You will need to demonstrate the ability to apply a thorough understanding of the nature of conflict, conflict management, and negotiation strategies to a fictional case.

Please use at least two academic sources (i.e., academic textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles) beyond the class textbook will be required for each paper. No website citations will be allowed.

Include in your narrative response answers to the following questions:

1. Since Marco signed the checks, he basically approved Sharons pay. Do you agree? Why or why not?

2. In her mind, because Sharon frequently worked more than 40 hours per week, she felt she was entitled to overtime. She assumed Marco agreed, after all, he signed her checks. She didnt feel she did anything wrong. Do you agree? Why or why not?

3. Marco assumed Sharon was a salaried employee; to be sure, Marco called the Department of Labor to confirm Sharons status and eligibility for overtime pay. Because of her title, responsibilities, and pay level, Sharons status (salaried, exempt) meant she was ineligible for overtime pay. Marco felt Sharona former paralegal who should have known the law in this caseintentionally took advantage of him and his easy-going nature. What would you have done if you were Marco? If you were Sharon?

4. What role did Marco and Sharons individual differences play in this situation?

5. Consider the Christian worldview approach to this situation. Provide a Biblical scripture that would reinforce or support a preferred behavior to resolving this situation ethically, and describe how it might be applied in this case.

USE THE BOOK ATTACHED FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT!

DeMarr. Negotiations & Dispute Resolution,  2nd Edition. Chicago Business Press, 2018-02-01. VitalBook file.

Effectively apply the concepts from the class textbooks to the hypothetical scenario between fictional employees.

Prompt: Use a theory from the book (Plato Complete Works by John Copper)  to analyze a political issue of your choice, OR use a political issue of your choice to criticize a theory.

Theory: “Socrates argues the only evil is a lack of knowledge because it is impossible to behave badly knowing what is good. “

I wanted to use this theory and tie it to terrorism, (international and domestic). When I google the official definition for terrorism, it says the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes so I wanted to argue that someone with knowledge especially when it comes to politics, religion, etc can commit a cruel act of violence.I wouldnt say those that commit terrorism lack knowledge, quite the opposite actually Especially when it comes to domestic terrorism (ex : school shootings)  we often say that the perpetrator had a mental illness and didnt know better. But most of the time they acquire the same knowledge as us and the same education as us if not more.