{"id":11491,"date":"2026-09-23T19:39:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T09:39:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/casestudyhelp.com\/sample-questions\/?p=11491"},"modified":"2026-09-23T19:41:32","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T09:41:32","slug":"sbs-mba-communication-and-negotiation-skills-assignment-solutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/casestudyhelp.com\/sample-questions\/sbs-mba-communication-and-negotiation-skills-assignment-solutions\/","title":{"rendered":"SBS \u2013 MBA Communication and Negotiation Skills Assignment Solutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Are you unhappy with your last assignment grades? Then don\u2019t do the same thing in your Communication and Negotiation Skills Assignment. Casestudyhelp.com<\/a> has a team of qualified experts with years of experience writing and guiding students with MBA assignment help<\/a>, guidance, and support, aligned with university guidelines and within your budget. Would you like to improve your grades? Try our service to get quality work and achieve the best grade. You can also get the best assignment writing service for Marketing Assignments<\/a>, Management Assignments<\/a>, Business Communication Assignments<\/a>, HRM Assignments<\/a>, and more.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Order<\/a><\/p>\n

Assignment<\/u><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. There are two parts. Submit both in one<\/li>\n
  2. Part A: 30 marks, 1,000 Part B: 60 marks, 2,000 words.<\/li>\n
  3. Use APA7 referencing<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Part A: Persuading a sceptical board (30 marks, 1,000 words)<\/h2>\n

    Scenario<\/u><\/h3>\n

    You are the Head of HR at Gulf Horizon Group, a family-owned logistics and retail business in the GCC with around 1,500 employees. Recruitment is done manually. Managers screen CVs themselves, shortlisting criteria vary by department, many appointments come through personal recommendation, and it takes eleven weeks on average to fill a role.<\/p>\n

    You want the Group to invest in an AI-assisted recruitment platform such as HireVue, Sapia.ai or SHL, to screen applications, run structured video interviews and score candidates against agreed criteria.<\/p>\n

    The Board will decide. Its chair is sceptical. He doubts that software can judge a person, he is worried about cost, and he believes the Group\u2019s reliance on trusted personal networks has worked well for thirty years.<\/p>\n

    You may use your own organisation instead, as long as the situation is similar. Keep the same decision and the same sceptical audience.<\/p>\n

    Your task<\/h3>\n

    Write a proposal report persuading the Board to approve the investment. Include:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. what the platform is and how it works<\/li>\n
    2. a structure built on counter-argument, rebuttal and argument<\/li>\n
    3. answers to at least three Board objections. One must be cultural, such as the role of personal recommendation and wasta in GCC One must be ethical, such as bias, data privacy or candidate experience<\/li>\n
    4. at least one genuine concession, where you accept a valid point before making your own case<\/li>\n
    5. evidence from research, industry reports or documented company cases<\/li>\n
    6. a clear recommendation and a realistic first step<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Also Check: <\/strong>Case Study on Communication and Negotiation Skills<\/a><\/p>\n

      Part B: Cross-border negotiation preparation report (60 marks, 2,000 words)<\/h2>\n

      Scenario<\/h3>\n

      Your organisation is entering a significant negotiation with a counterpart from a very different business culture. Choose one and keep it consistent. Each option has a set reading:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. A Chinese manufacturer, for a supply or joint venture Read Graham and Lam (2003).<\/li>\n
      2. A UK supplier, for a long-term service Read Katz (2017).<\/li>\n
      3. A US investor, for an equity investment. Both Graham and Lam (2003) and Passow and Al-Sheikh (1996) describe the American negotiator in detail.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Whichever you choose, also read Passow and Al-Sheikh (1996) on the GCC side of the table.<\/p>\n

        Your manager has asked you to write a briefing report for the negotiating team. Use your own organisation and your own national culture as the starting point.<\/p>\n

        Section 1: Reading the other side (20 marks, around 700 words)<\/h3>\n
          \n
        1. Compare your culture with the counterpart culture using the Hofstede Insights country comparison tool. Use only the dimensions that will affect this negotiation.<\/li>\n
        2. Apply Hall on high and low context communication, and on monochronic and polychronic time. Say what each means for pace, directness, silence and deadlines.<\/li>\n
        3. Explain what the counterpart needs to understand about doing business in the GCC, using relationship-first negotiation, face-saving, and the Suqq and Bedouin models (Passow & Al-Sheikh, 1996).<\/li>\n
        4. Now turn on your set reading. How much of it still holds, and how much is dated, overgeneralised, or written from one side only? Test it against McSweeney (2002) on Hofstede, and against the work on cultural essentialism and small cultures in the Interculturality Where you have direct experience that contradicts the reading, say so and explain what you think accounts for the difference.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The last bullet carries the most marks in this section. A report that summarises the country reading accurately but accepts it uncritically will not pass this criterion.<\/p>\n

          Section 2: Building your case (15 marks, around 500 words)<\/h3>\n
            \n
          1. Ethos: what credibility will you have, and how is credibility earned in the counterpart\u2019s culture? Title, track record, expertise, relationship or introduction?<\/li>\n
          2. Pathos: which emotional appeals are legitimate here, and where would one be read as manipulation?<\/li>\n
          3. Logos: what evidence will you present, and would it persuade this audience?<\/li>\n
          4. Balance: which appeal are you relying on most, and what is the risk? Too much ethos reads as arrogance, too much pathos as manipulation, too much logos as disengagement (Booth, 2004).<\/li>\n
          5. Sources: evaluate two of the sources you used on the counterpart Who wrote them, for which audience, what is their stake, how current are they, and how much weight should they carry?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Section 3: Strategy and tactics (20 marks, around 650 words)<\/h3>\n
              \n
            1. The interests behind your positions, and what you think the counterpart\u2019s interests<\/li>\n
            2. Your BATNA and your estimated ZOPA, and how your BATNA changes what you can do at the table.<\/li>\n
            3. Whether your approach is mainly distributive or integrative, and why, given the relationship you want afterwards.<\/li>\n
            4. Three of Cialdini\u2019s six principles you will use, and how each might land differently in this<\/li>\n
            5. Two techniques from Voss (tactical empathy, labelling, mirroring, calibrated questions) or Shapiro (identity, appreciation, affiliation), applied to a specific moment.<\/li>\n
            6. One influence tactic you will not use, and<\/li>\n
            7. How you will judge success, using effectiveness, efficiency and negotiating climate (Opresnik, 2013).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Section 4: Team briefing checklist (5 marks, around 150 words)<\/h3>\n

              Eight to ten practical points for your negotiating team, ranked by importance, with one sentence justifying each of your top three.<\/p>\n

              How to Research this Report<\/h3>\n

              Work in this order.<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Read the set reading for your chosen counterpart, and Passow and Al-Sheikh on the GCC side. These give you the starting picture.<\/li>\n
              2. Get the country scores from the Hofstede Insights comparison Note that the site now shows six dimensions and uses the name Motivation towards Achievement and Success, where some readings still say masculinity and list only five dimensions. Use the site\u2019s current naming and say in your report where your reading differs.<\/li>\n
              3. Read the Interculturality chapter on Hofstede and Hall for the frameworks, and its sections on McSweeney and on cultural essentialism for the critique.<\/li>\n
              4. Find at least one source published in the last five years on doing business with your counterpart. Trade press, sector reports, chamber of commerce guidance and recent academic work all count.<\/li>\n
              5. Draw on your own and your colleagues\u2019 experience where it is Label it clearly as personal experience rather than evidence, and do not name individuals or companies without permission.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Judging Your Sources<\/h4>\n
                  \n
                1. Check the Your set readings are from 1996, 2003 and 2017. Business cultures change, and all three predate significant shifts in the countries they describe.<\/li>\n
                2. Check who it was written All three country readings were written by Western authors for a Western reader. In two of them, your own culture is the one being described from outside. That is a legitimate thing to examine in your report.<\/li>\n
                3. Check whether it describes or A source that tells you what people in a country are like is making a much stronger claim than one that reports what a particular group of negotiators did.<\/li>\n
                4. Rank your Peer-reviewed research, then professional and trade publications, then consultancy country guides and corporate material, then blogs and opinion pieces. Use the lower tiers if they add something, but say what they are.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Do not use AI tools to generate your cultural analysis. They reproduce exactly the confident, dated generalisations this assignment asks you to question, and they will not know what your own experience tells you.<\/p>\n

                  Critical Writing<\/h3>\n

                  Sections 1 and 2 are marked on critical writing. Describing what a source says is not enough. Weigh it, compare it with something that disagrees, then take a position:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Where do your sources agree?<\/li>\n
                  2. Where do they disagree, and why?<\/li>\n
                  3. Which is more convincing for this negotiation, and on what grounds?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Marks go to the judgement, not the phrasing. A paragraph using three of these expressions but reaching no position will score lower than one that reaches a clear position in plain language.<\/p>\n

                    Structure for Part B<\/h3>\n

                    Executive summary, introduction, Sections 1 to 4, conclusion and next steps, references.<\/p>\n