Instructions. Really important to review the rubric i have attach on the file and also the main thing is to review the MDI Doc i have attached and based eveything on that.
The Profile Analysis is intended to provide greater self-awareness through interpreting the results of a self-assessment tool and using it to analyze your own behavior. This analysis will serve as the basis for an action plan for improving your negotiating effectiveness. It fits the higher levels and analysis aspects of Bloom’s learning taxonomy.
Formatting requirements
The paper is to be 3 – 4 pages, 12 point font Times Roman, well proofread, and organized. The survey and diagrams do not count towards the page count. The will be single space, block format paragraphs, good use of white space, and headings to enhance the paper’s focus and flow. The easier the paper is to digest the more likely a better grade.
Profile Analysis content:
Part 1
1) Draw and label the Conflict Management Matrix (the “Dice Model). Plot your scores in the appropriate location. Do not define the labels or the 5 dimensions.
2) Interpret what these scores say about your approach to managing conflict.
Assess your Advocacy and Inquiry levels. What is the pattern – high or low on Advocacy, Inquiry? Do not focus on interpreting each individual style, focus on the overall pattern and what the gestalt of the pattern illustrates.
Do you have a “false consensus” issue?
Other observations about your scores if any….
3) State whether you agree or disagree with the assessment.
4) Provide (a) 2 specific personal examples – 1 for your highest and 1 for your lowest rated styles to support your agreement or disagreement. If there is a tie, pick the one that seems the your most selected or most ignored style. This should NOT be a simple restating of the definition. It needs to tell a who, what, how story.
5) Discuss how well you use the 4 criteria for selecting the appropriate style and how this explains your ability or inability to achieve mutually satisfying resolutions. How does this help explain the pattern to your scores.
Part 2
What have you learned from this analysis?
5) “Upside.” What are benefits/advantages/strengths from the interpretation of the scores (might focus on most effective style) that you can use to leverage in terms of your being an effective “negotiator” (might use your 443 team as example for moving forward). Provide a specific, actionable, in-depth personal (1) behavior and/or way of thinking, and (2) how you will adopt them to leverage or modify your characteristics moving forward. You might consider how this is influenced by how well you use the appropriate choice criteria.
6) “Downside.” What are (can but need not be the same styles as used above) limitations/disadvantages/weaknesses/areas of development from the interpretation of the scores that you can address that may hinder being an effective “negotiator” (might use your 443 team as example for moving forward)? Provide a specific, actionable, in-depth personal (1) behavior and/or way of thinking, and (2) how you will adopt them to leverage or modify your characteristics moving forward. Again, you might consider how this is influenced by how well you use the appropriate choice criteria.
The ideas for Items 5 and 6 do not have to mean a change in who you are in terms of your conflict style, it can be to leverage your existing styles, supplement conflict resolution with a person who balances your style, plans to improve your fit to the role or situation given your score, and/or finds ways to adapt/mitigate the downsides of your score.
7) Attach your completed original survey form to the back. You can create a new page before the questions start and then type your analysis into the document itself.
8) Submit (must be a word or pdf file) via Canvas.
