Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Information Subject Code: MBA506 Subject Name: Thinking Styles, Negotiation and Conflict Management Assessment Title: Negotiation Role Play & Summary 2 Weighting: 30% Total Marks: 30 Due Date: Monday of Week 14, 11.55 pm AEST . Assessment Description . .. You will engage in a negotiation for a celebrity endorsement advertising campaign. You may be nominated to represent the advertising corporation and will receive email instructions from the company CEO including: 1. Appointment to represent the company as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract; 2. Specific instructions about the desired endorsement contract fee and advertising campaign timeframe; 3. Information about the projected revenue to be raised from the advertising campaign; 4. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the celebrity. Alternatively, you may be nominated to represent the celebrity and will receive email instructions from the celebrity’s manager including: 1. Appointment to represent the celebrity as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract; 2. Specific instructions about the desired endorsement contract fee and advertising campaign timeframe; 3. Information about the projected revenue to be raised from the advertising campaign; 4. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the advertising company.Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Stage 1: Pre-negotiation You must answer the following questions: 1. What is your client’s BATNA? What is your client’s reservation value? 2. What is the other party’s BATNA? What is the other party’s reservation value? 3. What is the ZOPA range? What is your strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA? . Stage 2: Negotiation You must: 1. Enter negotiations with their counterpart for the endorsement contract; 2. Maintain a communications log that captures the date, method, items discussed, and outcomes of each communication. . . Stage 3: Post negotiation You must prepare a short report (1 page) to your client advising the outcome of the negotiation.COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Criteria F (Fail) 0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction) 75% - 84% HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% Mark Assessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 80 MARKS Pre-negotiation Failure to identify either BATNAs, either reservation values, or ZOPA range. Illogical or poorly explained strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Reasonably accurate identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Further and more detailed contemplation required for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Close to accurate identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA outlined in sufficient detail. Both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range accurately identified. Logical strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA well explained. Precise identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Innovative and effective strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA clearly articulated. /20 Negotiation Communications log Poorly drafted communications log demonstrating little to no effort to implement strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA and no adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments. Communications log indicates reasonable implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA but either requires more detail or greater effort in negotiation. Adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments are evident but could have been stronger. Competent implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA evidenced by communications log. Sufficient adaptive behavior demonstrated in response to negotiation process developments. Communications log demonstrates successful implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Negotiation process developments met with adaptive behavioral responses. Detailed communications log demonstrating effective implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA together with highly adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments. /20 Negotiation Multiple issue and contingency management Failure to identify feetimeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. No contingency contract entered to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. Reasonable effort made to identify fee-timeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Contingency contract discussed and contemplated to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. Fairly accurate identification of fee-timeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Legitimate contingency contract created to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. Accurate identification of feetimeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Logical and useful contingency contract created to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. Precise identification of feetimeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Clear and effective contingency contract entered to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. /20 Post-negotiation Report indicates negotiation not successfully concluded or less than 30% of ZOPA claimed. Reasonably well drafted report indicating successful negotiation with over 30% of ZOPA claimed. Competent report indicating successful negotiation with over 50% of ZOPA claimed. Well drafted report indicating successful negotiation with over 70% of ZOPA claimed. Clear and concise report indicating successful negotiation with over 90% of ZOPA claimed. /20 Structure Format and Presentation (Consistent across all courses) OUT OF 20 MARKSCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Marking Rubric Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization. Body paragraphs do not refer back to or relate to main arguments. Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,” “another example is….” Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow; there is little progression of ideas. Little or no transitions between paragraphs. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout and relate body paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally well organized. Better transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Paragraphs relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas & arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Sound transitions between paragraphs. Major arguments are effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions between paragraphs. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody paragraph, with ideas always related back to main arguments. /4 Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique considered all the relevant issues and made important observations made from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression of arguments. Fully considered all the relevant issues and made significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /4 Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains much informal language. Uses “I” or “you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs more sentence variety. Attention needed with diction. Contains informal language or conversational tone, or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is appropriate. Diction is clear, but could be more effective. Language is academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, and concise. Sentence variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /4 Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing, spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Some requirements not met. Meets editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /3 In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Good referencing, largely inline with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Very good referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Excellent/appropriate referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. /3 Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - more than 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - 5% of requirement Word count is within + / - 0% of requirement /2 Comments: /80 /20 /100