Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
BARGAINING WITH ALICE JONES
Running Head: BARGAINING WITH ALICE JONES 1
BARGAINING WITH ALICE JONES 4
Bargaining with Alice Jones
Patricia Vela
Instructor: Antwanette Bowers
WCM-510-R4329 Negotiation/Advocacy in Work 21TW4
Bargaining with Alice Jones
The new film platforms regulations allow for numerous business partnership with content creators. Don’t they?
This question allows Alice Jones to give her perspective on the newly developed film hosting platform regulations and allow her elucidate on any possible opportunity under the new laws. Alternative questions aim at soliciting a point of view that is favorable to the negotiating partner (Saorín & Cubillo, 2019). By asking this, I will be expecting to establish all the opportunities that are exploitable under the new laws in the industry. Additionally, the question provides an opportunity for the listener to further establish Alice’s position, attitude, good will and perspective towards my suggested film hosting on the top industry film hosting platform. However, this question is open and does not see to capture a specific aspect of the business partnership. It therefore only lays the ground for an extensive conversation.
What room do you have for future partnerships and to what extent are you willing to accommodate another party?
This is an open ended question which seeks to understand the exploitable space from the Alice Jones. Experts in interpersonal and business communications have attributed open conversations to open ended questions, indicating that such questions allows room for engagements that achieve in providing opportunities of exploitation of possible provisions. By asking this question during the negotiation, I will be intending to have a wider context of the possible opportunities with the managing director. For instance, the question my help me understand Netflix internal policies and prevailing business conditions. With this information, I will be in a position to estimate the nature of opportunities available given the unique circumstances that the organization is working in. However, the question is too general and does not source specific information of interests. In such circumstances there are possible objections which would cripple a gainful negotiation (Geiger & Hüffmeier, 2020).
Do you want us to adopt a mutually beneficial marketing scheme or a one sided platform provision scheme?
This type of question is aimed at seeking a position that is comfortable with the other negotiating party and is mostly used to salvage an opportunity especially when the other bargaining party is about to vacate a position that would benefit the negotiating party (Sikveland et al., 2020). With the question I will be seeking to understand what provision is good for Alice. The question will further help me in creating a choice between two alternatives that are beneficial to me. However, the question is likely to get any kind of response hence providing an opportunity for objections.
Are you willing to share with me the possible terms of collaborative marketing for partners whose content would be mutually beneficial?
This is a specific closed ended question where the likely answers are yes or no. Researchers in business and organizational communications have attributed this nature of question to absolute stands and conclusive statements (Sikveland et al., 2020). Given this nature of the question, the inquiry is likely to stifle bargaining conversations as a negative answer closes the possibility of any further bargaining with the executive. Consequently, I would use this question towards the end of the conversation and its usage would be subject to my assessment of getting an affirmative response.
References
Geiger, I., & Hüffmeier, J. (2020). “The more, the merrier” or “less is more”? How the number of issues addressed in B2B sales negotiations affects dyadic and seller economic outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 90-105. Retrieved from; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019850119305334
Sikveland, R. O., Kevoe-Feldman, H., & Stokoe, E. (2020). Overcoming suicidal persons’ resistance using productive communicative challenges during police crisis negotiations. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 533-551. Retrieved from; https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/41/4/533/5305680
Saorín-Iborra, M. C., & Cubillo, G. (2019). Supplier behavior and its impact on customer satisfaction: A new characterization of negotiation behavior. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(1), 53-68. Retrieved from; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1478409218300591
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Analyze the Water Footprint Results