SMO 412

(1)

University of Alberta School of Business Department of Strategic Management and Organization

EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS

Professor: E. G. Fisher Summer Intersession 2007

Office: 3-30L Business Building Time: Tue/Thur 6:30-9:20 pm Office Hours: Tuesdays & Thursdays 4:00-5:15 p.m. Classroom: BUS 2-05

Telephone: 492-3069 (office) or 447-2304 (home) Lec. X5 E-mail: [email protected]

________________________________________________________________________

Course Description

Involving a comprehensive study of negotiations, this course is aimed at potential managers, regardless of area. Emphasis is given to key principles for effective

negotiations and, to a lesser extent, human resource management. Several negotiations’

simulations are spread throughout the term. They are designed to permit students to practice and develop their skill at negotiating and to learn key concepts. Key concepts are to be learned both through simulation debriefings and in-class discussions of assigned readings.

OBJECTIVES:

• To develop an understanding of the skills and techniques of negotiations, including understanding their strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

• To learn concepts and principles and how to apply them, especially as they relate to coaching, providing feedback, and team work.

• To think critically (constructively as well as analytically) and hopefully creatively in order to reconcile underlying interests/goals.

• To have an enjoyable classroom experience, while learning to become more effective negotiators.

GRADES:

The final grade in the course will be based upon:

(a) Class Participation* 10%

(b) Evaluations (3 @ 20% each) 60%

(c) Project (Take Home) 30%

*Mark to be based upon: (1) attendance, (2) preparation, (3) useful and intelligent

contributions in class -- including seeking clarification if you don’t understand something-- and (4) fostering participation in simulations.

SMO 412 Lec. X5, Course Syllabus - 1 - Summer Intersession 2007

(2)

COURSE LEARNING ACTIVITIES & EVALUATION CRITERIA:

An important facet of class participation involves bringing critiques of readings to class and discussing them with fellow students in “peer learning.” These critiques should foster learning about coaching, providing feedback, and team work. Participation in simulations clearly is another key feature of class participation. Desired traits include being (1) reliable and (2) well-prepared and participating in a manner that (3) promotes learning, and (4) is consistent with the University of Alberta’s code of behaviour and code of standards for human research, as follows:

University of Alberta’s CODE OF STUDENT BEHAVIOUR, at:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~unisecr/policy/sec30.html and

HUMAN RESEARCH—UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS, at:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~unisecr/policy/sec66.html.

This is to promote a safe, constructive learning environment.

The three (3) evaluations (or critiques) are hand-in assignments worth 20% each.

• Evaluation 1 – on Cohen [pp. 209–255] due Tuesday July 24

• Evaluation 2 – on Fisher & Ury [pp. 147-187] due Tues. July 31

• Evaluation 3 – is on Lewicki [pp. 216-270] due Tues. Aug 7

Your assignment is to write a critique of the assigned readings. Do you agree or disagree with the ideas, strategies, and theories in the readings? Why or why not? How useful are the ideas expressed in the readings to the process of negotiation? What did you like or dislike about the readings and why?

The assignments require analysis and explanation. The assignments are not to merely regurgitate the material back to the instructor in the student’s words. “Analysis” is superior to “description,” chiefly because it answers the question “WHY?” Description answers

“What?” Virtually anyone can explain what happened. Analysis goes further by giving sound reasons why. It also identifies key factors and shows how they are linked with what happened and help explain it. Analysis further involves applying key concepts learned in the course to explain what has happened or what is good or bad about what has been written. In short, analysis gives sound reasons why; it also identifies key influences and relevant concepts and explains their linkages with what has occurred or been written to provide insights.

(3)

The preceding criteria reflect the following questions which I seek to answer in marking assignments:

• How clearly and incisively (in terms of getting to core matters) is this person thinking?

• How well does this person seem to understand the materials, especially key concepts and how they are applied or interrelated (if applicable)?

• How well constructed are the arguments that support the points being made? Do the reasons given make sense as they stand? Is there a better way to support the points being made?

• Can the student apply the ideas in the readings to the student’s negotiation experiences, both inside and outside of class?

• Are there obvious conclusions or lessons that are (a) inadequately developed or (b) missing?

• How far along the learning curve does this person seem to be, given the stage of the course?

• Using professional negotiators whom I know as a benchmark, how would I feel about having this person negotiate on my behalf?

In short, it boils down to two questions: (1) How well/deeply does this person seem to be thinking? and (2) What kinds and degree of professional expertise or learning do they seem to be exhibiting, given the current stage of the course? The above criteria and underlying questions will be applied to the Final Project (worth 30%).

The Final Project tends to be done in groups of three. It seeks to encapsulate the learning process throughout the course. Students may wish to keep an individual, confidential journal during the course to assist them in completing this project. The Final Project is to be typewritten using 12-pitch font, double-spaced & 1” margins and a maximum of 13 pages long. It should address the following topics, for which page guidelines are given:

• Key Points for Effective Negotiating, Including Dispute Resolution 3 pages

• Discuss Whether Scorekeeping is ever Appropriate 2 pages

• When and How to Convert from Compromise to Cooperative Negotiations 3 pages

• Key Lessons Learned from Video-Clips and Guest Speakers 3 pages

• Strengths & Weaknesses of Experiences 2 pages

The format for the Final Project is that of a textbook. That is, it should largely be done in an essay style, possibly with tables or figures to illustrate key points. What I am looking for is analysis (e.g., distilling key factors and concepts, showing how they interrelate, giving reasons for the priority you attach to certain items), integration of course materials, and overall learning. To reiterate, the above criteria will be applied. The last section on Strengths & Weaknesses of Experiences tends to be less important than the previous four sections. It provides feedback to me concerning your course experiences.

The Final Project is due on or before Thursday August 16 @ 6:30 p.m.

(4)

REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS:

Herb Cohen, You Can Negotiate Anything (Toronto: Carol Publishing Group, 1995) [ISBN: 0-8065-0847-7]. [BOOKSTORE] [“Cohen” in Course Schedule]

Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd ed. (Toronto: PenguinBooks Canada Ltd. 1995) [ISBN: 0 14 01.5735 2]. [BOOKSTORE] [“Yes” in Course Schedule]

Roy J. Lewicki, Alexander Hiam & Karen Wise Olander, Think Before You Speak (Toronto: John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 1996) [ISBN: 0-471-01321-8].

[BOOKSTORE] [“Think” in Course Schedule]

Organizational Analysis 412 – Effective Negotiations, Custom Course Readings and Simulation Package, printed with permission by Students’ Union Print Centre (SUPC), Spring 2005. [BOOKSTORE]

NEW GRADING SYSTEM:

Final grades will be determined by cut-off points rather than a particular distribution.

Consideration will be given to a raw score out of 100 points, possible natural breaks, and any relevant factor that relates to students’ performance. The instructor has some

discretion in awarding final grades but, generally, cut-off points should fall quite closely to the following:

95+ = A+ 80+ = B+ 65+ = C+ 50+ = D+

90+ = A 75+ = B 60+ = C

85+ = A- 70+ = B- 55+ = C-

A grade of D will be used for borderline cases of the minimum conditional pass. In the vast majority of cases, a score of less than 50 will be a fail or mark of F.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:

“The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/secretariat/appeals.htm) and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.” (GFC 29 SEP 2003)

UNIVERSITY POLICY ON COURSE OUTLINES:

“Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.” (GFC 29 SEP 2003)