Assessment 3 Information
Subject Code: MBA 506
Subject Name: Thinking Styles, Negotiation, and Conflict Management
Assessment Title: Conflict Management Analysis and Evaluation
Assessment Type: Analytic Report
Word Count: 1,500 Words (+/-10%)
Weighting: 30 %
Total Marks: 30
Submission: Via Turnitin
Due Date: Monday 11.55 pm AEST Week 14
Your Task
Students are to watch two short videos, then write an analytical report exploring the Conflict Management issues evident in those videos.
Assessment Description
Use the following links to access two short videos of Dr Anthony Fauci answering questions posed during US Senate Hearings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6FjOFMj_YM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0r10OWrBqg
Biographical information regarding the three speakers (Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr Paul Rand, Jim Jordan) can be accessed via the following links:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-anthony-fauci-became-americas-doctor https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand https://jordan.house.gov
The following questions should be covered in your report:
1. What real or imagined audience is each of the three key speakers addressing with their comments?
2. Identifying in (minutes:seconds):
a. The point in each video where any of the participants became threatened and explain why.
b. Instances where participants were relying on opinions, and where they were relying upon facts.
3. The extent to which the session Chair in each video restored order or resolved issues.
Assessment Instructions
Students must present their answer in a report document using the following categories:
• Introduction (150 words)
• Causes of conflict. Discussion of at least TWO techniques that can help manage conflicts (400 words)
• Background: Brief biographies of the three key speakers. Identify the audience that each speaker is appealing to with their comments (250 words).
• Analysis: For each video, identifying which protagonist was most effective in getting their core message across. What likely ‘stories’ were the speakers inventing about their adversaries? Where did the discussion become either emotional or adversarial (indicated in minutes:seconds)? What, if anything, was done to diffuse tensions and return the discussion to safety? (500 words)
• Conclusion, drawing lessons on how to manage conflicts (200)
• Reference list (following Kaplan Harvard Referencing style guidelines)
Students should include a minimum of FIVE references, at least three of which should be academic sources (journal articles, book chapters, etc.), in addition to any web sources used to research the speakers featured in the videos.
Please refer to the assessment marking guide to assist you in completing all the assessment criteria.
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions:
http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Word Limits for Written Assessments
Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.
Assessment Marking Guide
Criteria
F (Fail)
0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction)
75% - 84%
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Mark
Introduction
Provides little or no context for the report topic. Fails to anticipate likely content for report. Provides minimal context for report, and only weakly indicates likely report content. Provides a competent, but not detailed, context for the report. Anticipates some key report features, but not in a detailed way. Provides strong context and sets the reader up well for what is to follow. Provides strong theoretical context for the ensuing report, with a succinct yet informative plan of what is to follow. /6
Audience Analysis and ‘storytelling’
No attempt to identify the real or imagined audience of any featured speaker. Account of storytelling is defective or missing. Identifies the likely audience for at least two of the speakers. Minimal reasoning or justification supports the audience identification. Provides a basic account of storytelling. Plausibly identifies the likely audience for each key speaker, with some coherent reasoning to support the audience analysis. Competent attempt to identify the stories told by the protagonists. Confidently identifies the likely audience for each key speaker, with strong reasoning to support the analysis. Cogent, detailed account of storytelling on the part of protagonists. Highly fluent account of the real versus likely audience for each key speaker, with strong reasoning to support the analysis. Insightful account of the stories told by protagonists, that lie at the heart of the conflict. /6
Causes of Conflict and Conflict Management Techniques No awareness shown of likely causes of conflict. Fails to mention or discuss any conflict management techniques. Minimal discussion that shows awareness of triggering causes of conflict. At least one conflict management technique is sketched, but the account is lacking in detail. Discussion competently discusses more than one triggering cause of conflict. Two conflict management techniques are discussed in a satisfactory way. Discussion confidently discusses two or more causes of conflict. Demonstrates sound understanding of at least two conflict management techniques. Discussion fluently discusses and elaborates more than two causes of conflict. Demonstrates a masterly understanding of more than two conflict management techniques. /6
Analysis of Videos and Speakers’ effectiveness Video analysis shows little fluency in identifying where speakers are effective or ineffective. Little or no attention paid to the role of the session chairs in restoring order.
Analysis identifies at least one example of speaker effectiveness across the two videos. Identifies some basic techniques employed to restore calm and minimize conflict.
Answer competently analyses speaker effectiveness across the two videos. Identifies the main techniques employed to restore calm and minimize conflict. Highly competent analysis of speaker effectiveness across the two videos. Strong discussion of techniques employed to restore calm and minimize conflict. Masterful analysis of speaker effectiveness across the two videos. Insightful discussion of techniques employed to restore calm and minimize conflict. /6
Structure, Format and Presentation Answer not clearly and logically presented. Appropriate theory and research not used to answer question posed. Correct academic writing style not used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Format of answer inconsistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines.
In-text referencing and reference list does not follow Harvard style
and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Answer logically presented. Some appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed. Mostly correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Format of answer mostly consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines.
In-text referencing and reference list mostly follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Answer clearly and logically presented. Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed. Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines.
In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Answer clear, concise and logically presented. Appropriate theory and additional research used to answer question posed. Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, strong grammar and punctuation. Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines. In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Answer clear, concise, effective, and logically presented. Appropriate theory and comprehensive research used to answer question posed. Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, advanced grammar and punctuation. Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines. In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
/6
Comments:
/30
Page 2 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline