BSBS6009 Cross Cultural Management - Assessment item 4 individual reflective journal (30%)

Individual Negotiation Reflective journal (30%) Due date is lecture week 13.

The objectives of this assignment are to:

 Assess student’s ability to apply the knowledge and understanding of cross cultural management and
negotiation learnt in this course by critically reflecting on negotiation simulations.
 Assess student’s ability to identify and analyses issues that were critical to the processes and outcomes
of the negotiation simulations.
 Assess student’s ability to plan for a negotiation.

Specific Tasks: This assessment item include four sections each approximately 500 words in length.

In Part 1 of your journal, you are required to critically reflect on negotiation simulations from Weeks 9 to 11 and
apply appropriate cultural, communication and negotiation theory/ies to identify and evaluate your own strengths
and weaknesses.

In Part 2 of your journal, you are required to critically reflect your final negotiation simulation on week 12 and
identify your improvement and evaluate processes and application while including effective and ineffective
strategies and tactics compare with week 9 to 11.

In Part 3 of your journal, you are required to identify the most significant ethical issues surrounding the
negotiation simulations from week 9 to 12 and provide recommendations on how could you avoid the issues.

Your individual negotiation plan for the Final Group Negotiation Simulation in Week 12 forms Part 4 of your
reflective journal. Please record and reflect on your negotiation planning process and specify your negotiation
roles, responsibility, strategy and tactics. Each group member will be given different roles and responsibilities, so
each member’s negotiation plan will be different.

Advice: Students should communicate with team members effectively, divide task and roles and work out a
negotiation plan and strategy together. Please prepare, interact and participate fully in each negotiation and
record each of the negotiation simulation.

Length of Assignment: The assignment should be 2000 words in length (excluding Reference List and
Appendix). 10% over or under the word count is permissible without penalty. Correct referencing according to
NGSB Student Manual must be used.

Resources: Students must support their findings by using refereed scholarly journals. An extensive reading list
is provided for this course and students are encouraged to use these as well as a minimum of 7 scholarly
journals for the assignment.

Marking Criteria include an assessment of your ability to apply your knowledge and understanding of cross
cultural management and negotiation learnt in this course by critically reflecting on negotiation simulation and
your ability to identify and analyses issues that were critical to the processes and outcomes of the negotiation
simulations. Please see attachment on the next page.

Please be aware: To achieve the learning objectives of this assessment, students have to attend the
negotiation simulations from week 9 to week 12 and reflect critically on the negotiations. Students who
absent for negotiations might lead to a zero grade of this assessment.
 BSBS6009 Cross Cultural Management - Assessment item 4 individual reflective journal (30%)

Marking criteria for individual reflective journal (30%)

Assessment Unacceptable Acceptable Good Very Good Excellent

criteria (Fail) (Pass) (Credit) (Distinction) (High Distinction)
Reflective Poor –you demonstrate very limited Satisfactory – you demonstrate a Good – you demonstrate a Very good –you demonstrate a Excellent - You evaluate and
practice review ability to reflect on actions and basic capacity to recognise your own capacity to recognise your own strong ability to identify and interpret communication and
and analysis strategies and evaluate impact. Little to strengths and weaknesses with some strengths and weaknesses and evaluate your own strengths and negotiation processes and
no understanding of own strengths and limited application to impact. Your interpret impact on processes. weaknesses; as well as identify application including
weakness or their impact on the team. journal provides basic identification of Your journal identifies and and evaluate processes and effective and ineffective
No interpretation of process or impact strategies and tactics, interpretation evaluates strategies employed application including effective strategies and tactics, as
offered. of impact is basic and/or inconsistent. within the simulations and major and ineffective strategies and well as personal strengths
negotiation exercise, draws tactics. Your journal highlights a and weakness. You
insights and interprets impact on conscious and effective effort to demonstrate high level,
outcomes. reflect on practice and process to innovative and conscious
improve own performance and thinking about, and genuine
development. reflection on, your own
practice, its impact on
others, and identify
adjustments in order to
develop further.
Critical analysis Poor – Little evidence of the use of Satisfactory – Using appropriate Good – Using appropriate Very good – Using appropriate Excellent – Using
and application negotiation theory to explain the negotiation theory, the journal negotiation theory, the journal negotiation theory, the journal appropriate cultural,
of negotiation or negotiation outcomes. develops a satisfactory assessment develops a good assessment of develops a very good critical communication and
communication Critical analysis not developed. of the strategies and methods applied the strategies and methods assessment of the strategies and negotiation theories, the
and negotiation in the negotiation and their impact on applied in the negotiation and methods applied in the journal develops an
theory and the negotiation outcomes. Critical their impact on the negotiation negotiation and their impact on excellent critical assessment
strategies analysis is not sufficiently developed. outcomes. Some critical analysis the negotiation outcomes. of the methods and
evident. strategies used in the
simulations and final
negotiation exercise and
their impact on the
outcomes of these
simulations.
 BSBS6009 Cross Cultural Management - Assessment item 4 individual reflective journal (30%)
Negotiation plan Inconsistencies evident between your
research and your plan. The plan was
not fully justified in terms of your
research. Limited consideration given to
the relative negotiating power of the
teams.
Writing General Sentence structures and grammar
language and inadequate for clarity and/or incomplete
grammar and referencing of sourced material.
referencing.
A satisfactory negotiation plan that
was adequately thought-out and
justified. The plan shows adequate
consideration of your own team’s
general strategy and the potential
strategy of your opponents. Sufficient
analysis evident in regard to the
relative negotiating power of the
negotiating parties and your plan is
fairly consistent with the analysis.
Sentence structures and very
grammar is good and correct
referencing of all sourced material.
A good negotiation plan that was
adequately thought-out and
justified. The plan shows sound
consideration of your own team’s
general strategy and the
potential strategy of your
opponents. Sound level of
analysis evident in regard to the
relative negotiating power of the
negotiating parties and your plan
is fairly consistent with the
analysis.
Sentence structures and
grammar adequate, with minor
errors that do not distract reader
from the main message.
A very good negotiation plan that
was well thought-out and
justified. The plan shows very
sound consideration of your own
team’s general strategy and the
potential strategy of your
opponents. There is good
analysis evident in regard to the
relative negotiating power of the
negotiating parties and your plan
is usually consistent with the
analysis.
Sentence structures and
grammar adequate, but errors
cause distraction and/or errors in
referencing.
An excellent negotiation
plan that was
comprehensively thought-
out and justified. The plan
realistically considers and
justifies your own team’s
general strategy as well as
the potential strategy of your
opponents. There is strong
analysis regarding the
relative negotiating power of
the negotiating parties and
your plan is fully consistent
with this analysis.
Employs words with fluency
for ease of reading. Writing
and references are
essentially error free.