Benchmark Negotiation Techniques

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code	Class Code
ADM-560	ADM-560-XC0823W5	Benchmark – Negotiation Techniques	100.0
Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	70.0%
Explain the participants in the situation.	10.0%	Explanation of participants in the situation is missing.	Explanation of participants in the situation is vague and inconsistent.	Explanation of participants in the situation is present.	Explanation of participants in the situation is present and clear.	Explanation of participants in the situation is clear and concise.
Explain the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties.	10.0%	Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is missing.	Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is vague and inconsistent.	Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is present and connected to some research.	Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is present, clear, and connected to research.	Explanation of the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties is clear, concise, and connected to research.
Recommend strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation. (comp. 3.4)	15.0%	Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is missing.	Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is vague and inconsistent.	Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is present and connected to some research.	Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is present, clear, and connected to research.	Recommendation of strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation is clear, concise, and connected to research.
Recommend different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met. (comp 2.4)	15.0%	Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is missing.	Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is vague and inconsistent.	Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is present and connected to some research.	Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is present, clear, and connected to research.	Recommendation of different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get interest or requirements met is clear, concise, and connected to research.
Discuss how each party determines the value of their negotiation.	10.0%	Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is missing.	Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is vague and inconsistent.	Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is present.	Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is present and clear.	Discussions of how each party determines the value of their negotiation is clear and concise.
Discuss what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation.	10.0%	Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is missing.	Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is vague and inconsistent.	Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is present.	Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is present and clear.	Discussion of what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation is clear and concise.
Organization and Effectiveness	20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Format	10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%