ManaComm-NegotiationStylePaper.docx
In business, negotiations happen often. To name just a few examples, negotiations can take place when hiring an employee, setting budgets, assigning performance ratings, agreeing on contract terms with vendors and consultants and designing compensation and benefit programs. Understanding one’s own negotiation style and skills is beneficial and helps when preparing for a meeting and conducting the actual negotiations.
For this assignment, access the following Harvard Business Review article.
Wheeler, M. (2016, February 5). Assessment: What kind of negotiator are you? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/02/assessment-what-kind-of-negotiator-are-you (Links to an external site.)
Take the self-assessment test and read the results. Write a brief paper, not to exceed two pages, describing how you were rated and your reaction to the analysis of your style. Were you surprised with anything? Considering the four key areas of negotiating style, where do you think you could improve? Think of somebody with whom you work (or with whom you have interacted) who is, in your opinion, a highly effective negotiator? Explain why you think this person is such a good negotiator.
Rubric
F19_Written Assignments
|
F19_Written Assignments
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Knowledge
|
|
35.0 to >31.5 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates comprehension through substantial synthesis and evaluation of concepts.
|
31.5 to >28.0 pts
Competent
Demonstrates comprehension through some integration and evaluation of key concepts and terms.
|
28.0 to >24.5 pts
Marginal
Partially integrated or evaluated key concepts.
|
24.5 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Did not include, mention or discuss key concepts or coverage of key concepts was inadequate or inaccurate.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
35.0 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Analysis
|
|
35.0 to >31.5 pts
Proficient
Provided substantive and appropriate evaluation, conclusions and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views without bias and drew valid and supported conclusions. Used examples and cited scholarly research.
|
31.5 to >28.0 pts
Competent
Provided some evaluation, conclusions and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views without bias using some examples and citing scholarly research.
|
28.0 to >24.5 pts
Marginal
Provided limited evaluation and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views using limited examples. Did not cite scholarly research.
|
24.5 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Provided weak or ineffective evaluation and application of concepts and terms. Did not identify or analyze alternative views. Did not provide examples and did not cite scholarly research.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
35.0 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport of Assessments
|
|
10.0 to >9.0 pts
Proficient
Provided support of assessments and evaluations through research and use of scholarly resources.
|
9.0 to >8.0 pts
Competent
Provided some support for assessments and evaluations by citing textbook and some academic resources. Some statements should have been supported with references to scholarly resources.
|
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Marginal
Limited use of scholarly references. Primarily used non-academic references. Did not provide adequate attribution.
|
6.0 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Did not use scholarly references. Did not provide adequate attribution.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
10.0 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFocus, Organization and Structure
|
|
10.0 to >9.0 pts
Proficient
Demonstrated well-developed focus, thorough points of development, and a logical pattern or organization of ideas and concepts.
|
9.0 to >8.0 pts
Competent
Demonstrated good focus with average development and logical organization of ideas and concepts.
|
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Marginal
Limited focus with irregular development of theme. Did not adequately or logically organize ideas and concepts.
|
6.0 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Lack of a clear focus and insufficient development of theme. Lack of logical organization of ideas and concepts.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
10.0 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Punctuation, Spelling
|
|
5.0 to >4.5 pts
Proficient
The paper is mostly free of errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling.
|
4.5 to >4.0 pts
Competent
Very few errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The errors are minor and do not detract from the work.
|
4.0 to >3.5 pts
Marginal
Errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling cause distraction when reading the paper.
|
3.5 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Numerous errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling throughout the assignment detract from the paper.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
5.0 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Compliance
|
|
5.0 to >4.5 pts
Proficient
Written work was formatted using APA standards. Properly cited scholarly sources using APA style to credit when paraphrasing or quoting. Correctly and completely listed cited works in APA-style References List.
|
4.5 to >4.0 pts
Competent
Within the body of the paper, there are some errors in use of APA formatting. Some errors or omissions in use or formatting of citations or References List.
|
4.0 to >3.5 pts
Marginal
Multiple errors in APA formatting throughout the paper. Did not adequately cite references or failed to use APA-style citations and References list.
|
3.5 to >0.0 pts
Weak
Did not demonstrate an effort to use APA style in the paper. Failed to use or properly format citations where needed or made omissions or errors in References List.
|
0.0 pts
No Marks
|
|
5.0 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100.0
|
rbgriff
