Negotiation Final Paper

Instructions

For the final paper, choose one of the high-stakes negotiations below to research:

1. 2012 Disney Acquisition of Lucasfilm
2. 2017 Amazon Acquisition of Whole Foods
3. 2020 Brexit Political Declaration of the future relationship of the UK and EU (negotiations the followed the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement)

Write a paper analyzing the negotiation in the context of concepts covered in this course. Your discussion of the negotiation should include:

1. A brief description of the overall negotiation to provide context for the process. Describe the type of situation (transactional, relationship-based, etc.) and the strategies used (competitive, compromise, etc.).
2. The goals of each side and the decision makers for each side. What were the BATNAs and ZOPAs?
3. The underlying needs and interests of each side.
4. Identify who has leverage in the negotiation. Did leverage shift during the negotiation process?
5. Were there any authoritative standards and norms that were used? Third parties?
6. What was the outcome of the negotiation? Did both sides reach their goals? What was effective for each side, and what factors could have potentially shifted the outcome of the process?

Formatting

Your analysis should include at least 5 external, primary sources (i.e., news articles from reliable sources). Do not cite Wikipedia or Investopedia! Reliable sources are national newspapers, official government websites, and business magazines such as Inc., Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, and The Economist. The paper should include a references page and in-text citations for each source that are cited in APA format.

Context and Situation DescriptionUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Description of the negotiation is vague, incomplete, or missing key elements.

3 points

Provides a general description of the negotiation but lacks detail or clear connection to course concepts.

6 points

Describes the negotiation, including type and strategies, with some connection to course concepts.

8 points

Thoroughly describes the negotiation, clearly identifying the type of situation and strategies used, with strong connections to course concepts.

10 points

Goals, BATNAs, and ZOPAsUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Goals, BATNAs, and ZOPAs are unclear or inaccurate.

4 points

Discusses goals, BATNAs, and ZOPAs but lacks depth or clear analysis.

6 points

Identifies goals, BATNAs, and ZOPAs with adequate detail and some connection to strategy.

8 points

Clearly identifies each side’s goals, BATNAs, and ZOPAs with detailed analysis and links to negotiation strategy.

10 points

Needs and InterestsUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Analysis of needs and interests is superficial or vague,

4 points

Mentions needs and interests but lacks analysis or depth.

6 points

Analyzes the underlying needs and interests with moderate depth and connections to principles and strategies.

8 points

Thoroughly analyzes the underlying needs and interests of each side with insightful connections to negotiation principles and strategies.

10 points

Leverage AnalysisUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Analysis of leverage is unclear or overly vague.

4 points

Discusses leverage but lacks depth or fails to clearly identify shifts.

6 points

Explains leverage dynamics with moderate detail and identifies any shifts.

8 points

Provides a clear and detailed explanation of leverage dynamics, including whether and how leverage shifted during the negotiation.

10 points

Authoritative Standards and NormsUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Role of standards, norms, or third parties is unclear.

4 points

Mentions standards, norms, or third parties but lacks depth or connection to concepts.

6 points

Discusses standards, norms, or third parties with adequate detail and connection to concepts.

8 points

Insightfully discusses the role of standards, norms, or third parties in the negotiation, linking to relevant concepts.

10 points

Outcome and EffectivenessUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Analysis of the outcome is vague, lacks evaluation, or misses key elements such as effectiveness or factors influencing the outcome.

4 points

Discusses the negotiation outcome but lacks depth or misses evaluation of factors that could have shifted the process.

6 points

Analyzes the negotiation outcome, evaluating effectiveness with some attention to factors influencing the process.

8 points

Provides a comprehensive analysis of the negotiation outcome, evaluating each sides effectiveness and identifying factors that could have shifted the outcome.

10 points

Integration of Course ConceptsUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Integration of course concepts is superficial or inaccurate.

4 points

Mentions course concepts but with limited integration or depth of understanding.

6 points

Integrates some course concepts and theories into the analysis, showing adequate understanding of negotiation principles.

8 points

Effectively integrates multiple course concepts, theories, and frameworks into the analysis, demonstrating a deep understanding of negotiation principles and strategies.

10 points

Use of External SourcesUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Cites 1 external, relevant, and reliable source.

2 points

Cites 2 external, relevant, and reliable sources.

4 points

Cites 3 external, relevant, and reliable sources.

6 points

Cites 4 external, relevant, and reliable sources.

8 points

Cites 5 external, relevant, and reliable sources.

10 points

Writing QualityUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

Writing lacks clarity or organization and/or grammatical or typographical errors make it difficult to read and understand. Paper may deviate from formatting guidelines.

4 points

Writing is mostly clear and organized and/or may have a few grammatical or typographical errors. Paper mostly adheres to formatting guidelines.

7 points

Writing is clear, well-organized, and free of grammatical or typographical errors. Paper flows logically and adheres to formatting guidelines.

10 points

References and APA FormattingUnacceptable/did not submit.

0 points

References page or in-text citations contain several APA formatting errors or are incomplete.

4 points

Includes a references page and in-text citations with minor APA formatting errors.

7 points

Includes a complete and correctly formatted references page. In-text citations are accurate and adhere to APA guidelines

10 points