What Is The History Of American Samoans In The United States?

The video clip showed the disagreement between two entities—the American Samoans and the United States government. The American Samoans requested and recommended that the American government give them more leverage within their own island especially since they are also part of the American governed isles. This leverage comes in the form of giving the American Samoans initial and special consideration to be trained as the main fishermen for the American fish cannery, which holds office in the Samoan islands.

The American government, on the other hand, has relayed their disagreement with the proposition of the Samoans. The video showed two sides of the coin—the justifications of each party. The American Samoans justified that they should be given the job because since they are part of the American nation, the latter should provide growth and nurture the skills of the people. They also argued that if they could be trained to repair electronics, they could also be trained to be skilled fishermen.

The United States government, offhand, replied and gave their rebuttals stating that the American Samoans were not ready to take the major role and job due to the resources it encompassed. For one, the shipping boats and other equipment the American

Samoans used could not compare with the other nationalities’ tools. These other nationalities, which include the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese, according to the American government, can meet the objectives of the American fish cannery because they are able to work at a longer period of time.

The behavior of these American representatives could create conflict with the American Samoans because their rebuttals did not even consideration to arguments placed on the table. Instead of binding the bridge and working towards a win-win situation, the American representatives look very one-sided as if clearly showing the American Samoans that they only cater to their vested interests. There was room for improvement for the US government to negotiate in a better manner by providing alternatives and terms to the American Samoans.

PART II There are three types of management styles of negotiating conflicts (“Conflict and Negotiation”, n. d. ). These include negotiating at an impasse or when both parties reach a stalemate, negotiating mismatches or two opposing views, and negotiating through a third party (“Conflict and Negotiation”, n. d. ). This paper will tackle personal teenage experiences on how these different types of management styles were used in addressing conflicts and how these management styles are interrelated to one another.

There are only two main characters mentioned within the paper as one connecting experiences is laid out within the paper—the parent and her child, or rather, my mother and myself. Among the three management styles of resolving a conflict, the first one experienced is negotiating at an impasse. At a very young age of twelve years old, the child was invited to a Sunday barbeque party of one of the most popular students in his school. The party was going to take place a few blocks away from his house. Being very excited about the party, the child walked home dreamily and thinking about how much he was going to have a great time during the party.

As soon as he got to his house, he headed straight to the kitchen to nimble on a cookie dunked in milk to wait for his mother to come home to tell her this most exciting news. As soon as his mother got home, he told her how about the event and how much he had wanted to attend the barbeque party. The plain and simple he got was a no. She related that she didn’t want him to go because of three reasons—it was a Sunday or a family day, she did not know the student who was inviting and if there would be parental overseer, and he was a minor.

Instead of applying Ury’s process, there was negative reaction coming from the child’s side, which ended up in a vehement “no” from the mother and not being able to attend the event that Sunday. Looking back, it would have ended up on a positive note for both sides if Ury’s process had been initially applied. The child should not have reacted but instead should have disarmed the arguments of the mother by giving good and sound rebuttals while changing the game and reframing the perception of attending the party as a win-win situation for both parties.

In other words, the child should have played on the emotions of his mother by letting her know he understood the reasons and enumerating worthy benefits of his attendance to the party to change the frame of mind of his mother. By doing all these, he would have been able to make it easy for his mother to give a positive answer. Should the child have applied Ury’s process, it would be a new technique in managing the conflict, which is the second management style—negotiating mismatches.

After securing understanding his mother’s point, the child would have been able to formulate his rebuttals for his mother’s better understanding. The mismatches would have been readily softened to an agreement should the child have given reasons appealing to the objective and emotional think process of his mother. The child could have said that he needed to attend the party in order to build network and a relationship with the new crowd that would be in the party. He could have negotiated for an early curfew and asked his mother to call the inviter’s mother in order for her to feel more at ease with the situation.

The child could have also stipulated terms that would be a win-win situation for both parties—the child would be able to attend the party so as long as he would go home in the agreed time and be on his best behavior as what his mother would expect from him. Based on personal experiences, negotiating with the individual directly affected—the mother, would not always be successful especially because both parties involved in the agreement have their own perceptions on how to go about things. It is because of this a third party becomes pertinent in the negotiations such as involving the father to patch both parties up.

PART III Mergers and acquisitions are relevant for the growth of companies as it further improves operations as well as increases cash flow with the combined resources of two companies. There are successful mergers and acquisitions but at the same time there are unsuccessful ventures as well. One of the many examples of successful merger and acquisitions include companies with the likes of Cisco-WorldCom, McCawCellular-AT&T and Geocities-Yahoo (Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed, 2002).

These companies were deemed successful by Alex Mandhl and David Bohnett because of the compatibility these companies had with one another (Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed, 2002). The merger of Mc Caw Cellular and AT&T was the best way to go because the services provided by both companies were compatible with one another. Mc Caw Cellular offered cellular telephony while AT&T offered telecommunication services (Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed, 2002).

GeoCities and Yahoo were a fine match combined together because both thrived in the fast-growing Internet industry and both had the same long-term visions and objectives (Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed, 2002). These companies were compatible with another because they had the same management and leadership style, the processes and practices as well as goals and objectives. Compatibility is also the main reason why mergers and acquisitions fail. The main dilemma and issues leaders and corporations would face would be the differences they would have in running the company.

For one, they may think differently on the structure the company should have. For instance, take these two examples. Company X’ structure does not hold corporate units. Instead its offices have been devolved to each of its business units. Company X’ structure was created in this manner by Senior Management in order to maximize its people in the business units while maintaining lowered operational expenses. This structure, however, has its disadvantages. Since there is no corporate unit governing the business units, there may be overlaps in functions.

Synergy projects, which could affect growth and profitability of the company, would be impossible. Company Y, on the other hand, has the exact opposite structure of Company X, wherein it has corporate units to govern the business units. These opposing corporate structures hinder mergers from happening. Another difference two companies would be the priorities and objectives it has set out to do. For instance, Company X’ objective for the ear end would be growing market share and improving sales volume.

Because of this objective, it has given directions to its Marketing arm to spend on advertising and promotions to generate awareness, while supporting its products or services with lower pricing versus competition. Company Y, on the other hand, gives more importance to profitability and ensuring healthy contribution margins. Because of this direction, its Marketing arm would refrain from investing on commercials or ad space, media buys and other advertising platforms. Contrary to what Company X would do, Company Y would do price increases even it will already be a price disadvantage for them versus competition.

REFERENCES Unknown Author (2002). Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed. HBR. org. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://hbr. harvardbusiness. org/2000/05/a-ceo-roundtable-on-making-mergers-succeed/ar/1. Unknown Author (n. d. ). Conflict and Negotiation. LED 605 Negotiation, Bargaining, and Conflict Resolution Web Page. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www. myonlinelogin. com/ec/crs/default. learn? CourseID=3489002&CPURL=www. myonlinelogin. com&Survey=1&47=3925302&ClientNodeID=404974&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.