General Information
Decision making, influence and negotiation are central to managerial effectiveness, professional relationships and responsible leadership. In this intensive MBA subject, students will examine how individuals and groups make decisions, how people influence one another, and how negotiators create and claim value in situations of uncertainty, interdependence and competing interests. Drawing on evidence-based theories and practical frameworks, students will learn to define problems, gather relevant information, clarify criteria and interests, generate alternatives and options, evaluate evidence, engage stakeholders, use persuasion ethically and prepare for negotiations using an adaptive planning process. Through cases, simulations, structured reflection and applied activities, students will develop the concepts, tools and habits needed to continue improving as reflective and effective decision makers, influencers and negotiators.
Details
| Academic unit: | Bond Business School |
|---|---|
| Subject code: | BMBA71-102 |
| Subject title: | Judgement Under Pressure: Decision-Making, Influence and Negotiation (January 2027) |
| Subject level: | Postgraduate |
| Semester/Year: | January 2027 |
| Credit points: | 10.000 |
Delivery & attendance
| Timetable: | https://bond.edu.au/timetable |
|---|---|
| Delivery mode: | Intensive |
| Workload items: |
|
| Attendance and learning activities: | Attendance at all class sessions is expected. Students are expected to notify the instructor of any absences with as much advance notice as possible. NOTE: BBS uses a self and peer-evaluation system to support students engaged in group-based assessments. Students are expected to provide this feedback in a timely fashion as part of their assessment. The information gathered is used by the educator as partial evidence of equitable contributions by all group members and helps to determine individual marks for group assessments. |
Resources
| Prescribed resources: | No Prescribed resources. After enrolment, students can check the Books and Tools area in iLearn for the full Resource List. |
|---|---|
| iLearn@Bond & Email: | |
| Class recordings: | The primary workload items for this subject will be recorded for the purpose of revision. These recordings are not a substitute for attending classes. Students are encouraged to attend all sessions as there may be instances where a session is not recorded due to the presence of a guest speaker, the inclusion of sensitive or protected content, or technical issues. Students are advised not to rely solely on these recordings for revision. See the Recording policy for further details. |
| Academic unit: | Bond Business School |
|---|---|
| Subject code: | BMBA71-102 |
| Subject title: | Judgement Under Pressure: Decision-Making, Influence and Negotiation (January 2027) |
| Subject level: | Postgraduate |
| Semester/Year: | January 2027 |
| Credit points: | 10.000 |
| Timetable: | https://bond.edu.au/timetable |
|---|---|
| Delivery mode: | Intensive |
| Workload items: |
|
| Attendance and learning activities: | Attendance at all class sessions is expected. Students are expected to notify the instructor of any absences with as much advance notice as possible. NOTE: BBS uses a self and peer-evaluation system to support students engaged in group-based assessments. Students are expected to provide this feedback in a timely fashion as part of their assessment. The information gathered is used by the educator as partial evidence of equitable contributions by all group members and helps to determine individual marks for group assessments. |
| Prescribed resources: | No Prescribed resources. After enrolment, students can check the Books and Tools area in iLearn for the full Resource List. |
|---|---|
| iLearn@Bond & Email: | |
| Class recordings: | The primary workload items for this subject will be recorded for the purpose of revision. These recordings are not a substitute for attending classes. Students are encouraged to attend all sessions as there may be instances where a session is not recorded due to the presence of a guest speaker, the inclusion of sensitive or protected content, or technical issues. Students are advised not to rely solely on these recordings for revision. See the Recording policy for further details. |
Enrolment requirements
| Requisites: |
Nil |
|---|---|
| Restrictions: |
Nil |
Assurance of learning
Assurance of Learning means that universities take responsibility for creating, monitoring and updating curriculum, teaching and assessment so that students graduate with the knowledge, skills and attributes they need for employability and/or further study.
At Bond University, we carefully develop subject and program outcomes to ensure that student learning in each subject contributes to the whole student experience. Students are encouraged to carefully read and consider subject and program outcomes as combined elements.
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
Program Learning Outcomes provide a broad and measurable set of standards that incorporate a range of knowledge and skills that will be achieved on completion of the program. If you are undertaking this subject as part of a degree program, you should refer to the relevant degree program outcomes and graduate attributes as they relate to this subject.
Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
On successful completion of this subject the learner will be able to:
- Explain and effectively communicate how decision-making, influence and negotiation function as interrelated managerial capabilities in professional, organisational and personal contexts.
- Apply structured processes to complex decision-making and negotiation situations by defining problems, gathering information, clarifying criteria, generating alternatives, evaluating evidence, planning implementation and reviewing process quality.
- Apply appropriate strategies to mitigate barriers to effective judgement and responsible action, including cognitive biases, emotion, time pressure, power dynamics and social influence.
- Communicate how influence and persuasion will be used ethically to engage stakeholders and support decision processes, drawing on evidence, framing, legitimacy, Cialdini's principles, sources of power and appropriate use of generative AI.
- Plan, enact and reflect on decisions and negotiations using an adaptive framework that integrates evidence-based theories and concepts to support continuous learning and improvement.
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assessment
The University acknowledges that Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tools are an important facet of contemporary life. Their use in assessment is considered in line with students’ development of the skills and knowledge which demonstrate learning outcomes and underpin study and career success. Instructions on the use of Gen-AI are given for each assessment task; it is your responsibility to adhere to these instructions.
Assessment details
| Type | Task | % | Timing* | Outcomes assessed | AI category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio | Students complete and turn in structured preparation activities before class, including self-reflection, online module responses, case preparation, and negotiation planning artefacts, providing evidence through written communication of preparation, concept acquisition, and readiness to contribute meaningfully to experiential learning. | 30.00% | Week 3 | 1, 2 | |
| Student Engagement | Students are assessed on the quality of their in-class contribution, including case discussion, simulation engagement, negotiation process, inquiry, listening, questioning, presenting, ethical reasoning, appropriate application of concepts, and contribution to debriefs. Short in-class reflective artefacts may be used to capture learning as it occurs. | 30.00% | Week 4 | 1, 2, 4 | |
| Portfolio | Students apply the subject frameworks to an instructor-approved real situation involving a meaningful decision, influence challenge, negotiation, or combination of these. The portfolio includes problem definition, decision analysis, influence strategy, negotiation planning, implementation and review thinking, selected course artefacts, critical reflection, and an AI-use appendix. | 40.00% | Week 7 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
- * Assessment timing is indicative of the week that the assessment is due or begins (where conducted over multiple weeks), and is based on the standard University academic calendar
- C = Students must reach a level of competency to successfully complete this assessment.
AI Categories
Ai Prohibited: Learning to develop AI-free knowledge and skills.
Ai Supported: Learning with the help of AI as directed.
Ai Focussed: Learning AI expertise and mastery as directed.
Refer to the assessment task sheet for specific AI instructions and review the Bond University Gen-AI Guide.
Assessment criteria
Assessment criteria
| High Distinction | 85-100 | Outstanding or exemplary performance in the following areas: interpretative ability; intellectual initiative in response to questions; mastery of the skills required by the subject, general levels of knowledge and analytic ability or clear thinking. |
|---|---|---|
| Distinction | 75-84 | Usually awarded to students whose performance goes well beyond the minimum requirements set for tasks required in assessment, and who perform well in most of the above areas. |
| Credit | 65-74 | Usually awarded to students whose performance is considered to go beyond the minimum requirements for work set for assessment. Assessable work is typically characterised by a strong performance in some of the capacities listed above. |
| Pass | 50-64 | Usually awarded to students whose performance meets the requirements set for work provided for assessment. |
| Fail | 0-49 | Usually awarded to students whose performance is not considered to meet the minimum requirements set for particular tasks. The fail grade may be a result of insufficient preparation, of inattention to assignment guidelines or lack of academic ability. A frequent cause of failure is lack of attention to subject or assignment guidelines. |
Quality assurance
For the purposes of quality assurance, Bond University conducts an evaluation process to measure and document student assessment as evidence of the extent to which program and subject learning outcomes are achieved. Some examples of student work will be retained for potential research and quality auditing purposes only. Any student work used will be treated confidentially and no student grades will be affected.
| Type | Task | % | Timing* | Outcomes assessed | AI category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio | Students complete and turn in structured preparation activities before class, including self-reflection, online module responses, case preparation, and negotiation planning artefacts, providing evidence through written communication of preparation, concept acquisition, and readiness to contribute meaningfully to experiential learning. | 30.00% | Week 3 | 1, 2 | |
| Student Engagement | Students are assessed on the quality of their in-class contribution, including case discussion, simulation engagement, negotiation process, inquiry, listening, questioning, presenting, ethical reasoning, appropriate application of concepts, and contribution to debriefs. Short in-class reflective artefacts may be used to capture learning as it occurs. | 30.00% | Week 4 | 1, 2, 4 | |
| Portfolio | Students apply the subject frameworks to an instructor-approved real situation involving a meaningful decision, influence challenge, negotiation, or combination of these. The portfolio includes problem definition, decision analysis, influence strategy, negotiation planning, implementation and review thinking, selected course artefacts, critical reflection, and an AI-use appendix. | 40.00% | Week 7 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
- * Assessment timing is indicative of the week that the assessment is due or begins (where conducted over multiple weeks), and is based on the standard University academic calendar
- C = Students must reach a level of competency to successfully complete this assessment.
AI Categories
Ai Prohibited: Learning to develop AI-free knowledge and skills.
Ai Supported: Learning with the help of AI as directed.
Ai Focussed: Learning AI expertise and mastery as directed.
Refer to the assessment task sheet for specific AI instructions and review the Bond University Gen-AI Guide.
Assessment criteria
| High Distinction | 85-100 | Outstanding or exemplary performance in the following areas: interpretative ability; intellectual initiative in response to questions; mastery of the skills required by the subject, general levels of knowledge and analytic ability or clear thinking. |
|---|---|---|
| Distinction | 75-84 | Usually awarded to students whose performance goes well beyond the minimum requirements set for tasks required in assessment, and who perform well in most of the above areas. |
| Credit | 65-74 | Usually awarded to students whose performance is considered to go beyond the minimum requirements for work set for assessment. Assessable work is typically characterised by a strong performance in some of the capacities listed above. |
| Pass | 50-64 | Usually awarded to students whose performance meets the requirements set for work provided for assessment. |
| Fail | 0-49 | Usually awarded to students whose performance is not considered to meet the minimum requirements set for particular tasks. The fail grade may be a result of insufficient preparation, of inattention to assignment guidelines or lack of academic ability. A frequent cause of failure is lack of attention to subject or assignment guidelines. |
Quality assurance
For the purposes of quality assurance, Bond University conducts an evaluation process to measure and document student assessment as evidence of the extent to which program and subject learning outcomes are achieved. Some examples of student work will be retained for potential research and quality auditing purposes only. Any student work used will be treated confidentially and no student grades will be affected.
Study Information
Policy on late submission and extensions
A late penalty will be applied to all overdue assessment tasks unless an extension is granted by the subject coordinator. The standard penalty will be 10% of marks awarded to that assessment per day late with no assessment to be accepted seven days after the due date. Where a student is granted an extension, the penalty of 10% per day late starts from the new due date.
Additional subject information
As part of the requirements for Business School quality accreditation, the Bond Business School employs an evaluation process to measure and document student assessment as evidence of the extent to which program and subject learning outcomes are achieved. Some examples of student work will be retained for potential research and quality auditing purposes only. Any student work used will be treated confidentially and no student grades will be affected.
Subject curriculum
Overview & Fundamentals
Establishes the importance of decision making, influence and negotiation in professional, organisational and personal life. Students examine why experience alone is not enough, how bad habits and overconfidence develop, and why the subject focuses on disciplined process rather than lucky outcomes. The session introduces the core philosophy: students are learning how to practise becoming better, not proving mastery after one intensive week.
Structured Decision Making
Introduces structured decision making as a System 2 process for complex, consequential or hard-to-reverse decisions. Students learn to define the problem, gather relevant information, clarify criteria, generate alternatives, evaluate evidence, plan implementation and review process quality. Particular emphasis is placed on problem definition and information gathering, because poor decisions often begin with solving the wrong problem.
Barriers to Judgment
Explores the human and contextual factors that distort judgement, including cognitive biases, emotion, time pressure, poor framing, satisficing, ethical fading and motivated reasoning. Students examine why awareness alone is insufficient and practise strategies such as reframing, seeking disconfirming evidence, using premortems, slowing down, and designing safeguards into the process. The aim is to help students recognise predictable traps and build practical routines to mitigate them.
Influence, Persuasion & Power
Positions influence as integral to decision making and negotiation, not as a separate communication skill. Students examine how framing, legitimacy, evidence, Cialdini’s principles of persuasion, sources of power, stakeholder interests and organisational politics shape whether decisions are accepted, resisted or implemented. The emphasis is on ethical influence: engaging others responsibly to improve decision quality, build commitment and support action.
Negotiation as Interdependent Decision Making
Explores negotiation as a structured decision process under conditions of interdependence, incomplete information and competing interests. Students learn to prepare by analysing interests, issues, BATNAs, ranges, questions, options, legitimacy, relationships and ethical risks. The session integrates value claiming and integrative negotiation, showing that effective negotiators must both protect their interests and search for ways to create value.
Integration & Application
Integrates decision making, influence and negotiation together in applied practice. Students use the integrated framework to analyse complex situations, workshop their own final project ideas, reflect on feedback and identify the habits they need to develop next. The session reinforces the course’s central message: effective managers are not judged simply by outcomes, but by the quality of the processes they use and their ability to learn from experience.