Reference no: EM133574042

Discussion Post

You learned approaches to conflict resolution via negotiation, including the seven elements for successful integrative negotiation.

For this discussion, I would like you to build on the concepts from Week 3 (power) and critically analyze the story in recent domestic or international news that involved a real or perceived conflict that you chose from Week 3. Alternatively, you are welcome to choose a new topic where negotiation may have occurred or could occur. Your goal this week is to analyze the seven elements of principled negotiation in the context of your chosen story. If the element has not yet been applied to the conflict you chose, please provide suggestions for how that element can be addressed. Please also discuss any failures of the conflict members to upload an element (e.g., Principle 4: Generate many options may be violated if one part has only proposed an all-or-nothing outcome without any room for the interest of the other party).

I. A direct challenge to a peer's initial post. The challenge can consist of:

1. Explaining why the theory is weak and heavily limited

2. Demonstrate that there is a better theory out there in the literature to explain the same phenomenon

3. Illustrate how the theory does not apply in the real world

4. Get creative in your challenges

II. Empirical support and justification

1. Do not simply say a post is bad. Articulate why it is bad or why the theory is not a good theory

2. Even if you agree with the theory, play devil's advocate and argue the other side!

III. Provide an alternative solution

1. Describe an alternative solution to explain the social phenomenon

2. Class, this is the beauty of a theory! As long as you accurately describe what the theory is and explain it... I will be grading you on your ability to justify your arguments with empirical support.