LDRS 400 Three 3 Analysis and Reflection Assignment

PROFESSOR B. SASAKI

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

1

LDRS 400 Interpersonal Leadership: Managing Conflict Three (3) Analysis & Reflection Assignments

15%+15%+15% = 45% of Final Grade

DETAILS: Each assignment will reflect an actual conflict, accountability conversation and negotiation that each student has personally experienced in their own life, preferably in the last 12-18 months. If you are having a challenge with this, please talk to the professor well in advance of the deadlines to discuss your options. Plagiarism, ghost-writing and sloppy APA adherence are simply unacceptable for a 4th year University course. If you are struggling with your assignments or do not understand the requirements, it is your responsibility to get clarity and assistance before the assignment is due.

LENGTH: Students will complete three (3) 7-9 page analysis and reflection assignments based on each of the three frameworks studied throughout the course and applied to three personal conflicts you have experienced in the last 12 -18 months.

FORMAT: Use APA 7th edition style including 12pt font, Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, page numbers. APA formatted sub-headings in a paper are an excellent way to organize your ideas and let the reader know where your ideas are moving next (HINT!) Be sure to structure your paper as follows: a title page (1 page), reference page (1 page) and 5-7 pages of quality analysis and reflection = 7-9 page paper.

CITATIONS & REFERENCES: Each assignment will have 6-8 in-text citations using at least three (3) different academic sources:

• a minimum of 3 from the original textbook, and • a minimum of 3 from other course material or approved academic resources. • Non-academic sources may be used to support your work, however blogs, social media

outlets, Wikipedia, Buzzfeed, Dictionaries, etc. are NOT acceptable sources for these 6-8 references (so you can use other quotes, blogs, etc. but they do not count towards this requirement).

PROFESSOR B. SASAKI

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

2

PAPER #1: Conflict Using the text, Have a Nice Conflict, analyze a personal conflict you have experienced in the last 12-18 months. Follow these steps:

Step 1: EXPLAIN: Briefly EXPLAIN the conflict (who was involved, when, what the issue was, what exactly was said or done to create the conflict.)

Step 2: ANALYZE & EVALUATE: ANALYZE & EVALUATE the conflict using the core principles of anticipate, prevent, identify, manage and resolve (as outlined in the textbook). Include the following as you reflect, analyze and evaluate the conflict:

• SDI & Motivational Values o Discuss your MVS, how does your unique colour show up in this conflict?

Where do your strengths or weaknesses show up in the conflict? o What about the other person/party – what might their motivational value

system be? Please give an example. o What do you think were the intentions or motivations of the other

person/party? What were your primary motivations or intentions in this conflict? Provide an example to illustrate.

• Was the conflict resolved? o If YES à explain the resolution and evaluate the result. o If NOà discuss what you could do to resolve it or even if it can be resolved.

§ Provide examples to support your ideas.

Step 3: RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on what you have learned in the book, online lectures, activities and your own SDI assessments, answer the following in your recommendations:

1. What 1-2 key things did you learn about yourself as you look back at this conflict?

2. What 1-2 key things might you did differently in future conflicts?

PAPER #2: Accountability Using the text, Crucial Accountability, you will be making some key discoveries about areas that you both succeed and struggle with in keeping yourself and others accountable. Follow these steps:

Step 1: READ THE TEXT & TAKE THE ASSESSMENT: After reading the textbook, take the Self-Assessment Survey (Appendix A, pp. 247-251) and review your results. The survey is divided in the seven chapters of the book that cover the crucial accountability skills (five questions each). You will need to read each chapter in order to understand your results and the process of holding healthy accountability conversations. You will be handing in your completed Self-Assessment Survey worksheet in a separate Moodle dropbox for

PROFESSOR B. SASAKI

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

3

the professor to review before you complete your paper AND you will be attaching the same document to this paper as Appendix A: Self-Assessment Survey

Step 2: ANALYZE & EVALUATE: Choose TWO (2) of the SEVEN (7) areas where you scored the most “YES” answers and observe, analyze and reflect on those specific areas. Consider answering the following in your submission:

o Summarize the key points the authors make in the textbook in these two specific chapters. Share examples and citations to support your statements.

o What does this score mean to you about your ability to hold yourself or others accountable? Discuss.

o Does it accurately reflect some areas of weakness in your accountability? Discuss and explain your answer with examples from your life.

o Consider how your MVS shows up in the area of accountability. Include any insights you may have about SDI results and your Crucial Accountability Survey results.

o For each of these 2 accountability areas you wrote about, make 2 recommendations how you can improve your accountability to yourself and others as you navigate bad behavior and broken promises in your work/home/school/ life relationships. For example, if you are evaluating, “Describing the Gap”, what two recommendations can you make for yourself in this specific area to improve your ability to describe the gap when holding an accountability conversation. Do this for both of the sections you are analyzing.

Step 3: RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on what you have learned from the textbook, online lectures and activities answer this question à Why do you think accountability is an important leadership skill – personally and organizationally? Provide support, citations and an example or two to support your thinking from all course material to date and other outside sources as applicable.

PLEASE NOTE: You will be handing in your completed Self-Assessment Survey worksheet in a separate Moodle Dropbox for the professor to review before you complete your paper AND ALSO you will be attaching THE SAME COMPLETED DOCUMENT to this paper as

Appendix A: Self-Assessment Survey

PAPER #3: Negotiation

A Case Study in Negotiation. Using the text, Getting to Yes, you will analyze a negotiation you have personally experienced in the last 12-18 months. A Case Study asks and answers a key question connected to your topic with supportive evidence, observations and finally recommendations. A well-written case is something someone else can look at and use an example to support their position on a given topic. It is informative, creative, tells a story and

PROFESSOR B. SASAKI

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

4

invites the reader to consider the evidence presented to shift a perspective or enlarge one’s learning. Follow these steps:

Step 1: TITLE: Create an engaging title for this Case Study.

Step 2: KEY QUESTION/ CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME: You will create a key question that this case study will attempt to answer. It may be a negotiation challenge to overcome, a specific aspect of this negotiation that needs further analysis. It may connect to the complexity of negotiation or how the keys to principled negotiation are the solution to becoming more successful at negotiation. Whatever your question is (and it can be 1-3 sentences), make sure that it gets answered by the end of your case study. Here are some examples to get your thinking activated but feel free to create your own.

• What barriers does a 20-year old face when negotiating with an elder and how can they overcome them?

• How does one’s culture affect the negotiation process of buying a car? • In what ways do women and men negotiate differently? • How do I safely express my emotions in a negotiation with my parents?

Step 3: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND: Briefly explain the details of this negotiation (who was involved, when, what the negotiation was about, what exactly was said or done in the negotiation). Provide important details that will help the reader fully understand the nature of the events surrounding the negotiation.

STEP 4: ANALYZE & PROVIDE SOULTIONS: Analyze the negotiation using the framework of the 4 keys of principled negotiation (as outlined in the textbook), discuss the following questions in your paper:

o how could you separate people from the problem? o what are the keys interests v. positions for each party in this negotiation? o what options for mutual gain are available? o are there any objective criteria that could be used in this negotiation? o what might a win-win-solution look like for all parties involved in this

negotiation?

Step 5: CONCLUSION: Make sure your conclusion summarizes and answers the key question/ challenge to overcome that you posed at the beginning of this case study. Also include the key 1-2 things might you would recommend the reader do in future negotiations to achieve a win-win successful outcome.

PROFESSOR B. SASAKI

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

5

GRADING RUBRIC FOR EACH ASSIGNMENT (15 points=15% X 3 = 45% of Final Grade)

Grading Rubric for Critical Thinking, Reflection & Application (8 pts):

Emerging (0-3 pts) Developing (4-6 pts) Mastering (7-8 pts) Student responds to question(s) with a basic understanding of the question(s), little to no critical thinking, little to any application of ideas, little to any use of supporting evidence.

Student demonstrates some understanding of the questions(s), some critical thinking, application of basic ideas, and use of evidence (citations and/ or personal examples).

Student demonstrates exemplary understanding of the question (s) advanced use of critical thinking, application of ideas and use of evidence (citations and/ or personal examples, examples from course material to date, other course learning integrated in a meaningful way).

Grading Rubric for Composition and Style (4 pts):

Emerging (0-1 pt) Developing (2-3 pts) Mastering (4 pts) Sequence of ideas is difficult to follow, no clear point, poor word choice, no or poorly used source text (doesn’t use “they say/ I say” pattern)

Logical sequence of ideas that is fairly easy to follow; clear points’ fairly good word choice; fairly well used source text (makes some use of the “they say/ I say” pattern).

Exemplary organization of ideas that is very easy to follow; strong points, well-chosen words, very thoughtful use of the source text (uses “they say/ I say” pattern).

Grading Rubric for Grammar and APA Details (3 pts):

Emerging (0-1 pts) Developing (2 pts) Mastering (3 pts) Language or APA flaws in four or more areas.

Language or APA flaws in no more than three areas.

No significant or notable language or APA flaws.