐cultural encounters’, Cross cultural management: An international journal, 8(2), pp. 3 – 24
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Framework
• Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007).
‘Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance’, Management and organization review, 3(3), pp. 335-371.
• Earley, P. C. and Peterson, R. S. (2004). ‘The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), pp. 100-115.
Salacuse’s Framework on Business Negotiations
• Groves, K. S., Feyerherm, A. and Gu, M. (2015). ‘Examining cultural intelligence and cross-
cultural negotiation effectiveness’, Journal of Management Education, 39(2), pp. 209-243.
• Metcalf, L. E., Bird, A., Shankarmahesh, M., Aycan, Z., Larimo, J. and Valdelamar, D. D. (2006). ‘Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey, and the United States’, Journal of World Business, 41(4), pp. 382-394.
• Salacuse, J. (1998). ‘Ten ways that culture affects negotiating style: Some survey results’,
Negotiation Journal, 14(3): 221–235.
Key concepts in Business Negotiations
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
It is the alternative that a party will select if they walk away from the negotiations because an agreement cannot be reached with the counterpart.
It is point at which a negotiator is willing to walk away from the negotiations. For example, when negotiations involve money, it is the lowest price that the seller is willing to pay for the goods or services, and it is the highest price that the buyer is willing to pay for the goods or services.
ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement)
It is the bargaining range between each parties reservation values i.e. the zone within which an agreement is possible by both parties. So, outside of the ZOPA no agreement is possible.
It is the idea of establishing the focus of discussion around a certain point, which can be a figure, an issue, or a range. This is a tactic adopted sometimes in negotiations to fix the bargaining range around this point.
It allows parties to integrate various sources of value through trade-offs to ‘enlarge the pie.’ This can
be achieved through integrative or interest-based approaches.
If some issues are in disputes, negotiators should be willing to do some trade-offs. For instance, if one side values something more than the other, then they should be given that in exchange for reciprocity on issues that are of a higher priority to the opponent.