Course syllabus (Spring semester 2017-18)
University of Economics in Bratislava
: course opened to all study programs (local and foreign students)
Warrantor: Faculty of Applied Languages
Instructors: experts from Dell, SARIO, US Embassy, Uber, Pontis, Am Cham, etc. together with instructors experienced in political negotiations

This course is offered by the Center for North American Studies

Contact hours (weekly): 90 minutes
Credits: 3 ECTS
Date: Tuesday, 15:15-16:45
Room: A9.07
Working language: English
Expected number of students: cca 20
Assessment: A-Fx


Course website:

Aim of the course: The aim of the course is to provide students with essential knowledge related to negotiations in the framework of business, politics and third sector. During the course we will discuss questions such as following: How can we define a (un)successful negotiation? What are the main challenges associated with negotiating in business and in politics? Can we summarise a set of principles and strategies for effective negotiation? etc. Using case studies and practical exercises the course will lead students to compare and contrast negotiation practices in diverse contexts. Moreover, it will offer students opportunities to discuss intercultural differences and how they influence negotiation. The course will be conducted in a seminar format.


Overview of course sessions

  1. WEEK: 13. 2. 2018: Course overview, expected learning outcomes, activities and assessment,

HR negotiations in business sphere   (Jana Pálenčárová)

Assigned pre-reading and homework:

Article – K. Leary, J. Pillemer, M. Wheeler: Negotiating with emotion, Harvard Business Review , 1-2/2013, p. 96-103

WRITTEN TASK: List top 3 arguments for negotiating with emotions and prepare to advocate them during class.

Video – Why Negotiations Fail | Nick Coburn-Palo; TEDxTaipeiAmericanSchool:

WRITTEN TASK: Which advice from the video will you adhere to while negotiating salary. Explain.

Online article – McClelland motivation theory:

WRITTEN TASK: Based on the reading, define your main motivator. Be prepared to share it in class, supporting with evidence examples.

  1. WEEK: 20.2. Effective negotiator’s skills (Zdenka Hrubešová, lawyer and chief negotiator for Dell).

Executive Summaries: Just Listen    Executive Summaries: Mastering Business Negotiation

WRITTEN TASK: Based on two reading materials, identify the top 5 skills of effective negotiator. Choose one of them and characterise it into more detail.

  1. WEEK: 27.2. Multi-stake holder and multi-issue negotiation (Peter Guštafík, PDCS Slovakia)

    FISHER, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd Edition). New York: Penguin Books, 1991.  (pages 7-49)

    SUSSKIND, Lawrence. Making the Most of Multiparty Negotiations. Harvard Business School, 2004.

     WRITTEN TASK: Based on the reading, please describe one situation in which you have used (or you should have used) principled negotiation approach.

  2. WEEK: 6.3.  Negotiations in business sphere: case of UBER (Tomáš Peťovský, director UBER Czech Republic and Slovakia)
  3. WEEK: 13.3. Negotiations in business sphere: case of SARIO (Tímea Balážová Hlohinec, Senior consultant, Investment projects department)

    SARIO profile

    Why Slovakia

    Sector overview – read at least two publications e.g.: AutomotiveICTSSC&BPO;

    Investment Incentives

    How Slovakia overtook Poland in Jaguar Land Rover factory race:

    WRITTEN TASK: Identify and describe three areas of negotiation strengths Slovakia might have in comparison to its neighbouring countries when trying to attract foreign investment projects from the USA or Canada. (2-3 paragraphs)

  4. WEEK: 20.3. Negotiations in business sphere (and in politics): case of American Chamber of Commerce (Peter Rusiňák, Policy Officer, Amcham)

    Video to watch:

    Materials to read:

    BSCF Brief

    WRITTEN TASK: Based on pre-work materials, why do you think businesses are interested in stepping into close cooperation with Slovak universities? Please develop your answer using approx. 10 sentences.

  5. WEEK: 27.3. Negotiations in politics: Pavol Demeš, foreign policy analyst, former Minister of International Relations (1991-2) and advisor to the first Slovak President (1993-7).

    Czechoslovakia – From the Velvet Revolution (1989) to the Velvet Divorce (1993).

    Czechs and Slovaks created a common state 100 years ago at the end of WWI and after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.  Twenty five years ago (Jan 1993) this federation split into two democratic republics. Country was divided through a political process in the federal parliament without a referendum. Some people have argued that it was not democratic.

    WRITTEN TASK:  Based on the readings, identify and describe one major argument in favour or against referendum connected with the split of Czecho-Slovakia. Paralles between the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia  and the recent heated debate in Spain can be discussed.

  6. WEEK: 3.4 Easter holiday
  7. WEEK: 10.4. Negotiations in business sphere (and in politics): experience of the US embassy in  Bratislava (D.R. Seckinger, Senior Economic Officer)
  1. WEEK: 17.4. Negotiations- politics, business and third sector (Lenka Surotchak, Pontis, Executive Director and Trend top 2016 nominee for Manager of the year)

    WRITTEN TASK: Based on the readings, identify the most appealing arguments why corporations should engage in CSR, e.g. why they have a role of acting as agents of social change as well.  If at all possible, focus on engaging employees – workplace component of the CSR, and identify some of the solutions of such positive corporate engagement into solving challenging societal issues and helping itself as well.  Argue why it might be beneficial for the company, the planet taking into account UN SDGs commitment, and highlight some of the challenges and obstacles that might the corporations face while doing that, and how to overcome them.

  2. WEEK: 24.4. Using external communication to support negotiation: case of United Nations (Martin Nesirky, UNIS Vienna)

    Readings:            Sustainable Development Goals  (SDGs)

    70th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

    WRITTEN TASK: Based on the readings, identify three areas that concerns young people nowadays, include also counter/arguments and prepare to discuss your opinion.

  3. WEEK: 1.5. Bank Holiday
  4. WEEK: 8.5. Bank Holiday


Course requirements

  • Regularly attend course sessions. Students can miss two sessions at maximum. In very special circumstances (serious illness, for example) student can miss three sessions (doctor’s proof requited).

Please be on time for all course sessions! We start at 15:15.

  • Complete reading and homework prior each session
  • Actively participate in each class
  • Submit a final paper



Students are expected to complete assigned readings and homework prior each session and send homework (usually between 140 and 160 words or as assigned) 24 hours before the class to (i.e. by Monday, 3pm). Please copy your homework as the text of the email (not an attachment) and do not forget to sign it with your name and surname. Homework assignment will be published at course website at last 4 days before the class. Please make sure you submit your work on time! This is important as your homework will be sent to your class leader. Homework that is only submitted late may count as a failure to submit homework at all.

For each properly done homework (and submitted on time) students will receive 5 points.

Max number of points for homework: 50


Homework will contribute to 50% of student grade and final paper to the other 50%. Final grade will be calculated as an average of homework and final paper.

Final paper: instructions

The final paper should address one of the questions assigned as paper topics for each week. Students will sign up for the paper topics during week 10.

Students are required to use at least 5 academic sources when writing the paper. Preferably, students should derive from academic books, articles published in academic journals, analytical papers such as case studies authored by respected institutions (academic think-tanks, research institutes, etc.)

Students are required to make proper references to used sources in the text, always at least at the end of the paragraph either as a footnote or include author’s name and publication year in parenthesis. Write a list of literature with full information about each source at the end of the paper, too.

Required paper extent is between 2,000 and 2,200 words. Students should submit their paper by 20 May 2018 to

Expected format of paper: Use Times New Roman font, size 12, spacing 1. Avoid any blank pages, such as an introductory page. Do not forget to give a proper title to your paper – the title should summarise your answer to the assigned problem.


Final paper: Grading scale

A (50 points): outstanding paper: excellent structure, clearly formulated main idea, very-well argued, excellent theoretical background, perfect application, in-depth analysis, realistic, well-written conclusion, proper references to literature, very-well written in terms of language

B (40 points): very good paper: well structured, clearly formulated ideas, well-presented arguments, some weaknesses in theory or in application, not entirely realistic, clear conclusion, proper references to literature, very-well written in terms of language

C (30 points): good paper: structured but with some parts not fitting the structure, some ideas are less clearly formulated, presents arguments but they are not entirely clear, logical or in-depth, has some weaknesses in theory or in application, a number of parts/ideas are not realistic, conclusion does not sum-up main ideas from the text, references to literature have some failures

D (20 points): average paper: needs improvement in terms of structure, unclear in a number of parts, surface explanation of many points rather than in-depth discussion of a limited number of key points, has many weaknesses in theory or in application, not very realistic, misses clear conclusion, references to literature have some failures

E (10 points): below average: unclear or missing structure, missing theoretical explanation, unclear presentation of facts/opinion, surface explanations rather than in-depth discussion of a limited number of key points, largely unrealistic or idealised, references to literature have many failures

F (0 points: below E or paper not submitted at all.


This course uses the standard grading scale for courses at University of Economics in Bratislava


Letter Grade Definition Percentage
A Excellent 91-100
B Very good 81-90
C Good 71-80
D Satisfactory 61-80
E Sufficient 51-60
FX Fail 0-50


We look forward to learning with you.

Negotiations course team.