MGMT 570 Week 5 Homework Collabarative case analysis

MGMT 570 Week 5 Homework Collabarative case analysis (includes both
scenario)
Click Here To Buy The Tutorial
http://www.uophelp.com/MGMT-570-/product-15700-MGMT-570-Week-5-
Homework-Collabarative-case-analysis-(includes-both-scenario)
For more course tutorials visit
www.uophelp.com
Collaborative Case Analysis
Students will work in teams to prepare a collaborative case analysis on the Negotiations for
Life case (text page 202). Each team will be assigned either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 by the
professor. Teams will discuss their assessments in their team Discussion areas and prepare an
analysis and recommendation in a collaborative report in the form of a paper. See MGMT570:
Guidelines for Case Analysis located in Doc Sharing.
The length of paper should be three to four pages, not including the cover page and
references. APA style is required for in-text citation and references.
Due date: In order to have a meaningful discussion, one leader from each team will post the
report in the Overcoming Barriers discussion by Wednesday of Week 5. In addition, you are
required to submit in the Dropbox for grading.
Some students initially find case analysis of conflict problems to be difficult and
uncomfortable. This is due to the relative lack of structure of most dispute-oriented problems.
No correctly answered list of prequestions or mechanical process will lead to the right
resolution. In fact, there usually is no single, definitively right solution to most managerial
problems. When analyzing a case, remember that there are often many possible solutions.
The goal is not to find the solution, but to examine the case and practice analyzing and
solving real-world conflict issues using the concepts and theories you learn about in this
course.
Our goal is to focus on the problem, the parties involved, and to examine the case and to
practice analyzing and solving real-world conflict resolution situations.
Please use the following format to guide your thinking and to frame your written case
analysis (if required). This works if you are formally presenting a case analysis or merely
using the analysis for your own discussion purposes.
Conflict Assessment: Part of your analysis is to define the conflict and identify the issues,
emotions, and relationships involved. (Often there are multiple, interacting conflict resolution
issues). Look to any case guide questions (if provided) for some conceptual direction, but do
not seek merely to address these questions. (30 points)
¨ Define the major conflict issue.
¨ Identify the conflict resolution components.
¨ Remember: Often, the issues, emotions, and relationships are directly described
in the case, whereas the source of the conflict is not.
¨ If necessary, indicate how organizational factors affect the conflict resolution
process.

Situation Analysis: Another part of the analysis is to explain the mechanisms that are
causing the conflict. (35 points)
Ø Incorporate specific and relevant conflict resolution concepts.
Avoid providing general or commonsensical responses that do not incorporate
course concepts, as well as just simply summarizing case facts or examples.
Ø Don’t make assumptions that cannot be supported by the facts in the case.
Ø Be wary of imposing personal opinions on the case that cannot be supported by
case facts or relevant conflict resolution concepts; try not to place blame.
Ø Avoid providing viewpoints that are sketchy or overlook important course
concepts, case facts, and events.
Recommendation: All recommendations must be developed that are appropriate measures
that will ensure that the conflict is resolved in order to develop a structured plan of action.
Who is to do what and when? (35 points)
¨ Your solutions should follow logically from your analysis.
¨ Focus on the problems not the parties.
¨ What are the expected outcomes (both positive and negative) of the solution?
¨ What aspects of the conflict remain unresolved by your solutions?
¨ Make sure recommended actions incorporate conflict resolution concepts and
theories. Although these recommendations are speculative, you still need to be sure to
incorporate relevant conflict resolution concepts and provide specific, concrete
examples to help demonstrate or support your points.
Evidence of Data Usage: Finally, there must be evidence of strong use of data to support
your arguments and substantiate your recommendations. (10 points)
Some other helpful hints for Case Study preparation
1. The case analysis needs to be clear, crisp, and concise. Facts from the case
are stated only to make a point, not to retell the story. Do not rehash the minutia,
or details, in the case. The case analysis needs to be organized; spelling, grammar,
and word usage must be correct.
2. Make sure your paper (if required) has a logical flow. Make clear links
between the identified conflict resolution, the analysis of the conflict resolution,
and the solutions proposed.
3. Provide analysis, not description. Demonstrate your ability to use and apply
theories and concepts from the course material; integrate course material where it
is useful. Mine the text for nuggets of conflict theories that help explain the issues.
For example, it’s not enough to say that conflict applies here; you must show how
it applies. You can’t simply say negotiation is the best conflict solution that
applies; you have to show how Mrs. X used an assertive style when a
collaborative style would have been appropriate because…….
4. Be thorough. It is better to give a thorough, explicit analysis focused on one
or two primary conflict resolutions than it is to barely touch upon six conflict
resolution strategies.
5. Sometimes students come up with amazing recommendations (for better
and worse) that have no relationship to their analysis. I want to see that it’s the
analysis that frames decisions made about the case. A poor analysis that results in
good decisions means that somewhere or other, you have intuitively understood
the case, but you need to backtrack and figure out what you understood. A great

analysis that results in decisions that come from left field signals that you are not
applying what you learned in your assessment or analysis of the situation.