Peer Responses – Anticipation of Objections and Response to Objections
Responding to Jennifer
Hello Jennifer
Great work with your post. You have offered a perfect glimpse of Alice’s objection to her pending termination. As you rightly put it, having worked at Netflix for over ten years should count for something for Alice. You went ahead to indicate how Sharon may employ integrative bargaining to understand Alice’s needs as the negotiation proceeds (Opresnik, 2014). I also agree that Alice deserves an opportunity to prove herself after training. Having proved that she is a hard worker, all she needs now is the belief that she can deliver. You have also rightly indicated that Sharon may object to the termination since she was never given enough time to defend herself. Other possible objections that may enrich your discussion include alleging discrimination and insufficient investigation to determine her underperformance (Hirsch, 2008). I contend that since she is a hard worker who has been at the company for over ten years, there are positive contributions that may have been missed.
References
Hirsch, J. M. (2008). The law of termination: Doing more with less. Md. L. Rev., 68, 89.
Opresnik, M. O. (2014). The hidden rules of successful negotiation and communication: Getting to yes! Springer.
Responding to Shawn
Hello Shawn,
This is an insightful post. As you rightly indicated, Sharon may object to her termination for not having enough time with her performance improvement plan. Indeed, there is no documentation of her performance failures; hence, terminating her is unjustifiable. Another good point you raised is that Sharon may leverage Netflix’s values to oppose her termination. One such value is the company’s team-oriented model, which means that employees should be judged as a team, not as individuals (Netflix, n.d.). Finally, I agree with the point that Sharon was given a bigger workload, yet no training took place. Apart from the objections you mentioned, another objection would be that the termination breaches the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Hirsch, 2008). Sharon may argue that the unfair working conditions at the company led to her termination. Overall, your post was quite informative. Great work!
References
Hirsch, J. M. (2008). The law of termination: Doing more with less. Md. L. Rev., 68, 89.
Netflix. (n.d.). The woman behind the Netflix culture doc. Review.firstround.com. https://review.firstround.com/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-Culture-doc
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
PROMPT: Put yourself in the shoes of Alice Jones, the executive who is being considered for termination in the Netflix case study. What objections or concerns might you express during the negotiation session if you were Alice Jones? Some examples could be:
Peer Responses – Anticipation of Objections and Response to Objections
Alice claims the action being taken is discriminatory and threatens to sue for wrongful termination.
Alice requests job placement or relocation benefits in order to transition to another job.
For your first post, share three objections you would make if you were Alice Jones. Then, propose responses from Sharon Slade that would help steer the process to a successful conclusion and help maintain a positive relationship between the two parties.
As a final step, comment on two or more of your classmates’ posts and suggest other objections they may not have considered.
https://review.firstround.com/The-woman-behind-the-Netflix-Culture-doc
Complete the order form and upload all of your files, including any instructions, rubrics, or other materials provided by your instructor. 
Complete the order payment after filling in the order form. We’ll receive your order and assign it to a writer.
The assigned writer will complete your paper and forward it to our Editing Team for review and approval.
Once approved by the editor, the completed paper will be uploaded to your account for you to download, review and approve.