BCO313NEGOTIATION
FINAL ASSESSMENT
Task brief & rubrics Dwyer 2021_2022
Task
•
•
•
•
Individual written Assignment
Material:
o Case titled “HOW GIVING FACE CAN BREW SUCCESS” (Rob March) page 2
Read the case and write a report which addresses ALL the following questions:
1. “Before tendering began, we were working with the client to develop the brief while the other companies were sitting around” Evaluate the
way Benjamin did his due diligence.
2. “Benjamin understood the concept of ‘face’. Use the case to prove or disprove this assertion.
3. “Many Chinese see it as their patriotic duty to shoot down foreigners, so you can be like a clay pigeon at target practice.” Use the case to
describe what this means and use incidents to illustrate any other strategems that can be observed in the case.
4. “We (the competing bidders) met every afternoon in the hotel bar and compared notes” Evaluate the ethics of this approach and in general
of the case.
5. List at least three key lessons you have learned from this case
6. List which players had BATNAs and explain how determining this was in the negotiation.
7. What advice would you give to someone who needs to negotiate with the Chinese?
8. What does this case study teach us about entrapment?
Organize the answers to the questions in a logical order and use headings to make this clear. Refer to theory and supply definitions, where necessary in
the report
Formalities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wordcount: 1200- 1800 words
Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded from the total word count.
Font: Arial 10 pts.
Text alignment: Justified.
The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in the Harvard citation style.
Format: PDF file
Release date: Friday 14th of January 2021, 00:00 CEST
Submission: Saturday 15th of January 2021, 23.59 CEST – Via Moodle (Turnitin)
Weight: This task is 60% of your total grade for this subject.
It assesses the following learning outcomes:
•
Outcome 2: Critically appreciate negotiation styles, strategies, and tactics
•
•
Outcome 6: Apply the framework of ethics in negotiation
Outcome 7: Critically understand the cultural differences in negotiation and understand the reason for and purpose of mediation
CASE STUDY: HOW GIVING FACE CAN BREW SUCCESS
Overview
Peter Benjamin, the owner of an Australian chemical engineering consultancy, has a warning for those wanting to do business in China: “Many Chinese see it as
their patriotic duty to shoot down foreigners, so you can be like a clay pigeon at target practice.” Despite this, Benjamin has been successful in China and is
responsible for the design of many of the country’s modern breweries. He was invited to submit a proposal for a huge Guangdong brewery by Dr. Pasteur Lai, the
son of a former Chinese minister of health and now an Australian citizen. Lai had many connections deep within the Chinese government, had done his homework
on Benjamin, and was able to report to the Chinese that Benjamin was the premier brewery designer and builder in Australia.
The Scene
Benjamin was initially cynical. “We get a lot of ‘tire kickers’ in this business—people who aren’t serious about a project but just want to test the waters,” he
explained. Benjamin sent the Chinese a questionnaire, asking for information about specifications, resources, brewery capacity, products they planned to produce,
budget, and business plans. The response he received convinced him to head to China to discuss a potential deal to build Guangdong province’s largest brewery—
a $20 million project. But, having heard from others about their China experiences, he decided to pitch only for the business in which his company had special
technology to offer. “One of the first things you need to understand about China is that you can’t compete against cheap, local rivals,” he advises. “The Chinese
only want foreigners involved if we can offer special technology they can’t get at home. We knew if the Chinese could have got locally what we offered, they would
not have approached us.”
Preparing to Negotiate
In the lead up to the negotiations, Benjamin knew his business could provide strengths the Chinese business lacked. He had access to technology that could
increase the capacity of the planned brewery while also reducing waste. He specialized in understanding and predicting market trends and had access to
sophisticated, international market data the Chinese company lacked. The Chinese party had no experience in designing breweries whereas, since 1983, Benjamin
had built or redesigned all Australia’s major breweries and most of its boutique breweries. Before starting negotiations, he did extensive research on the Chinese
market, including its beer industry and the Guangzhou company. He found that, despite the company’s listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, it had direct links
to the Chinese government. “If you’re working with a brewery in China, you’re working with the government, because the industry is so tightly regulated. I also
found that the government department in charge of the alcohol industry is run by ex–Red Guards, so I knew I was dealing with people who had to report back to
important government figures. I thought that, if I could find ways to make them look good in the eyes of their bosses, it would help in developing a beneficial
business relationship,” he said. When Benjamin arrived in China, he discovered that the Chinese were also talking to German, French, and Belgian companies, and
that the Chinese company’s plans for the brewery were not as well defined as had initially appeared. “I decided my job was to be the expert, and I knew I should
tell them what they needed, rather than let them tell me. It was clear they knew nothing about designing breweries.” Benjamin also understood the sensitivities
in pointing out the shortcomings of the Chinese plans. He had spoken with Chinese Australians (including two on his staff who had become the key members of
his team in China) and read widely on Chinese culture, so he recognized the risk of causing the Chinese to lose face. To avoid doing so, he offered to work with the
Chinese on developing the competitive brief using the latest technology. This would allow him to begin building relationships with the Chinese before the tendering
process had begun. It would also give the Chinese lead negotiator face with his bosses (and the Chinese government officials), as he would be able to develop a
better business brief using foreign technology. It also gave Benjamin’s business a head start in the tender competition.
Uncommon Tactics
“Before tendering began, we were working with the client to develop the brief while the other companies were sitting around,” he said. The Chinese arranged the
accommodation for the tendering companies. Each foreign team—the French, Germans, Belgians, and Australians—was lodged by the Guangdong government at
the same hotel. “We would go and have a meeting with the Chinese. When we got back to the hotel, the other businesses would always be waiting in the lobby
to be picked up for their meetings. It was made pretty clear that we were competing against each other,” Benjamin said. Working in such a specialized field—
brewery design—meant that the foreign negotiating teams knew each other, and they used this to their advantage. “We knew the Chinese were trying to pit us
against each other, so we turned their tactic around. We met every afternoon in the hotel bar and compared notes. We could then work out together whether
this negotiation was about price, technology, reputation, or some other driver. Of course it was about price and technology—it always is,” he said.
The negotiations took place over several weeks, during which each of the foreign companies met with the Chinese team almost daily. “We talked about the price
and technology constantly. We were always discussing the scope of the project, to fit it in with a budget with which they were happy, but which still delivered
excellent technology. There were perhaps thirty Chinese, and every time we met, there would be different people talking. You’d think you had an agreement, and
then one of the Chinese would suddenly pull you aside and tell you the complete opposite. It was very confusing.”
Shoring Up Advantage
To ensure he was not misunderstanding the negotiations, which were being conducted through an interpreter with the Chinese team, Benjamin had brought from
Australia two of his China-born staff—a chemical engineer and an accountant. “I decided I needed to use my two Chinese team members as my interpreters,
because the Chinese language is often not explicit: The meaning of what they were saying was often only implied. It was the best decision I made, because I got
the chance to log onto real feedback.” Benjamin also began to see the language barrier as an advantage. “Not knowing the language gave me carte blanche to
completely change my mind on things I already had said, because I could use the excuse that I had not properly understood. They kept changing the negotiations
on me, so it gave me the chance to do the same back and get away with it.” Benjamin had great respect for his competitors. They were professional managers,
corporate people. But they also had superior attitudes toward the Chinese, and indeed also toward Benjamin and Australia. They refused to believe that a worldclass brewery designer could be found in Australia. After several weeks, the French and Belgian businesses pulled out, frustrated at the drawn-out negotiating
process. They had offered their best price when first challenged and had left themselves no room to maneuver. Between them, the French and Belgian negotiators
had two other problems. First, they were both professional managers involved in a number of projects, so it was easy for them to give up and go home to take up
other projects waiting on their desks. Second, no one on the French team liked Chinese cuisine, so returning home looked very attractive to them. Benjamin,
however, was a specialist chemical engineer who owned his own business, had already invested $350,000 in preparation, and was not inclined to walk away.
Patience Pays
“I went in suspecting we were going to spend ninety percent of the time arguing price, particularly since the Chinese started negotiating by crying poor. They kept
saying they had a limited budget, so I started high and kept shaving off the smallest amount, but never near my limit. I knew from my initial questionnaire and
research they could afford to pay what the technology and I were worth. Even though this represented a great opportunity to enter the Chinese market, I also
needed to get properly rewarded,” he explained. “When I first got to China I was told of a Chinese saying—‘China has 5,000 years of history, so what’s an extra
hundred years?’ This basically means that they are patient and will wait for the right deal. We had invested a lot of money to go to China, and we were not about
to turn around and come home just because it was taking longer than we wanted.” The Chinese team tried to use Benjamin’s planned return date as leverage, in
a bid to pressure him into agreeing to their price terms on the basis that he was leaving the country. But he recognized the ploy. “I realized they were dragging
negotiations out until my departure, so I told them my date was flexible and I’d just stay until we finished. I acted as though I no longer had a deadline, and politely
pointed out they were the ones who had to build a brewery within a certain time frame.” Benjamin spent every evening with his Chinese negotiating team,
analyzing each day and trying to figure out the Chinese strategy. They would probe and explain to him Chinese cultural perceptions, which Benjamin found
invaluable for understanding the Chinese tactics.
Being Tested
“There was one meeting in which one of the Chinese team became very angry and distressed. That night one of my interpreters told me that the individual had
probably been testing my reaction. He explained that Chinese don’t do business with people they don’t know, and that sometimes they will use different emotions
to see how the other party reacts under pressure. “Chinese culture is so different that you need that local Chinese input. You can never have intuitive understanding
of everything that influences and drives them—that would take fifty lifetimes. The next best thing is to have local contacts to guide you.” Benjamin found other
confusing elements about the negotiating process. “We would have in-principle agreement on issues, and then they would just change their mind. We have since
learned this is standard. Even if you have something in writing, it is only ever a ‘discussion document.’ The Chinese expect you to ‘be like bamboo and bend with
the wind.’
With the negotiations down to just two companies, Benjamin tried a new tactic. He pitched the environmental benefits of his brewery design, explaining how his
technology could make the Chinese brewery a world leader in waste management. His technological solution would diminish environmental waste while ensuring
maximum capacity and building up the Chinese company’s reputation as a world leader. Meanwhile, the Chinese team had also done its homework and was
secretly favoring Benjamin’s company based on its reputation for delivering on time and to specifications. In the end, the specialist technology Benjamin could
offer ostensibly won him the contract. But Benjamin believes it was more about relationships and face. “I put effort into helping them look good. I designed the
brief with them using the latest technology. I helped solve other problems they had not considered, such as environment management that would save them
money. I suggested my solutions would make their business a world leader. It was about giving them an opportunity to shine.”
The Last Round of Negotiations
Before agreement was reached, and after the last of three proposals had been delivered and considered, nine separate negotiations were held to discuss:
• Payment terms and advance payments
• Currency decisions
• Inspections policy
• Warranties
• Delivery of overseas and local components
• Commissioning and training of the Guangzhou company’s personnel
• Penalties
• Performance requirements
• Capacity to deliver
By this time, the Chinese team was reduced to twelve people. While Benjamin and his team were in China on the last occasion, the Chinese team split in half and
each went abroad—to Europe and Australia—to evaluate Benjamin’s suppliers (and through them, him) of pump valves, electronic equipment, stainless steel, and
laser welding. His suppliers all appear to have given him a pass mark, but one subjective problem remained. While Benjamin’s team was well ahead of the other
teams on all criteria, some members of the Chinese team remained opposed to the Australian team—because it was Australian—saying they wanted, on the basis
of image and reputation, a brewery designer and builder from Europe. The vice governor of Guangdong province finally stepped in, we understand, and made the
decision in favor of Benjamin’s company. Within forty-five minutes of his decision, the negotiation leader was on the phone to Benjamin at his hotel. “We want
you to sign the contract,” he said out of the blue and with no preamble. “Come to the office now. Also bring $2,000 to pay for the celebration banquet at lunchtime.”
Benjamin and his team went directly to the provincial office. Before he signed the contract, he said to the team leader, “Thank you very much for your agreement
to commission us to build your brewery. In consideration of that, we wish to present you with a five percent discount.” The step was artful. Bringing the project in
five percent under budget gave face to everyone on the Chinese team, including the vice governor. They would not forget this.
Commentary
After winning the job to design the Guangdong brewery, Benjamin was exclusively commissioned to design a $5 million winery in Xinjiang province. This
demonstrated how trusted he had become in China.
Rubrics
Exceptional 90-100
Student follows the
instructions and
demonstrates excellent
understanding of key
concepts and uses
terminology in an entirely
appropriate manner.
Good 80-89
Student demonstrates
good understanding of the
task and generally follows
the instructions. Most
relevant concepts and
demonstrates use of the
relevant terminology.
Fair 70-79
Student understands the
task and follows the
instructions in part. The
student provides minimum
theory and/or some use of
terminology.
Student applies fully
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in the
course.
Student applies mostly
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in the
course.
Critical Thinking
(30%)
Excellent critical
assessment, drawing
outstanding conclusions
from relevant authors.
Good critical assessment ,
drawing conclusions from
relevant authors and
references.
Communication
(20%)
Student communicates
ideas extremely clearly,
respecting word count,
grammar and spellcheck.
Very well organized and
easy to read.
Student communicates
ideas clearly, respecting
word count, grammar and
spellcheck. Well organized
and easy to read.
Student applies some
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in the
course. Misunderstanding
may be evident.
Student provides some
insights but generally
remains on the surface of
the questions. References
may not be relevant.
Student communicates
ideas with some.The paper
may be slightly over or
under the word count limit.
Some misspelling errors
may be evident.
Acceptablel organizion of
ideas and mostly easy to
read.
Knowledge &
Understanding
(20%)
Application (30%)
Marginal fail 60-69
Student understands the task
and attempts to answer the
question but does not follow
the instructions very well.
There is little or no mention
of key concepts and/or a
minimum amount of relevant
terminology.
Student applies little relevant
knowledge from the topics
delivered in the course.
Misunderstandings are
evident.
Little or no critical thinking,
few insights, the student
does not quote appropriate
authors, and does not
provide valid sources.
Student communicates ideas
in a somewhat unclear
manner. The paper is well
below or above the word
count requested and
misspelling errors are
evident. Organizion of ideas
need improvement; not
always easy to read.
CASE STUDY: HOW GIVING FACE CAN BREW SUCCESS by Dr Rob March
Overview
Peter Benjamin, the owner of an Australian chemical engineering consultancy, has a warning for
those wanting to do business in China: “Many Chinese see it as their patriotic duty to shoot down
foreigners, so you can be like a clay pigeon at target practice.” Despite this, Benjamin has been
successful in China and is responsible for the design of many of the country’s modern breweries.
He was invited to submit a proposal for a huge Guangdong brewery by Dr. Pasteur Lai, the son
of a former Chinese minister of health and now an Australian citizen. Lai had many connections
deep within the Chinese government, had done his homework on Benjamin, and was able to
report to the Chinese that Benjamin was the premier brewery designer and builder in Australia.
The Scene
Benjamin was initially cynical. “We get a lot of ‘tire kickers’ in this business—people who aren’t
serious about a project but just want to test the waters,” he explained. Benjamin sent the
Chinese a questionnaire, asking for information about specifications, resources, brewery
capacity, products they planned to produce, budget, and business plans. The response he
received convinced him to head to China to discuss a potential deal to build Guangdong
province’s largest brewery—a $20 million project. But, having heard from others about their
China experiences, he decided to pitch only for the business in which his company had special
technology to offer. “One of the first things you need to understand about China is that you can’t
compete against cheap, local rivals,” he advises. “The Chinese only want foreigners involved if
we can offer special technology they can’t get at home. We knew if the Chinese could have got
locally what we offered, they would not have approached us.”
Preparing to Negotiate
In the lead up to the negotiations, Benjamin knew his business could provide strengths the
Chinese business lacked. He had access to technology that could increase the capacity of the
planned brewery while also reducing waste. He specialized in understanding and predicting
market trends and had access to sophisticated, international market data the Chinese company
lacked. The Chinese party had no experience in designing breweries whereas, since 1983,
Benjamin had built or redesigned all Australia’s major breweries and most of its boutique
breweries. Before starting negotiations, he did extensive research on the Chinese market,
including its beer industry and the Guangzhou company. He found that, despite the company’s
listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, it had direct links to the Chinese government. “If you’re
working with a brewery in China, you’re working with the government, because the industry is
so tightly regulated. I also found that the government department in charge of the alcohol
industry is run by ex–Red Guards, so I knew I was dealing with people who had to report back to
important government figures. I thought that, if I could find ways to make them look good in the
eyes of their bosses, it would help in developing a beneficial business relationship,” he said.
When Benjamin arrived in China, he discovered that the Chinese were also talking to German,
French, and Belgian companies, and that the Chinese company’s plans for the brewery were not
as well defined as had initially appeared. “I decided my job was to be the expert, and I knew I
should tell them what they needed, rather than let them tell me. It was clear they knew nothing
about designing breweries.” Benjamin also understood the sensitivities in pointing out the
shortcomings of the Chinese plans. He had spoken with Chinese Australians (including two on
his staff who had become the key members of his team in China) and read widely on Chinese
culture, so he recognized the risk of causing the Chinese to lose face. To avoid doing so, he
offered to work with the Chinese on developing the competitive brief using the latest
technology. This would allow him to begin building relationships with the Chinese before the
tendering process had begun. It would also give the Chinese lead negotiator face with his bosses
(and the Chinese government officials), as he would be able to develop a better business brief
using foreign technology. It also gave Benjamin’s business a head start in the tender
competition.
Uncommon Tactics
“Before tendering began, we were working with the client to develop the brief while the other
companies were sitting around,” he said. The Chinese arranged the accommodation for the
tendering companies. Each foreign team—the French, Germans, Belgians, and Australians—was
lodged by the Guangdong government at the same hotel. “We would go and have a meeting
with the Chinese. When we got back to the hotel, the other businesses would always be waiting
in the lobby to be picked up for their meetings. It was made pretty clear that we were competing
against each other,” Benjamin said. Working in such a specialized field—brewery design—meant
that the foreign negotiating teams knew each other, and they used this to their advantage. “We
knew the Chinese were trying to pit us against each other, so we turned their tactic around. We
met every afternoon in the hotel bar and compared notes. We could then work out together
whether this negotiation was about price, technology, reputation, or some other driver. Of
course it was about price and technology—it always is,” he said.
The negotiations took place over several weeks, during which each of the foreign companies
met with the Chinese team almost daily. “We talked about the price and technology constantly.
We were always discussing the scope of the project, to fit it in with a budget with which they
were happy, but which still delivered excellent technology. There were perhaps thirty Chinese,
and every time we met, there would be different people talking. You’d think you had an
agreement, and then one of the Chinese would suddenly pull you aside and tell you the complete
opposite. It was very confusing.”
Shoring Up Advantage
To ensure he was not misunderstanding the negotiations, which were being conducted through
an interpreter with the Chinese team, Benjamin had brought from Australia two of his Chinaborn staff—a chemical engineer and an accountant. “I decided I needed to use my two Chinese
team members as my interpreters, because the Chinese language is often not explicit: The
meaning of what they were saying was often only implied. It was the best decision I made,
because I got the chance to log onto real feedback.” Benjamin also began to see the language
barrier as an advantage. “Not knowing the language gave me carte blanche to completely
change my mind on things I already had said, because I could use the excuse that I had not
properly understood. They kept changing the negotiations on me, so it gave me the chance to
do the same back and get away with it.” Benjamin had great respect for his competitors. They
were professional managers, corporate people. But they also had superior attitudes toward the
Chinese, and indeed also toward Benjamin and Australia. They refused to believe that a worldclass brewery designer could be found in Australia. After several weeks, the French and Belgian
businesses pulled out, frustrated at the drawn-out negotiating process. They had offered their
best price when first challenged and had left themselves no room to maneuver. Between them,
the French and Belgian negotiators had two other problems. First, they were both professional
managers involved in a number of projects, so it was easy for them to give up and go home to
take up other projects waiting on their desks. Second, no one on the French team liked Chinese
cuisine, so returning home looked very attractive to them. Benjamin, however, was a specialist
chemical engineer who owned his own business, had already invested $350,000 in preparation,
and was not inclined to walk away.
Patience Pays
“I went in suspecting we were going to spend ninety percent of the time arguing price,
particularly since the Chinese started negotiating by crying poor. They kept saying they had a
limited budget, so I started high and kept shaving off the smallest amount, but never near my
limit. I knew from my initial questionnaire and research they could afford to pay what the
technology and I were worth. Even though this represented a great opportunity to enter the
Chinese market, I also needed to get properly rewarded,” he explained. “When I first got to
China I was told of a Chinese saying—‘China has 5,000 years of history, so what’s an extra
hundred years?’ This basically means that they are patient and will wait for the right deal. We
had invested a lot of money to go to China, and we were not about to turn around and come
home just because it was taking longer than we wanted.” The Chinese team tried to use
Benjamin’s planned return date as leverage, in a bid to pressure him into agreeing to their price
terms on the basis that he was leaving the country. But he recognized the ploy. “I realized they
were dragging negotiations out until my departure, so I told them my date was flexible and I’d
just stay until we finished. I acted as though I no longer had a deadline, and politely pointed out
they were the ones who had to build a brewery within a certain time frame.” Benjamin spent
every evening with his Chinese negotiating team, analyzing each day and trying to figure out the
Chinese strategy. They would probe and explain to him Chinese cultural perceptions, which
Benjamin found invaluable for understanding the Chinese tactics.
Being Tested
“There was one meeting in which one of the Chinese team became very angry and distressed.
That night one of my interpreters told me that the individual had probably been testing my
reaction. He explained that Chinese don’t do business with people they don’t know, and that
sometimes they will use different emotions to see how the other party reacts under pressure.
“Chinese culture is so different that you need that local Chinese input. You can never have
intuitive understanding of everything that influences and drives them—that would take fifty
lifetimes. The next best thing is to have local contacts to guide you.” Benjamin found other
confusing elements about the negotiating process. “We would have in-principle agreement on
issues, and then they would just change their mind. We have since learned this is standard. Even
if you have something in writing, it is only ever a ‘discussion document.’ The Chinese expect you
to ‘be like bamboo and bend with the wind.’
With the negotiations down to just two companies, Benjamin tried a new tactic. He pitched the
environmental benefits of his brewery design, explaining how his technology could make the
Chinese brewery a world leader in waste management. His technological solution would
diminish environmental waste while ensuring maximum capacity and building up the Chinese
company’s reputation as a world leader. Meanwhile, the Chinese team had also done its
homework and was secretly favoring Benjamin’s company based on its reputation for delivering
on time and to specifications. In the end, the specialist technology Benjamin could offer
ostensibly won him the contract. But Benjamin believes it was more about relationships and
face. “I put effort into helping them look good. I designed the brief with them using the latest
technology. I helped solve other problems they had not considered, such as environment
management that would save them money. I suggested my solutions would make their business
a world leader. It was about giving them an opportunity to shine.”
The Last Round of Negotiations
Before agreement was reached, and after the last of three proposals had been delivered and
considered, nine separate negotiations were held to discuss:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
By this time, the Chinese
Payment terms and advance payments
Currency decisions
Inspections policy
Warranties
Delivery of overseas and local components
Commissioning and training of the Guangzhou company’s
personnel
Penalties
Performance requirements
Capacity to deliver
team was reduced to twelve people. While Benjamin and his team
were in China on the last occasion, the Chinese team split in half and each went abroad—to
Europe and Australia—to evaluate Benjamin’s suppliers (and through them, him) of pump
valves, electronic equipment, stainless steel, and laser welding. His suppliers all appear to have
given him a pass mark, but one subjective problem remained. While Benjamin’s team was well
ahead of the other teams on all criteria, some members of the Chinese team remained opposed
to the Australian team—because it was Australian—saying they wanted, on the basis of image
and reputation, a brewery designer and builder from Europe. The vice governor of Guangdong
province finally stepped in, we understand, and made the decision in favor of Benjamin’s
company. Within forty-five minutes of his decision, the negotiation leader was on the phone to
Benjamin at his hotel. “We want you to sign the contract,” he said out of the blue and with no
preamble. “Come to the office now. Also bring $2,000 to pay for the celebration banquet at
lunchtime.”
Benjamin and his team went directly to the provincial office. Before he signed the contract, he
said to the team leader, “Thank you very much for your agreement to commission us to build
your brewery. In consideration of that, we wish to present you with a five percent discount.”
The step was artful. Bringing the project in five percent under budget gave face to everyone on
the Chinese team, including the vice governor. They would not forget this.
Commentary
After winning the job to design the Guangdong brewery, Benjamin was exclusively
commissioned to design a $5 million winery in Xinjiang province. This demonstrated how trusted
he had become in China.
https://www.negotiations.com/case/giving-face/
Dr Robert M March (2 May 1927 – 20 November 2010) was an Australian professor who taught
in China, Australia and Japan. He wrote about, presented and ran seminars about East Asian
business practices.
anne.dwyer@euruni.edu
FINAL BCO 313
Format
• ‘Reflective paper’ based on a Case Study
• Several Questions to address
• Reorganize under headings of your own choice and create a ‘dossier’
• 1200-1800 words
• Release date Friday Jan 14th 0:00
• Delivery date (pdf via Turnitin) Jan 15th 23.59
Document Description: what was the impact of 1 and 2?
1. Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded from the
total word count.
2. The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in the Harvard
citation style.
In the Mid-Term YOU LOST MARKS if you did not have; the same applies
now!
• Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix
Show what you know! Outcomes assessed MT
• Outcome 1: Have an in-depth understanding of the keys to
successful negotiation
• Outcome 2: Critically appreciate negotiation styles, strategies, and
tactics
• Outcome 3: Identify and create alternative negotiation strategies
and tactics (own and of the other party)
• Outcome 4: Understand and apply due diligence, briefing and
debriefing
• Outcome 5: Evaluate the difference between distributive and
integrative bargaining
Outcomes to check: Final
1. Have an in-depth understanding of the keys to successful negotiation.
2. Critically appreciate negotiation styles, strategies, and tactics.
3. Identify and create alternative negotiation strategies and tactics – (own and of the
other party).
4. Understand and apply due diligence briefing and debriefing.
5. Evaluate the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining and
negotiation.
6. Apply the framework of ethics in negotiation.
7. Critically understand the cultural differences in negotiation
8. Understand the reason for and purpose of mediation.
Imagine you needed to write a report about this
course … Possible headers?
1. Have an in-depth understanding of the keys to successful negotiation.
2. Critically appreciate negotiation styles, strategies, and tactics.
3. Identify and create alternative negotiation strategies and tactics – (own and of the
other party).
4. Understand and apply due diligence briefing and debriefing.
5. Evaluate the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining
and negotiation.
6. Apply the framework of ethics in negotiation.
7. Critically understand the cultural differences in negotiation
8. Understand the reason for and purpose of mediation.
Possible Headers for a ‘course report’? Syllabus Units?
1. The Nature of Negotiation
2. Strategies and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining and Integrative Negotiation
3. Negotiation Strategy: Planning and Ethics
4. Perception, Cognition, Emotion and Communication
5. Finding and Using Negotiation Power & Influences
6. Relationships in Negotiation & Agents, Constituencies, and Audiences
7. Coalitions, Multiple Parties, Groups and Teams in Negotiation
8. Individuals and Differences
9. International and Cross-Cultural Negotiation & Managing Negotiation Impasses
10. Frameworks and Approaches
11. Can we negotiate with the Government?
These headers need to be adapted … WHY? … not well-organized, overlaps
Preparing The FINAL (between now and the Jan 14th release date)
• Case Study
• Answer the questions and reorganize them in the form of a report.
• The report expects you to share with your team your ‘take-homes’ from the case
(what did you learn?)
1. Read the case
2. Check the outcomes: relate the case to the outcomes
3. Prepare back-up references and prepare List of References and
Bibliography (maybe you can check out the summarized articles,
recommended readings, other articles by the same author)
4. Imagine scenarios
5. Create logical headings and
6. Reorganize the content (using the DER method)
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th
• Imagine telling your parents about the case … storyline =?
Share what you learned from the case … (Breakout groups 15m)
Share ideas for headers
• Was Peter Benjamin clever? Did he have alternatives? What could he have lost?
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of each of the players?
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th
• Relevant Literature Readings in Unit 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ury & Fisher? (work on BATNAs and ZOPAs etc)
Breakthrough Bargaining
Subprocesses
Shadow Negotiation (Moves)
The behaviors of good negotiators
Dirty Tricks
Psychological traps
The Negotiator’s Frame
Promoting Honesty etc etc
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th
Knowledge & Understanding
(20%)
Application (30%)
Critical Thinking (30%)
Communication (20%)
Exceptional 90-100
Student follows the instructions and
demonstrates excellent understanding of
key concepts and uses terminology in an
entirely appropriate manner.
Student applies fully relevant knowledge
from the topics delivered in the course.
Excellent critical assessment, drawing
outstanding conclusions from relevant
authors.
Student communicates ideas extremely
clearly, respecting word count, grammar
and spellcheck. Very well organized and
easy to read.
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th How to lose marks
SIMPLE! Do not follow instructions!
Write a report which addresses ALL the following questions …
1. No Cover page? No Table of Contents? No Harvard-style List of references and/or Bibliography?
2. Not a report?
3. Questions as headers?
4. No spell-grammar check?
5. Not well-organized and easy to read?
6. Word-count is not respected?
7. No definitions?
8. No reference to theory?
9. No reference to literature?
10. No insights/learning moments?
11. No conclusions? And/or No reference to authors when reaching conclusions?
12. Little or no reference to the content of the course?
13. Plagiarism???
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th
• Read the questions
• Apply the exam ‘scenario’
• Check and edit: have you covered the questions?/under which outcome can you
include the questions? Do you need to add more research?
• Check that you have followed all the ‘formal’ instructions
• Check that you have applied the rubric
The FINAL Jan 14th-15th Qs
Can I refer to the Mid-term case?
• (YES, reference this!)
How do I reference the MT case?
• Use the original website https://www.negotiations.com/case/bargaining-price/
• Include a footnote about Dr Rob March if you believe this adds credibility
Can I refer to personal experience?
• YES (Exemplify)
What do I need to include in the List of References and/or Bibliography?
All articles and books and websites you specifically mention (LoR) and additiona,
credible sources you consulted but did not use (Biblio)