Dr Jonathan Booth

This course is available on the CEMS Exchange, Global MSc in Management, Global MSc in Management (CEMS MIM), Global MSc in Management (MBA Exchange), MBA Exchange, MRes/PhD in Management (Employment Relations and Human Resources), MSc in Human Resources and Organisations (Human Resource Management/CIPD), MSc in Human Resources and Organisations (International Employment Relations/CIPD), MSc in Human Resources and Organisations (Organisational Behaviour), MSc in Management (1 Year Programme), MSc in Management and Strategy and MSc in Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship. This course is available with permission as an outside option to students on other programmes where regulations permit.

Being a skilful negotiator is a core competence of effective managers in organisations today. This course introduces students to the essential concepts underlying effective negotiations and draws on both scholarly evidence and practical case exercises. The course curriculum covers essential negotiation concepts such as distributive and integrative bargaining, sometimes called pie-slicing and pie-expanding approaches, two-party and multi-party negotiation, as well as more advanced issues such as the impact of culture and the psychology of judgement and decision-making. Considering more advanced issues, lecturers highlight the importance of power, tactics, strategy, information and trust in shaping the structure and outcomes of negotiations. Students will engage in weekly negotiation simulation exercises to help them understand the concepts and develop their negotiation skills.

Because much of the learning comes from engaging in the weekly negotiation simulations, a significant portion of the grade in this course is related to attendance and in-class engagement as measured by the continuous assessment outlined below.

30 hours of seminars in the WT.

Students on this course will have a reading week in Week 6, in line with departmental policy.

Over the course of the term, students will compile a weekly negotiation learning journal reflecting on their experience in the respective negotiation case exercises, their learning, their identified strengths and opportunities for growth, and their plan of goals and strategies to attain future personal development. Students will link their analysis to the concepts and theories in the literature which have been taught in a given week, as well as throughout the course.

Learning journals then form the foundation of the students’ later summative work on the essay.

Students will also complete a formative essay, using the content of negotiation learning journal as foundation for the formative. The formative essay is a learning activity which supports students to prepare for the self-reflection and self-development analysis portion of the summative essay.

The main text, covering most of the material in the course is: Leigh Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, 7th  edition Pearson, Harlow, 2020.

Students will be expected to read the set of essential readings which are provided in the MG473 Reading List. This is carefully curated for focus and quality over quantity.

The following texts are also recommended, as optional:

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books, New York, 2012

Ken Binmore, Game theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007

Andrew M. Colman, Game Theory and its Application to the Social and Biological Sciences. Routledge, Hove, 1999; Roy Lewicki et al 2020 Negotiation

Continuous assessment (40%) in the WT.
Assignment (60%) in the ST.

ST assignment (60%) will be a Final Assessment of 2000 words. The final assessment consists of two parts.

Part one (1000 words) is an essay that addresses personal self-reflection of their negotiation experience and planning for future negotiation development, asking the student to apply theory and course content to help support their response.

Part two (1000 words) will answer an academic-oriented question, focusing heavily on the literature, theoretical underpinning, and course content (as well as external academic sources) to support and justify their argument(s).

Due in the Spring Term. Questions Released at end of Winter Term.

Continous assessment (40%) formed of:

1) Weekly in-class quiz at start of negotiation simulation (What's the case about? Do I know my role?)

and,

2) Reputation Index

The Reputation Index is an end-of-course peer assessment tool. Students have the opportunity to rate one another, awarding them “votes” for good or bad negotiation reputations.

Students are required to complete the Index. Students are also required to make comments for every negative vote they give. Students who receive negative comments from their peers will obtain the feedback ‘blind’ from GTA or seminar teacher.  RI evaluations will be turned into numerical grades as follows:

a.  + 2 points if a student gets a “Good” evaluation by someone who had direct experience with him/her.

b.  + 1 point if a student gets a “Good” evaluation by someone who did not have direct experience with him/her.

c.  - 2 points if a student gets a  “Bad” evaluation by someone who had direct experience with him/her.

d.  -1 point if a student gets a “Bad” evaluation by someone who did not have direct experience with him/her.

When all the points received by every student are entered, an absolute total score will be created for each student (combination of the + scores and – scores). These absolute scores will be scaled against the 20 points one can receive from this exercise. Typical  distribution of ‘points’ runs from 20 points for the most positive reputation to 8-10 points for the most negative reputation.

All “C” votes (i.e., partner contributed to my learning) and comments carry over into extra credit in the reputation mark.

Feeding Back the Reputation Index. GTA or seminar teacher  will provide students with their + scores, -  scores, absolute score, point for the RI in the grading scheme, and all the comments that have been made about them

The Reputation Index and the in-class quizzes both constitute 50% of the continuous assessment each, 20% of overall grade each.