Cynicism can be a very destructive force, and can be particularly damaging to the trust/goodwill/benefit-of-the-doubt that seems to help collaboration unfold. I might suggest that perceived hypocrisy is the very best fertilizer for those cynical weeds in the collaborative lawn of an intra- on inter-corporate culture.
Claiming hypocrisy appears to be a safe place from which to launch a critical attack. Much of the criticisms of the recent Copenhagen climate summit point to a disconnect between curbing greenhouse emissions and jetting off to global conferences, then taking limousines to the hotel.
Al Gore received the same treatment for living in a mansion.
David Suzuki got it for using a tour bus to move his small entourage around Canada.
On a smaller scale, in the set-up to some client work I did on effective meeting behaviours, the senior manager showed up a few minutes late and then began chastising the lack of respect for people’s time that hampered effectiveness.
In my role as a trainer/instructor, I have an opportunity to instill the importance of “walking the talk” when engaging hostile stakeholder groups, or even members of a cross-functional team. Most of the time clients, students and attendees can’t tell if I actually walk my talk. (Recall the cynical adage: If you can’t do, teach.)
Note: A colleague of mine, who also teaches negotiations found a neat way around the issue: “It’s not how good a negotiator I am; it’s how good are you after I have taught you.”
There are two situations where those watching, I think, have an opportunity to really assess my walk-to-talk ratio.
1 – Training presentation skills: Similar to writing a book on writing skills, leading a training session on “presenting” always makes me feel naked. During one such session, I found the projector frozen (having spent a December night in the trunk of a car). I am certain the audience was quietly thinking, “Wow! What is he going to do now?” and expecting me to have the right answer, (which is get on with the content; you will find the projector works fine once it is warmed up!)
2 – Negotiating grades for a Negotiation class: Students have an option to analyze and strategize their negotiation with me for a final mark in my MBA course. I don’t feel as naked in these situations because of the obvious power imbalance.
Either of these situations provides clear opportunities to spot the “do as I say, not as I do” moments. I can’t say that I have been called out much at all. One gentleman approached me after a training session with a hypocrisy sighting: “You told us you tend to ‘beg forgiveness over ask permission,’ but then you kept asking us if it was OK to move on.”
Hmmm. Needless to say, no “participation” marks were on the line this time.
When under scrutiny, I think that credibility can become very solid very quickly if the talk and walk line up. Authenticity is a strong asset in managing and leading change from any level of an organization. I firmly believe that those under the most scrutiny (from strong out-group camps), have a fighting chance to gain/regain credibility when they “walk their talk” as much as possible. This means that if I am not flawless, I can’t hold you to a flawless standard… that would be hypocritical, which would make you cynical, which limits our ability to collaborate.
No one is bullet proof. It is far too difficult to fake it. Lead with your strengths, and find others to cover your weaknesses.
Late in the semester takes on a degree of urgency for those involved in education on either side of the chalk. Similar to the wind down of a sports season, things count more and time runs short. Not surprisingly, the final project for my negotiations class entails analyzing a real situation to assess strategy and implementation of the parties involved. There is a timeliness and relevance that comes with looking at situations that are currently unfolding, and my classes have been blessed over the last bit:
- Fall 2008 – York University unionized workers strike.
Note: Neither Schulich (business) or Osgoode (law) were affected directly. All appreciated the irony of crossing a picket line to teach a class on Negotiating.
- Winter 2009 – Auto sector woes, which were welcome in the fall, continue.
Note: There is also a nice little transit strike in Ottawa.
- Summer 2009 – Toronto City outdoor and daycare workers strike
Note: Toronto City Counsellor Karen Stintz guest shared perspectives on this in class this semester.
- Fall 2009 – Cable companies and TV broadcasters
Note: Just in time for Fall 2009, CRTC Chair Konrad Von Finckenstein chastised the disputing cable and broadcasting companies with:
“You need each other; I don’t understand why you can’t negotiate.”
A final report gift, just in time for Christmas.
- Winter 2010 – Community College Teachers vs. Management
Note: As an instructor at Humber I was able to vote in this one. Who on Earth thinks that teaching is a profession in which to get rich?!
The thread through all of these situations appears to be “reacting to a business model that’s under strain.” Whether its wage dissatisfaction or margin envy, those involved, who really do need each other, would do well to hear Von Finckenstein’s words.
Complex situations? Requiring new approaches? This will ring familiar to those working in supply chain. Collaboration is easy to talk about and, theoretically, we can see the opportunity for creating/protecting value. The work comes in effectively executing on that mindset to address real challenges.
The competitive reaction appears to be automatic, especially if we are taking away things that people have “always had” (e.g. banked sick days) or have come to expect (3 – 5% year-on-year wage increase). The rightful target for competitive behaviour is often outside this relationship.
This means that even though it makes perfect sense to implement your cost-saving initiative, if someone is losing something, expect some push back. Positioning energy toward understanding the problem (hopefully a shared problem) is the most effective interaction. No situation is too small for a strategic look, which could start conversations toward some fixes.
En route to a meeting this morning, I found myself listening to CBC Radio One’s The Current and a discussion of flu preventation/pandemic preparedness. Today’s discussion explored mandating flu vaccines for health care workers. One expert, Dr. Alison McGeer, the Director of Infection Control at Mount Sinai hospital in Toronto, makes the very general comment, “Nobody likes to be told what to do.” As it turns out, this may be the biggest issue in play for this particular discussion.
Complementing Dr. McGeer’s insight, was New York State Health Commissioner, Dr. Richard Daines, whose state has adopted mandatory flu vaccinations for those in the system who come in regular contact with patients. The scientific evidence appears to be compelling, and demonstrates the correlation between vaccinated health care workers and reduced impact of flu on society. Neither doctor relied solely on the scientific evidence because both, I assume, realize they are up against a less rational “you can’t make me” reaction to the word “mandatory” (or “forced,” if you want stronger reactions).
Their counter arguments were excellent, and I am curious whether or not this came through media training, or simply understanding how to diffuse a particular line of questioning. Here are two examples of note (paraphrased):
Dr. McGeer, in response to concerns about limiting freedom of choice: “If you are a pilot with a heart condition, you are not given the choice to continue to fly.” (Score more points for the analogy!)
Dr. Baines, in response to concerns about over applying the rules: “We have reasonable people in our institutions; they will implement this in a reasonable way.”
In contrast, I think that the support given by Linda Haslam-Stroud is the President of the Ontario Nurses Association was very weak, suggesting the idea is good, but stressing that choice is important without much support. I am not sure if this was a lack of media training/preparation, or if it is simply much more difficult to support the “you can’t make me” side of this argument.
Interestingly, in New York and other areas that adopt this practice wholeheartedly, the people can retain their right to choose, with the choices being (1) get a vaccine and keep working, or (2) don’t get a vaccine and take some unpaid time off. So, you see, “you can’t make me” is indeed correct!
Spending scandals are always good news stories; the best, of course, involve taxpayer dollars. There seem to have been a lot of them lately. One such story this week, involves the RCMP planning to spend $200K on the leadership development of three of its officers. Interestingly, perhaps, the issue this twigged with me is “what do you charge for these type of services?”
I recently had a conversation with a former professor and colleague of mine a Schulich Business School, and we agreed that one of the biggest challenges for providers of professional services (like me!) is pricing. The formula involves trading time for money: hours or days spent either with the client or in preparation. Time spent on the latter has more latitude because, as my client, you won’t know exactly how much time I have spent preparing. I will suggest that in most cases there is a reasonable range, which is usually driven by the size of the project and the available budget. The resulting agreement ensures that you, as my client, get value for money and that I, as the provider, receive compensation that allows me to stay in business with a manageable schedule (e.g. not working 90 hours a week, 51.5 weeks a year).
A recurring stat in my profession is that employers spend on average $1200 per year per employee on training and development. Some will receive a much higher investment in their skills and abilities, and those are the ones that most providers like me hope to train. I am not sure of the upper limit of the reasonable range for an individual’s training allowance, but I think it is considerably south of “$200K for three people.”
What happens when the buyer fails to enact the “reasonable range”? The current levels of scrutiny on such spending, as well as the strong trends toward forced transparency, may eliminate these situations completely. Until that happens, individual ethics will dictate how much time makes into onto the invoice. Let’s call this “micro governance.” I think that it can cover for any governance/oversight that may be lacking in the always imperfect systems. Ethics or no ethics, for the sustainability of both sides, the reasonable range is the safest place to be. I hope we can continue to find it.
If you read this column, you will know by now that I have a very soft spot for analogy. My favourites involve the restaurant industry, and to guard against diminished impact from overuse, allow me to share one from a client of mine, who is enamoured with sports analogies. He explains a relatively recent switch in his and his agency’s role:
“We used to be like hockey referees. If things were working, people barely knew we were there. Occasionally we would be called in to work on problems, but there was often clarity about what should happen. These days, we are baseball umpires and are constantly being asked to call ’strikes’ and ‘balls’ in situations where things are happening fast and in front of many spectators.”
The difference in the impact of the authority of officials is stark between hockey and baseball (leaving national orientations aside). In hockey, a referee is unable to see everything because the action is so constant. In most instances, no action on the part of a referee is an acceptable response. There is an expectation that less-serious infractions and breaches will be ignored, and that occasionally a major breach will slip under the radar (for example, if it happens behind the play). In instances where a potentially game-changing decision is required, such as with a disputed goal, the lines are very clear and the maximum impact – one goal – is usually surmountable for the other side.
Baseball umpires, on the other hand, have a nearly omniscient view of the field of play. They are constantly required to make binary decisions – i.e., in or out (watch this clip for the frenzy created by delayed calls). One of the most-important criteria for an umpire’s decisions – the vertical strike zone from the player’s shoulders to knees – changes with every batter, plus the ball travels at highway vehicle speeds and only very recently has support been allowed through instant replay. “Game-changing” calls routinely become “game-ending” (e.g., how rare is a bottom-of-the-ninth third out on strikes?)
In the working world, which would you rather be?
A straw poll would likely show a preference for refereeing, but I will suggest that many organizations need the calls made by umpires. There are steep potential downsides to “no action” as a response to a situation:
- Delays that cause missing a window of opportunity
- Diminishing perceptions of the person’s ability/leadership
- Deflating employee spirits as “analysis” continues seemingly forever.
From my involvement with supply chain professionals, I’ve found that they often make up the group that has the best view of the “field of play” and may be in a good position to make (or initiate) a positive “game-changing” decision that takes into account wider implications. The criteria for success, like the strike zone, may need some clarification to maintain the quality of the decisions and garner necessary support.
The other thing to point out, before the analogy goes too far, is that the best decisions come when the “us against them” dynamic is altered toward collaboration. This is why I still prefer the restaurant stories.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.canadiansupplychain.org)
The last few months have been rich with current events stories involving negotiations that appear to be relatively contained. Notable in this category is the Toronto City workers strike. Maybe it is the micro-scale complexity that I am enjoying. Another of these stories–which my clients and students have benefited–is Jim Balsillie’s pursuit of an NHL team, and more specifically, a team that operates out of SW Ontario. (Full disclosure: As a fan whose fanaticism has waned under far-away expansion, I would love to see another team close by. Any critique is intended to be constructive.)
This week, I took the opportunity to respond to an editorial in the print edition of the National Post. Here is what was printed:
Re: ‘Integrity’ A Foreign Concept At The NHL, Kelly McParland, Aug. 12.
Kelly McParland is right on. Lack of “integrity” is a very weak argument to keep Jim Balsillie out of the NHL owner’s circle. The much stronger argument is that league commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners don’t like him. Balsillie’s competitive/ combative approach has strained, perhaps irreparably, key relationships with league decision-makers and influencers.
As in many instances, it is not enough to have a good game plan — you have to get a buy-in from your stakeholders. I give Jim Balsillie full points on the former, and a dismal failure on the latter.
Chris Irwin, lecturer, Schulich School of Business, Toronto.
Toronto city workers are striking, because they can. City management and union representatives, hopefully, continue to negotiate, because they have to. I am expecting final class assignments devoted to analyzing this situation:
- what went wrong?
- how could it have been better?
- what should they learn for next time?
I always enjoy the perspectives and the biases that come out in the analysis. Likely because he shares my biases, I enjoyed Howard Levitt’s legal perspective on the situation in today’s National Post.
As an additional perspective, my MBA class (Negotiations) this week tried to deal with ethics as practically as possible. With the assistance of some readings, excersises and discussions, we arrived at some criteria that can help inform ethical decision making. (I don’t like to think that it always “depends;” there are some more biases for you!) One of the criteria was “It is unethical to maximize your own interests with a disregard for shared interests.” You can argue the semantics of any of those words, but the point, as I see it, is look out for number one, but stay attentive to shared interests.
Under this criteria, in nature, a parasitic relationship becomes unethical if it threatens the survival of the host. Does that mean the Bernie Madoff was unethical because he failed to create a sustainable Ponzi scheme? Maybe. Remember, this is one of four criteria.
Do city workers violate this ethical code by holding out for, specifically, sick day banking and pay-back for half a year of sick days upon retirement? I think the answer is, “Yes.” The shared interest is in a sustainable system whereby reasonable tax revenues cover reasonable city services. As Mr. Levitt illustrates, the status quo union agreements have progressed to being unreasonable (evidence by the fact that you don’t see similar benefits in the private sector).
The checks and balances of the private sector are not perfect–and certainly do not guarantee ethical behaviour–but can help. Uncompetitive wage burdens were part of GM going bankrupt. Unions, workers and pensioners live with the consequences. Pushing a business to unsustainability is unethical if your plan is to continue working there (as it appeared to be for many workers) or to bank on retirement income from the company (as it appears for many pensioners).
If today’s City of Toronto workers are in it for anything other than short-term gains, they are not behaving ethically, I will suggest. Anyone who makes such a claim, better have a strong ethical leg to stand on (or had best make it on a blog whose readership is limited to like minds… we will see.)
One of my children got an invitation to a birthday party this week. On the invitation was a handwritten addition indicating that my child was invited to sleep-over after that party. We later confirmed that this “after party” was a bit more “exclusive” than that described on the invitation.
You could tell me to lighten up, but I have a fundamental issue with this approach. I envision the conversation (because I have first-hand experience) between the parent and the child.
- Child: “I want to have sleep over for my birthday.”
- Parent: “Great. How many kids are you planning on inviting?”
- Child: “Let me see…. (verbal list of names each prompting a finger to extend). Twelve.”
- Parent: “You can’t have that many kids to sleep over.”
I can understand the motivation to sidestep a conflict/tempter tantrum. Such forks in the road exist. You can invite twelve people, OR you can have a sleepover. You can’t do both.
But hold on a second. In the spirit of Negotiating… What if we invite a large group of kids to the party, and then keep a select few back to sleepover. Is that not a good compromise? Out of the box, eh?
Not to make too much of a big deal out of this, but I think it is unhealthy to fail to select (or fail to make the child select) “one of the other” from the above options. If pushed to further explain, which I was, my argument extends to the quality of the first party. How much fun can it be if the “sleep-over group” has to keep suppress the “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” temptation of the after party? Isn’t there an inherent risk that the “go-home group” will learn about the after party and feel (rightfully so) like a second-tier friend?
This specific trade-off approaches an ethical question. Select between the two party streams OR do both and be deceitful to at least half of your “friends.” (This is all happening in the context on an ongoing conversation with some fellow Schulich faculty on ethics and decision making among business school students. E.G. Is it wrong to gain competitive advantage through exploiting a legal loophole?)
So, yes, you can “have your cake and sleepover, too.” You may find that this type of “compromise” ends up compromising the integrity of those involved. The risk-return will be an individual call, but I can certainly tell you I will take on a conflict with my child to avoid treading into ethically murky waters.
This CAW/Chrysler/Fiat item is a great study of clashing negotiating strategies, and Ken Lewenza and C0. are very likely looking back instead of looking forward (which seems to be common with U.S. automakers). I confess that my perspective is shaped by this article in today’s Financial Post, a conservative (anti-union?) publication. For full disclosure, my education is heavily in business, and I teach in the MBA program at Schulich Business School.
If everyone has it in for the CAW, as Lewenza claims (”[the Canadian Government is] interfering in our negotiations [with Chrysler), then he needs to fight back with some pretty powerful evidence. The fundamental premise of the “other side’s” argument is that CAW workers are paid much more than Toyota and Honda workers, so the wages need to come down to competitive levels.
Lewenza challenges that argument directly (although it is at the very end of the article; damn right-wing editors!). He says that “Canadian executives at Toyota and Honda have described many times their strategy of essentially matching wages, pensions and core benefits to those paid in CAW-represented facilities.” So, I guess, it is just a shell game, and CAW workers and workers at Toyota and Honda are ALREADY paid the same wages, right? If that is the case, then there must be another reason that Chrysler is so unable to compete. Such as, no one buys the cars. This is not good news for CAW workers in Chrysler facilities.
This situation is a clear example of an entity (CAW) or at least a person (Ken Lewenza) so heavy with history that they cannot shed a combative/competitive mindset that has no place in competitive industries where stakeholdes (including government) need to work together to beat the real competition. I feel sorry for the people who are being mislead so badly by Mr. Lewenza. This will be a powerful lesson for organized labour.
You won’t need a link to find references to Ken Lewenza’s response to Fiat’s “take-it-or-leave-it” offer (on April 16, 2009). This story is moving quickly, so my thoughts may quickly be irrelevant. Mr. Lewenza cried foul that Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne was not taking the time to “build the relationship” with Chrysler and its employees before embarking on this joint venture.
I am all about the “relationship” side of the business. There is a place for relationships in the Fiat/Chrysler landscape, and I think that Mr. Marchionne is familiar with the value of relationships, as well. I suspect, he has simply opted to put results first. If my guess is right, this is a strategic direction given that his company is operating in a fiercely competitive environment and cannot afford to make any concessions that are disproportionate to added value. I think that his shareholders (and business partners) would applaud that.
Relationships are absolutely necessary, but in some instances, it will have to be compromised. I think this is one of those situations. Maybe it is a dose of “tough love” to an entity who no longer has a competitive wage structure.
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
