Module Title: Effective Business Negotiations Module Code: BAE 5 EBN

Assignment Brief

Module Title: Effective Business Negotiations Module Code: BAE 5 EBN

Assignment No/Title: Coursework component 2 Assessment Weighting: 50%

Submission Date: 13th December 2022, 4pm Feedback Target Date: 18th January 2022

Module Leader/

Tutor: Dr Joseph Teal Word count

1500

Submission Instructions:

This assignment is to be submitted electronically

This assignment must be submitted electronically by 4.00 pm on the submission date.

To submit electronically you must upload your work to the e-submission area within the respective module on Moodle.

Multiple drafts can be submitted up to the submission date.

Please remember you must leave at least 24 hours between submissions if you make changes to your work. Each submission will overwrite the previous one until the due date and time has passed.

You are reminded of the Universitys regulations on cheating and plagiarism. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulations.

You are reminded that it is your responsibility to keep an electronic copy of your assignment for future reference.

Your citation needs to follow the Harvard style referencing.

The Assignment Task(s)

This Assignment was developed to assess the following Learning Outcomes:

Demonstrate an understanding of the theory and psychology of negotiation and negotiation styles

Effectively evaluate negotiation situations and practice appropriate, ethical and principled negotiations

Evaluate and select their own most effective negotiating style(s)

The brief for this assessment is as follows:

Coursework component 2: Reflective report (1,500 words).

Module Code BAE 4 EBN

Module Title Effective Business Negotiations

Module Leader Dr Joseph Teal

% of Module Mark 50%

Distributed Submission Method Submit on Moodle

Submission Deadline 13th December 2022, 4pm

Release of Feedback 18th January 2022

Release of Marks 18th January 2022

PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

You must submit your work as a Word Document on Moodle by 13th December 2022, 4pm.

ASSIGNMENT TASK:

Coursework component 2 (Reflective report, 1500 words) specific guidance:

Using your knowledge of types of negotiation (distributive, integrative, and principled), critically evaluate how you have approached past negotiations, and explain how you might have approached them differently.

Your reflective report should include the following four sections:

1. Introduction (approx. 100 words).

Provide a non-technical (no jargon) and intuitive summary of your reflective report, considering the different types of negotiation (distributive, integrative, and principled). You should also briefly outline what you will cover in the main body of your reflective report.

2. Theoretical background (approx. 650 words).

In the theoretical background you are expected to define and compare the different types of negotiation (distributive, integrative, and principled). In particular, you should explore and contrast their differences.

3. Critical Reflection (approx. 650 words).

Introduce and critically evaluate past negotiation experiences and then, based on the theoretical explorations from Section 2 (theoretical background), explain how you might have approached the negotiations differently.

4. Conclusion (approx. 100 words).

Summarise the main points covered in the main body of your reflective report.

5. References.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

You must use Microsoft Word to submit your report.

Your report should have a cover page, that has the title of the module and Coursework 2. You should not put your name or student ID on the cover page.

After the cover page, you should have a table of contents that reflect your numbered headings throughout.

For the main body of your report, all text (excluding headings) should be black Calibri or Arial font style, size 12 with 1.5 line spacing. Headings should be larger and may be black or blue.

References start on a new page after the report and MUST be done in LSBU Harvard style (full guides are on the LSBU Library pages online).

Assessment Criteria:

% Marking Criteria

90-100 Highest quality work demonstrates: finest critical capacity; highly original thought and expression; profound and sophisticated mastery of subject matter or activity; incisive analysis; the ability to connect, synthesise and evaluate an extremely broad range of material, texts and ideas in an innovative manner; adds significantly to the understanding of the subject.

80-89 Exceptional work demonstrates: outstanding critical capacity; significant originality of thought and expression; comprehensive and sophisticated command of subject matter or activity; incisive analysis; the capacity to connect, synthesise and evaluate a wide range of material, texts and ideas in a penetrating and significantly insightful manner; provides significant new perspective on the subject matter.

70-79 Excellent work demonstrates: highly developed critical capacity; originality of thought and expression; comprehensive command of subject matter or activity; strong analytical skills; the capacity to connect, synthesise and evaluate a wide range of material, texts and ideas in a lucid and cogent manner; provides original perspective on subject matter.

60-69 Very good work demonstrates: developed critical capacity; some originality of thought and expression; good command of subject matter or activity; strong analytical skills; the capacity to organise and evaluate a wide range of material, texts and ideas in a convincing and fluent manner showing capability of extended learning at higher levels.

50-59 Good work demonstrates: some critical awareness; logical thought and expression; competent grasp of subject matter or activity; apparent undeveloped analytical skills; organisation and evaluation of material, texts and ideas insufficiently supported by reference and characterised by omissions and minor errors.

40-49 Acceptable work demonstrates: little critical awareness; hesitant and uncertain thought and expression; basic grasp of subject matter or activity but compromised by limited and unclear focus; purely descriptive; poor organisation and evaluation of material, texts and ideas; characterised by important omissions, some major errors and presence of some irrelevant material. Some evidence of the subject matter often poorly expressed with only minor evidence of scholarly study or references.

30-39 Insufficient work demonstrates: hesitant and uncertain thought and poorly organised expression; insufficient grasp of question or activity; some knowledge of subject matter but compromised by inaccuracies, omissions and major errors; lack of organisation and random presentation; preponderance of irrelevant material.

20-29 Poor work demonstrates: unclear thought and inappropriate and disorderly expression; little grasp of question or task; misunderstanding of subject matter or activity; no organisation; high preponderance of major irrelevancies.

0-19 Unacceptable work demonstrates: unacceptable work demonstrates: unstructured arguments with no support or premise often with evidence of cursory knowledge of the subject matter, unintelligible writing, inappropriate commentary, not addressing the task in any way.