Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Table of Contents

Introduction. 1

Defining Issues. 2
Assembling Issues and Defining the Bargain Matrix. 3
Defining Interest 6
Understanding Limits and Alternatives. 8
Setting Targets and Openings. 10
Assessing Constituents and Social Context of Negotiation. 12
Analyzing the Other Party. 14
Presenting Issues to Other Parties. 19
Protocol to be followed during the Negotiation Process. 20

Work Cited. 22

 

 

Negotiation Planning Guide

The length of the negotiation, a number of issues, the huge network at the table, the immense network of links amid the parties at the table and lastly the decision makers who are away from the table influence how the negotiation will outcome. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders state that it is important to understand that the negotiations can be done one on one, which is you and the other individual negotiator (72). As a result, it is the easiest model to understand and plan for. On the contrary, negotiations can also have two sides and each side can have multiple parties or multiple parties may also be represented at the table, or organizations or multiple group. This negotiation-planning guide will be a foundation for a better final grade in this subject, which is an A.

This stage starts with an in-depth analysis of what will be discussed during the negotiation. In this view, the negotiation will be about the final grade that will be issued on the subject of Business. Unlike other negotiations, this one will only focus on one issue, which is the grade for Business subject. Even though other negotiations are complex because of the many elements that need to be analyzed. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that the number of issues to be during the negotiation together with the association between the negotiator and another party is primarily the determinant of whether to apply the integrative or distributive strategy (72). However, since this will be a single-issue negotiation, the latter will be applied. It is important to note that single-issue negotiation mostly dictate distributive negotiations because the only true negotiation is the distribution or the price of the issue. This negotiation guide focuses on the final grade in the subject of Business.

In the negotiation for better grades, certain factors will come to play. Since the instructor conducted the subject from the start of the semester, he or she has a list of activities that were done. As a result, the instructor kept a performance record of all the activities that were done during the period. In light of this, as the student I had to perform my best in the stipulated activities to make sure that I would have a better platform to negotiate. To be able to understand the defining issues better for negotiating for my grade, I had to focus on the three main elements, which are coursework, practical exams, and written exams. When one wants to have an upper hand at the negotiating table, the aforementioned elements need to be above average. Therefore, in this negotiation aiming for an A in the overall subject would be the best considering the performance of the coursework, practical exams, and written exams.

The coursework, practical exams, and written exams should be well performed in order for the instructor to believe that one deserves an A. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that the chance to develop can be lost during competitive dynamics, which reduce information and trust sharing and which, treat each item in a distributive manner (73). This makes one realize that during the negotiations one should be careful to ensure that the needs of both parties have been met. Therefore, when one has an average of A’s in coursework, practical exams, and written exams, the instructor will allow the student to negotiate for better grades given that he or she has passed with similar grades.

The next step in negotiating for a better grade will be assembling all issues, which have been defined into a comprehensive list. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that the combination of list from the both sides during the negotiation will assist establishing the bargaining mix. Likewise, the student and the instructor both have listed that can be used during the negotiation. Both individuals should develop a list that has chief elements that can be used during the meeting. Since the student will is negotiating for an A in the subject, the list should favor issues that can be used make the instructor understand the student’s perspective. One should understand that when the list is being generated, the negotiators can feel that they have managed to put a lot on the table at a go or raise many issues. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that this mostly happens when the parties do not communicate frequently or they have lost the contacts (73). It is important for the student, instructor to communicate always in order to build, and effective relationship that can be used during the negotiation. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders state that introducing a huge list of items to a negotiation results to success, rather than less, likely provided all the issues may be real (73). Huge bargaining mixes permit many possible arrangements and components for settlement, hence increasing the possibility that a specific package can meet both parties’ requirements and this may lead to a successful settlement. Large bargaining mixes may lengthen negotiations since they represent many possible results of the issue to consider, and assessing and joining all the mixes valuing the deal very intricate.

In the list, the student should ensure that the list contains items that will channel the negotiations towards achieving an A. The student should make sure that the list focuses on activities that would convince the instructor trust the student. The instructor can also have a list that can be based on the activities that were done during that semester. These two lists can be used to develop the bargaining matrix. After they assemble the issues on the agenda, the negotiator (student) should prioritize using two steps.

Determine the issues, which are most and less important. When the negotiations between the instructor and student start, both parties may be easily swept because of the rush of information, offers, arguments, counteroffers, concessions, and trade-off. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that for persons who do not know what they want in advance, one can easily lose perspective and accept suboptimal settlements, or to be distracted by the long debates over the points, which are relatively unimportant. Therefore, it is apparently clear that both the student and instructor should have focus and be detailed in their negotiating. The student should always remember the prime outcome of the result is to attain an A in business. When the negotiators have set the priorities, it may result to an aggressive argument by the other party rather than yield based on their priorities.

It is important to understand that priorities in negotiating for trade can be done in several ways. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, one of the easiest methods is for the negotiator (student) to rank-order the items through asking, “What is the most significant?” “What is second most significant?” and lastly, “What is least important?” an even easier procedure is to group items for groups of high, low, and medium significance. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders add that if the negotiator represents a constituency, it is paramount to include the group in setting priorities (75). From the above procedure, it is evident that the priorities may set for more specific issues and interest. The last procedure that can be used is said to be more accurate since 100 points are given to the total package of the items and then they are divided amid the issues in proportion to every item’s importance. When the negotiator has confidence in the relative weighting for the points, the issues, then packaging and trading off possible settlements jointly becomes more systematic.

When one wants to develop a scoring system, the following steps should be followed.

List all the items of significant during the negotiation process.
All the issues can be ranked according to the negotiator’s value.
The negotiator should then assign points to the issues. Here, the student should make sure that the highest ranked item is assigned the most points while the lowest ranked item attains the fewest points. The total of the maximum points for all the issues should be 100. The aim of this step is to improve on the simple rank-ordering during step ii through reflecting the size of the difference between adjacently ranked items. Therefore, the negotiating student should understand that the difference between each issue.
Arrange the range of possible settlements for every issue. Classify the ranges using local norms or the student’s best assessments of realistic, low, and medium expectations.
Assign the probable results, which as a student one identifies for every issue. To offer the maximum number of points to the preferred settlement for each issue and give the zero points to the settlements, which is less acceptable. Then, assign and rank the points to the probable outcome between the worst and the best. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, the point values may increase between specific adjacent pairs of settlements within that range or could barely increase (75). The most significant thing to recall concerning the offering of points is that the allocation should reflect what is significant. Therefore, when allocating the points in the list the student should understand the elements that will offer most points need to be given most points.
Lastly, one should double check the scoring system. In finishing the steps (i) to (v), one will undoubtedly make choices based on the gut feeling.

When one applies this scoring system to ass the offer which is on the table, they should work towards acquiring the highest score agreement, which the other part allows. Therefore, the student using this procedure should attain they acquire the highest point for the instructor to allow achieve the highest possible grade, which is an A. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, it is also significant to set priorities for both intangible and tangible issues (75). It is also important to add that the intangible issues are often intricate to rank-order and discuss, yet when they stay subjective and not quantified, negotiators can underemphasize and overemphasize them. Lastly, the negotiators can also opt to specify the bargaining range for every issue within the mix.

Determine if the issue is separated or linked. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders argue that when the issues are divided, they might easily be subtracted or added; if connected, the settlement on one can be associated with settlement on others and making the concessions on one issue can inevitably be truly linked to any item (76). The negotiator should opt whether the items are truly linked.

After describing the issues, the negotiator can proceed to define the underlying needs and interest. As seen from previous chapters, the target point and opening bid are mostly required by the negotiator. As a student, the target point would be attaining an A as the overall grade. This is what the negotiator hopes to attain during the meeting. The interest might be to acquire this with respect to the issues aligned. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, defining the interest are more helpful in interrogative negotiations than in distributive bargaining (76). However, the negotiation procedure being applied will be distributive since they may also benefit from both or one party through identifying the main interest. It is important to understand that during the negotiation for better grades, only one party will benefit. When the student attains an A in business, he will benefit compared to the other negotiator who is the instructor. Listing the issues will play a key role in focusing on meeting the interest of both parties. Therefore, if issues can aid in defining what one wants, then understanding the chief interest needs one to ask why they need it. As a result, the student should perform better in the elements named in step 1. This will provide him with a better platform that can be used to negotiate with the instructor to attain the best grade during the study. Consequently, asking “why” mostly brings precarious values, principles, values and needs, which have to acquire in the negotiation to the surface. Some of the interest can comprise of

Process-based, which is associated with how the negotiators conduct themselves as they negotiate.
Substantive, which is directly linked to focal issues under negotiation.
Association-based, which tied to the desired or present future link between the groups.

In this stage, the interest can also depend on the intangibles of negotiation, including standard or principles to which the parties adhere. Here, the instructor will be in a position to negotiate with the student based on the standards and principles of the institution. If the student has adhered to the three elements mentioned in section one of the list, then he or she will be in a position to award the best grade. The negotiation will also be based on certain benchmarks that are set by the institution since they will act as a guide towards the settlement. If the student performs well, the instructor will reward him or her with better grades because he has achieved the target required. The deal should also be reasonable and reflect the effort that has been applied in the subject.

In this section, some of the questions to reflect on will be stated below:

What are my limits? What is walk away? What are my alternatives?
Defining targets and openings. Where will starts? What is my goal?
Who are my constituents and what do they want me to do?

As a dedicated student, the only goal that drives me is the need to succeed in my academics and get good grades. I have always dedicated my entire life to working hard at school with hopes that the efforts will be well placed in the future. Business as a subject became the immediate area of interest when I joined school and I have always been thrilled with the intrinsic capacity of business in shaping the world. As earlier mentioned, I seek to get an A in Business to reflect my interests and efforts that I have invested in studying the subject. Through the schooling experienced, I have offered to do allot of practices in the area of business and read a lot of books with intent to understand all the dynamics of business. I can personally echo the fact that I have grown my grasp of the discipline and am now comfortable to tackle any issues regarding the business world.

In the event that my arguments are sloppy and do not reflect the level of excellence required, I would ask to be granted the opportunity to get a B in the subject. I would rest for a B since it has the capacity to shape a positive influence in my life thereafter. Like any other student who has sacrificed time and financed in the institution of education, I would wish to turn the investment into a success and help share in the effort of shaping the world. I happen to belong to a generation that is driven by excellence and success. We are all characterized by a deep-seated desire to change the world and leave a legacy of excellence. I wish to be known as a person who struggled through life to ensure the introduction of ideas and concepts that redefined the whole business world. I believe there is room for growth and development and my constant interaction with Business as a discipline presents a chance for more growth and development.

Another reason I had settled for a B as my resistance point is the fact that anything lesser than that would mean an immediate detachment from my dreams. It is the point that can at least offer a given set of option that would favor my dreams (76). I have come a long way and have done a lot to ensure that I succeed. Any grade less than a B would not only be a disservice to me but to the whole society. I am made to believe that I am gifted and occupy a highlighted position in the society. I would wish to use the gift and help the society to become better through informed investment and controlled business activities that do not disregard other important aspects in the society. I would define my being as a business enthusiast who is not only obsessed with the capacity of reproducing ideas but also the ability to create new ideas and challenge exiting developments in the sector of business.

I have a shallow list of alternatives that I can consider in this negotiation. One possible alternative is getting A in other related subjects that would later amount to a better overall grade. For instance, if I get an A in Human Resource (HM), which is a related subject, I will be able to raise extra point for my final grade. However, the A in HM will not serve its purpose given that my interests is not to only get a better overall grade. I wish to get a good grade in Business that would allow me to consider more education in the sector of business that would be later channeled into an extended understanding of business in its entirety. My alternatives are limited and it gives me a poor position to navigate my negotiation (77). It presents my case as almost desperate in need of great favor. I admit that I do not seek to consider any other options that would not allow me to achieve my long-term goals.

 

As described by the institution of negotiation, the opening shapes the course of the whole process. An unrealistic opening can make one of the parties to quit with an attitude that there is no hope for agreement. In my case, my opening is realistic as it reflects my constant effort to get good grades in school. It does not only apply in Business but also in other subjects. I have constantly made efforts achieve score better and my dreams. I was brought up in a responsible setting that taught me the importance of hard work. I have forever embraced the idea of hard working and it has helped me to achieve a lot in both my academic and social life. Therefore, my opening is an A, which happens to be the highest grade achievable under the given setting. Getting an A means that a student was able to comprehensively understand the subject and present correct answers in all the tests given. The facts underlining the grade are not diverted from the reality given my scoring in the tests given. It also reflects the general participation in class, an aspect that I have grown to shape as an interactive tool to better learning. My target is positive and realistic as expected from any student who wished to be part of change in the society. I believe that my constant effort at school, knowledge base and skill set deserves the A as it will guarantee a comprehensive exploitation of my abilities.

I am made to understand that this negotiation involves two parties that are all indebted to their course. A student takes classes and responds to the tests and the instructor who aids in the learning and the testing process. As a student, am obsessed with the need to understand the ideas shared in class and present the correct answers in all the tests given. The instructor on the other hand is moved by the need to echo the objectives of the institution in question and deliver the overall set goals of education in its basic meaning. A good instructor would not consider offering high grades to those students who do not show constant efforts or grant poor grades to those who constant struggle to perform better. I am proud to categorize myself as a student who always seeks to do better and get the highest score possible. My assessment is inspired by the multiple positive comments that I have received from my friends, classmates, instructors and parents. I believe their assessment is well placed and it would be a great disservice for me to fail to live up to their expectations.

At our your disposal is a bargaining mix with all grades from A, B, C, D, E to F. The instructor has the power to give any of the grades, which is determined through a comprehensive assessment of a student’s performance. I believe I have the capacity to belong to any group on the listing served with the option to either work hard or not. However, given my experience at school and my constant involvement in my own academics, my bargaining mix is limited to A and B. A is the highest grade that I can get and the most deserving one. B is the lowest that I can manage and it reflects a sense of failure having set a goal for us go away for excellence. I was taught to always keep a positive mindset and never embrace pessimism as it limits my capacity to get good grades.

In shaping a trade-off, I plan to consider a number of projects in relation to the subject in question. I have been able to learn so many ideas in business that can easily be replicated in the real world. In fact, I plan to establish a business line that would directly draw from the concepts and ideas learned in the classroom. The success of the business will be a direct manifestation of all the ideas that I learned in the classroom. Teaching is a way of sharing ideas and knowledge and the real success is when tutors get to interact with the practical results of their work. My success is a comprehensive trade-off for the good grade that I ask for. Getting an A will allow me a better position to stand against the multiple forces in the business world and establish great ideas that can change the course of business as a discipline. The aggregate results of my success directly reflect the success of the whole institution and positive impact on the society. I believe education is deeply rooted in the need to drive controlled civilization with regard to the well-being of human being and other aspects in the society.

In defining the constituents of our negotiation, it is important to observe all the forces that run an institution. Grading is the power that every institution is given by the local forces in governance in order to ensure a common method of ranking individuals. The society depends on the ranking to determine the best people who are identified as leaders to take sensitive positions in the society. It creates a sense of order allowing each person to explore his or her talents and abilities that align with making the best society. In my schooling process, my parents were my foundation since the primary stage. My family ensured that I was provided for as far as education is concerned. All the expenses were settled timely and in case of any issues my family members were willing to help find the most suitable solution. Therefore, my family also wishes that I got the highest grade that transforms their collective efforts into a living investment. I wish to make them proud by scoring the best and continuing with my endeavors towards success. Equally, my friends, both close and distant, wish that I succeeded. Rules of social interaction suggest that people are always drawn towards successful persons. I echo their deep-seated interest in my negotiation as a I seek to be the friend who walks the path of success. I believe there are other interest forces that are inactive in the negotiation, but would wish for an inclusive and positive outcome. On the other hand, the institution is made up of many forces and moderators who are set to ensure that everything is running correctly. It would be a violation of the law to give students grades that they do not deserve. The aggregate effect of such subjective tendencies is the development of a system that does not reward effort and excellence. My request in this negotiation is realistic and within the provision of all the set procedures and rules of education. In deciding which grade to give to students, instructors consult an already set scheme that offers the best approach to the issue. It analyses all the performances of the students and suggests which grades or options are the best for each candidate. The results are then decided with an aim to realize the overall goals of the education sector in the society.

I have so far developed a good relationship with the tutors and other parties at school. I have shared an overall positive connection that explains my good performance at school. I have contacts that will offer to link and work with me in the future with the intent to achieve great things. I have friends with bigger dreams that are portrayed as a source of inspiration that has helped me find the right path in education. In this negotiation, there is no room for future negotiations as the issue at hand is time sensitive (81). Grading as a practice is done within a given period and once the results are out there are limited chances of change. It calls for quick decision that is comprehensive and takes into account all the factors that define my course.

We live in a world where everyone is obsessed with excellence though many do not work for it. There are multiple cases of fraud as people invent ways to ease their way through the system. We have professionals and career men who are a lie having fabricated details to reach such heights. In the course of my talk, I wish to never be identified as one of the people who confronted the rules of the game in order to achieve subjective tendencies. My plea to get a good grade is not entirely personal as I seek to be actively engaged in the society for growth and development. A good grade is only but a go-ahead to practice my skills, do more research, and initiate change in the society. Therefore, the denial of my request will be a desire to the society as a whole. It is unethical to practice fraud or use other illegal means to get good academic accolades. The society deeply condemns all forces that push towards fraud embracing the culture of transparency and actuality. Given my performance in class and my constant involvement with learning, I would argue out that my request is ethical as it reflects the concept of honesty and transparency. I invite all the parties involved, both directly and indirectly, to share in the course in order to determine the most objective position with regard to my performance in business.

In any negotiation, just like the analysis and negotiating for personal interests is important, it is also vital to consider the interests of the other party/parties in a negotiation. The aim here is not convincing the other parties of the negotiations aims but is to make the other parties recognize the need/benefit in the objectives being negotiated upon. This stage begins by pacing oneself in the negotiating partner’s situation and thinking of how their goals and needs can be meet through the achievement of one’s personal goals. In this regard, is the negotiating partner is the lecturer who is expected to provide a better grade after the negotiation. This, therefore, will require that one place themselves in the lecturer’s position and attempting to establish the aims of the lecturer in providing a particular grade and what they would gain if they gave the particular low or high grade. This stage demands the anticipation of all the interests of the grader as part of the preparation of the actual negotiation. This allows the incorporation of the specific interest if the graders and creating a balance in the negotiation. The Harvard concept can be incorporated and this allows the identification of interests that the other parties themselves have not yet recognized.

The Harvard Concept is mostly used in legal and business schools and is founded on the interests of parties involved in the negotiation rather than the positions they may initially take. In line with the Harvard concept, this stage will take the principled negotiation approach that is found on the elements of people, interest, options, and standards. The premise is that the negotiations should be founded on principles that are the negotiators should focus on objective criteria and legitimacy. This implies that the negotiations will be based on objective legitimate criterion of grading. This when brought in at an appropriate point during the negotiation expands the perspectives and increases the chances of being awarded a better grade. This is because the multiple perspectives and point of argument become readily visible and an acceptable one for both the student and graders is highly likely to be established in the negotiation process.

The analysis of parties involves fundamentally attempts to establish the basic background information that comprise of the resources, issues, and elements of the bargaining mix, interests and needs, points of possible resistance and the existing alternatives, objectives and target of different parties, the reputation and styles of negotiation, and constituents, social structure, and authority for agreement including strategies and tactics. These are all for purposes of planning. Before the negotiation process, the following questions are key to consider the people/parties that will be involved in the negotiations and in this regards the following questions should be considered:

What is the school’s position on student grades?
What is the institution’s position of amendment of student’s grades
What parties are interested in the students’ grades?
Will the entire faculty be involved in the negotiations?
Will the dean of students be involved in the negotiation?
How will the other students influence the grade negotiation process?

In regards to parties it is vital to focus on the people involved rather than the problem being negotiated upon that is the focus should be placed on the individuals identified above rather than the grading problem. Therefore, the key questions to consider here are:

What perceptions do the person or people involved in the negotiations have towards the grade negotiation?
What are the possible emotional challenges to be expected?
What communication challenges should be expected during the negotiation?

The key in this stage for this stage is, therefore:

Comprehending the other person’s point of view by placing oneself in the grader’s position.
Not assuming that you will get the worst grade through the actions of the other parties involved.
Do not blame or attack the other parties during the negotiation process.
Create appealing and convincing arguments.
Develop emotional intelligence and consider that all feelings are valid.
Defuse strong emotions through non-verbal communication.
Practice active listening during the negotiation process and always summarizing the speaker’s points to confirm understanding.
Avoid emotional reactions and outbursts.
Use “I” statements when expression opinions and emotions.
Consider the other parties to be partners rather than interviewers.

The focus as indicated above should be on interests. Therefore, to come to an appropriate conclusion that will satisfy both parties, the issues being negotiated upon should be defined on the underlying interests of the parties involved in the negotiation. In any negotiation, it is common that individuals will share specific interests and needs. Therefore, to ensure effective grade negotiation at this stage consider the underlying interests of the graders. Therefore, to identify, understand, and deal with these interests consider the following:

The reason why the grader(s) who a specific position and not any other possible position.
Provide a clear explanation of your interest.
Discuss any interests that you have with the grader(s) looking forward to the desired solution instead of focussing on past grades or mistakes in grading made in the past.
Focus on your key areas of argument for the improvement of your grade you are interested in, but remain open to the proposals and suggestions provided by the grader(s).

There are options for mutual gain in negotiating and at this stage, it is vital to consider all these options by generating options that solve problems. The key challenges in this area include:

Defining the grading problems in terms of win and lose situations.
Thinking that it is up to the grader to come up with a proper grade or to understand the grading issues.
Forcing a single answer with no other alternatives.

To develop options that will benefit the student and the grader the following actions should be undertaken:

All the possible solutions to the grading problem should be brainstormed on.
Conduct an evaluation of the interested parties with the most promising proposals then refine and improve the grading proposals.
Focus on shared opinions regarding grading and where there are possible points of difference consider any other possible options where compatibility can be attained in the possible areas of difference.
Develop arguments that are appealing to the graders to ease agreement.

In the negotiation, it is also vital to consider the objective criteria in the grading system. This due to the fact that the possibility of having conflicting interests exist. Therefore, considering an objective grading criterion will be key in dealing with such conflicts. Permitting such, differences to spark emotions and engage in a battle of ego will only work against the student, is inefficient, and will most likely destroy the relationship between the grader and the student. The solution, therefore, is basing the negotiation on specific objective criteria that is independent of either party’s will. In regards to negotiating for a better grade the parties should refer to the examinations marking scheme, the grading criteria, and conditions for changing grades. The key elements when employ such criteria include:

Frame each point of your negotiation as an element of the grading criteria.
Find out the most appropriate criteria that fit your arguments and think of how they can be applied to your argument.
Avoiding buckling under pressure and where the grader may be shifting the discussion, move the discussion for the subjective criteria to the objective criterion that is usually procedural.

The key questions in this regards while planning for the negotiation for a better grade one should consider the following questions:

Are your points of negotiation framed within the elements inherent in the grading criteria?
Which grading criteria will your negotiation points and how can they be applied during the negotiation process?
In what areas or situations may feel extremely pressured?
How can is shift the negotiation from a subjective point of the grader to an objective negotiation.

During the negotiation process, the other party (grader) has personal interests and goals and these are for varying outcomes. The common stereotypes students have about graders include the fact that they intend to fail students, they are too strict, they intend to frustrate students, or are act to get back on specific students. Therefore, it is vital to get rid of these stereotypical thoughts when planning to engage in negotiations that may interfere with the negotiation process and this can be achieved by gathering information directly from the grader. The questions here include:

What is the intention of the grader(s) while grading exams?
What is the perception of the grader(s) towards you?
Do the graders make subjective or objective decisions?
Which other parties are involved in the grading system?

In the grading process in institutions, even the graders are under authority and as indicated above guided by specific criteria of grading and hence the existing authorities and systems challenge their subjective opinions. They may also be representing the entire school’s philosophy. At this stage of planning it is, therefore, vital to take into considerations the powers/authorities of the graders, the authorities they are under, and the institutions that they represent. Hence, the key elements to consider while planning are:

What is the position of the grader(s) in the institution of the department?
What authority is the grader(s) under?
Who does the grader(s) represent in the institution?
Is the grader(s) expected to share the information with any other parties?
Does the grader(s) make the final grading decision?

This is essential for this stage as it will highlight any possible challenges from the existing authorities or individual and/or group the grader(s) represent. When these are taken into consideration, it will be helpful in planning the negotiation to ensure that the eventual outcome of the negotiations satisfies the needs of these authorities and the institution and hence ensure a better grade that will be holistically agreed upon.

Any convincing argument and negotiation should always be accompanied with evidence and this hence includes when negotiating for grade improvements. Before the engagement in negotiations for grade improvement, it is pertinent to gather all the possible evidence that will support the arguments during the negotiation process. This will be key in preparing to deal with any possible counterarguments that may be provided by the grader(s) against the grade improvement. This stage involves the compilation of the most appropriate evidence to support the arguments for grade improvement during the negotiation process. The key factors to consider while planning for the negotiation include:

The areas in the marking or grading criteria that support your arguments.
The possibility of existence of past negotiations on the matters being presented.
The integration of the facts to present them in the most convincing manner.

This stage may also require the involvement of specific parties who will provide the most appropriate guidelines and facts regarding the validity and reliability of the compiled evidence. Consultations should hence be made in this stage to ensure the validity and reliability of the evidence compiled and the issues to be taken into consideration include:

The consideration of the individuals to be consulted to provide clarifications and elaborations of the facts related to the grade negotiation.
The points of view of the consulted individuals including their interests in the outcome of the negotiation.
Consultation of individuals who have engaged in similar negotiations in the past that were successful and those who were not successful to identify the points of success and failure in their negotiations.

Factoring in these factors during the planning stage of the negotiation process ensures that the most appropriate individuals are consulted and the most appropriate evidence is gathered before the negotiation process that guarantees a positive outcome that is an improved grade from the negotiation process.

Negotiation protocol is considered as a set of rules and structures of knowledge providing a means of communication standardization between two parties in the negotiation process. It is the means by which the negotiating parties interact with each other that is the way the message is communicated. To engage in any negotiation regarding grade improvements, the student is required to interact with the grader(s) or other parties involved through a common channel. The protocol is required to be open and transparent to both parties. Numerous protocols of negotiating exist and these are structured, semi-structured, and unstructured protocols depending on the items to be negotiated. In this regard, the following should be considered:

The communication channel should be used during the negotiation.
The type of negotiation protocol to be used.
The location of the negotiation.
The time for initiating and engaging in the negotiation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lewicki, Roy J, Bruce Barry, and David M. Saunders. Essentials of Negotiation. New York:

McGraw-Hill Education, 2015

This entry was posted on January 17, 2018 at 8:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.