As a board member of Express International, you are part of a negotiating team set to acquire ZHO Express, a delivery service located in China. Although Express International is the second largest package delivery service in the world, they currently have limited coverage in China which is now considered to have the largest express delivery volume in the world. ZHO is the third largest delivery service in China and has coverage of over 90% of China. You will write a 2500 word essay that describes your negotiation process as part of this team and adapts theories of cultural dimensions to this scenario.
Give a brief background on the parties involved in the negotiation. Feel free to supplement this scenario with facts discovered about similar companies.
Create a cultural comparison with China regarding business relationships and communications.
Demonstrate your knowledge of cultural differences through adapting cultural dimensions to the scenario.
Identify goals and interests for each party. Point out your BATNA and WATNA. Determine what will be your walkaway point.
Discuss your strategy as part of the acquisition team including your strategy to eliminate bias and your persuasive strategy. Predict your counterparts’ strategy. Discuss what inherent flaws might surface during the negotiation.
Identify the type of power in the negotiation and discuss what will happen if negotiation breaks down.
Recommend how to proceed with the negotiation.
You may refer to the course material for supporting evidence, but you must also use at least three credible, outside sources and cite them using APA format. Please include a mix of both primary and secondary sources, with at least one source from a scholarly peer-reviewed journal. If you use any Study.com lessons as sources, please also cite them in APA (including the lesson title and instructor’s name).
Primary sources are first-hand accounts such as interviews, advertisements, speeches, company documents, statements, and press releases published by the company in question.
Secondary sources come from peer-reviewed scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Management. You may use like JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Social Science Research Network to find articles from these journals. Secondary sources may also come from reputable websites with .gov, .edu, or .org in the domain. (Wikipedia is not a reputable source, though the sources listed in Wikipedia articles may be acceptable.)
Sample Solution
s âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldnât this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: âit is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).â In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether itâs lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ânot always lawful to execute all combatantsâ¦we must take account⦠scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.â This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittolaâs view but implies the same agendas: âcanât be punished simply for fighting.â This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interes>
GET ANSWER
s âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldnât this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: âit is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).â In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether itâs lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ânot always lawful to execute all combatantsâ¦we must take account⦠scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.â This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittolaâs view but implies the same agendas: âcanât be punished simply for fighting.â This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interes>
