2024 – MUST BE 100 ORIGINAL NO PLAGARISM ASSIGNMENT Michael Bloomberg vs New York Teachers Union In 2010 New

 

MUST BE 100% ORIGINAL, NO PLAGARISM

 

ASSIGNMENT

 

Michael Bloomberg vs. New York Teachers’ Union

 

 

 

In 2010, New York State passed a law that required its school districts to develop more stringent teacher-evaluation systems. Local school districts and their unions were assigned a task for specifying certain criteria of their new systems by January 17, 2013. New York City was going to receive benefits of $250 million in aid and another $200 million in grants if the agreement was reached on a new system, a 4% increase in state aid. However, as the January 17th deadline approached, Bloomberg and New York Teachers’ Union were not even close to reaching an agreement.

 

 

 

•As a top negotiator, you were asked to design a strategy using a win-win situation for both parties.

 

•Identify the four steps of Integrative Negotiation Process, and conduct analysis of how these four steps might help you in designing your negotiation strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

The requirements below must be met for your paper to be accepted and graded:

 

•Write between 750 – 1,250 words (approximately 3 – 5 pages) using Microsoft Word in APA style, see example below.

 

•Use font size 12 and 1” margins.

 

•Include cover page and reference page.

 

•At least 80% of your paper must be original content/writing.

 

 

 

NOTES FOR ASSIGNMENT

 

Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem

 

 The most difficult step in the integrative negotiation process is identifying the problem, and it is even more challenging when more than two parties are involved. The problem definition process is critical for integrative negotiation because it sets broad parameters regarding what the negotiation is about and provide an initial framework for approaching the discussion. To define the problem, parties need to define it in a way that is mutually acceptable to both parties, and it should accurately reflect both parties’ needs and priorities. They should state the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness, meaning the focus should be to solve the core problem. Parties should also state the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to attaining this goal. Both parties should focus on depersonalizing the problem, and separate the problem definition from the search for solutions.

 

 

 

Step 2: Surface Interests and Needs

 

 The key to achieving an integrative agreement is the ability of the parties to understand and satisfy each other’s interests. Identifying interests is a critical step in the integrative negotiation process because they are the underlying concerns, needs, desires, or fears that motivate a negotiator to take a particular position. There are different types of interests that could potentially be at stake in a negotiation situation and they may be intrinsic or instrumental. Substantive interests are related to focal issues that are under negotiation, such as economic and financial issues like price or rate. Process interests are related to how the negotiation unfolds. In this case, one party might pursue distributive bargaining because they enjoy the competitive game of wits that comes from nose-to-nose, hardline bargaining, while the other party may enjoy integrative negotiating because they believe they have not been consulted in the past and wants to have some say in how a key problem is resolved.

 

Relationship interests speak to the value of the ongoing relationship between the parties and the future of that relationship. Last but not least, the interests of principle is concerned with what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical, or what has been done in the past and should be done in the future may be deeply help by the parties and serve as the main guidelines to their action. It is important to know that there is always more than one type of interest underlying negotiation, parties can have different types of interests at stake, and interests often derive from deeply rooted human needs or values.

 

 

 

Step 3: Generate Alternative Solutions

 

 This is a creative phase of integrative negotiation. Once the parties have agreed on a common definition of the problem and understood each other’s interests, they can proceed to generate alternative solutions. The objective is to create a variety of options or possible solutions to the problem; evaluating and selecting from among those options will be their task in the final phase. There are several techniques that negotiators use to help them in generating alternative solutions. These techniques fall into two categories. The first requires the negotiators to redefine, recast, or reframe the problem. The second takes the problem as given and creates a long list of options from which the parties can choose. Some of the techniques that are used in the inventing options include logroll, expanding or modifying the pie, cost cutting, and bridging and super ordination. In the second category to generating alternative solutions to the problem as given include techniques such as brainstorming, surveys, and electronic brainstorming.

 

 

 

Step 4: Evaluate and Select Alternatives

 

 The fourth stage in the integrative negotiation process is to evaluate the alternatives generated during the previous phase and to select the best ones to implement. The following guidelines should be used in evaluating options and reaching consensus: narrow the range of solution options; evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, standards, and acceptability; agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options; be willing to justify personal preferences; take time out to cool off; and explore different ways to logroll among others. Factors that facilitate successful integrative negotiation are common objectives or goals, faith in ones’ problem solving ability, the motivation and commitment to work together, trust, and clear and accurate communication. If the parties are not able to meet these preconditions successfully, they will need to resolve challenges in these areas as the integrative negotiation evolves. Week 2 Discussion “David Meets Goliath – Negotiating with Wal-Mart”

 

Consider a situation where you are negotiating with Wal-Mart for your family farm’s milk. Confronted with various hardball price challenges, what type of negotiation situation would you use: distributive or integrative and why? What are your key negotiating principles?