University
of Rome III - Degree in Languages & International
Communication - Convener: Patrick Boylan - Year
2008-09
- III/2
COURSE: English
III for English minors , curriculum OCI
and
LL
TASK
N° _2_ Due date: 06/05/09
Group Leader: __________________________
<Use
BLOCK LETTERS
Group:
A B C
D E F
G H I
J <Circle
a letter
Evaluation
Sheet
(The
criteria to use in judging papers appears below)
WRITE STUDENTS' NAMES ON LINE, THEN CIRCLE POINTS FOR EACH CATEGORY, GIVE TOTAL.
1.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
2.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
4.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
5.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
6.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1
Content = 0 1
0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Group Leader's signature________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS
NOTE:
WHEN YOU RETURN THE EVALUATION SHEET TO THE TEACHER,
DO NOT
INCLUDE THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
The purpose
of this experiment is to train you to speak English in a particular
way when you negotiate. What way? You make very few affirmations and
constantly ask questions.
Why?
Because you do NOT want
to “demonstrate” that your ideas are right. You do NOT
want to tell the Other Party to do as you desire. You do NOT want to
show that YOU KNOW what is right and that your reasons are logical.
NO!!
So what do you want, then?
You want to
discover the OTHER Party's real interests. That is your major
concern. You know what they SAY they desire, but you want to
understand what is behind that desire. Even if you think you
understand them, like any scientist, you test your hypotheses with
(first) qualitative, then quantitative questions to see if they are
still correct.
Another reason why you ask questions
continually is that you want to learn how to accommodate to the Other
Party's culture and mind set... and profound desires and wants... and
thus the Other Party's way of saying things (way of speaking). But to do that, you
must first discover why THEIR way of doing things is GOOD. It is
good for them, not necessarily for you, obviously, but that makes no
difference! You want to learn to FEEL that it is good in the way
that THEY feel it is good. Because only then can you speak their
language.
The last reason why you ask questions continually is
that you want to declare as little as possible. You want to make as
few affirmations as possible. This way you will not infuriate the
Other Party. You will not give them the occasion to say “NO!!”
or “YOU'RE WRONG” because you will NOT have affirmed
anything!!! In addition, by not affirming anything, you do not
anchor yourself to a specific position. So you can change what you
ask for (and why you ask for it) towards the end of the negotiation,
and it will not appear as though you have changed your mind. Up to
then you will not have said anything.
Obviously you cannot avoid making affirmations 100% of the time. You cannot always answer a question with a question; that will sound strange and even provocative if you do it often. So you will have to answer SOME of the Other Party's questions with affirmations. BUT...
...BUT the point is, YOU should keep the initiative. You should answer the Other Party's questions politely and then ask a question yourself... and let the Other Party make the affirmations. Put the Other Party on the defensive. You should continue asking questions until the other party begins to make the kind of affirmations that fit in with what you want.
Of course, as in the exercise in class, the Other Party can use this strategy, too. If both YOU and the Other Party want to keep the initiative by asking questions, you will have a very strange conversation, composed of just questions!!! A conversation like that cannot last for a long time. One of you will win and maintain the questioning initiative and the other will be forced to make the affirmations... and wait for the moment to take the initiative again.
THE LAST (AND MOST IMPORTANT) POINT: Your constant questioning is useless if you do not LISTEN CAREFULLY to what the other person replies. “Listening” does not mean “hearing the words” but “feeling the values” that are behind the words. So when the Other Party makes an affirmation, LISTEN to it carefully and try to see the values it reveals. Only then will you learn something.
Given
the above, mark the papers of the students in your group using the
following criteria.
A DIALOG REPRESENTING A WIN-WIN NEGOTIATION
FORM:
Give
the student:
0 = if the
paper does not give the student's name, course, date, assignment etc.
at the top and/or
if
the paper has tiny margins and/or if the paper is written in
difficult-to-read handwriting and/or
if
the paper has lots of spelling, punctuation and/or grammar
mistakes.
1 = if none of
the above is true. (Even if only one element is true, the student
gets zero).
CONTENT:
The questioning carried out in the negotiation seems highly
–
0 = unrealistic: one of the Parties guesses the unconscious
desire of the Other Party and proposes a win-win solution, after much
questioning. But it seems by chance; the questioning does not follow
any clear path;
1 = realistic:
One of the Parties discovers the real desires of the Other Party and
a win-win solution though careful qualitative and quantitative
questioning that leads up
consequentially
to the
discovery.
The language of the dialog seems
highly
– 0 = unrealistic: the kind of Scots
Australians seen in the videos would not speak or act as in the
dialog;
1 = realistic:
the language of the parties, the way they reason and the way they
express themselves, is perfectly coherent with the Scots Australian
culture as seen in the videos.
The parties make use
–
0 = of almost none of the negotiation techniquess
explained in “Four pages” and “Npro”;
1
= of a fair number of negotiation techniques
as explained in “Four pages” and “Npro”;
2
= of a large number of negotiation techniques as
explained in “Four pages” and “Npro”.
NOTE
TO THE STUDENTS WRITING THEIR DIALOG: If you want, you can help your
Group Leader mark your paper fairly, with respect to the last
criteria, by indicating IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND [BETWEEN BRACKETS] the
negoiation techniques that the parties use in your dialog. It
is not necessary to do this;
your Group Leader should see the techniques used in your deialog even
if you don't add the explanation [between brackets]. But if you do,
you will facilitate his correction. Here is an example of how you
can add your indication of the techniques used:
Father:
What?! You want to go to university and you are thinking of Roma Tre
in Italy? That's so far from Australia! Who knows if it's any good?
How can you take such a risk!?? Wouldn't that be foolish??
Son:
Absolutely right! No one should go to a university without being sure
it's ideal for them, should they? Can you help me evaluate the
documentiaton I've found, when you get the time? [EVALUATE RISKS WITH
CAUTION] [HELP THE OTHER PARTY PACE HIMSELF] [INVOLVE HIM IN THE
SOLUTION]