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.
What happens when you get a deal that is too good? I think that we are trained to be suspicious of the “too good to be true”, but here are a couple of recent instances where there may be some excess sweetness: 1 – city workers in Toronto and 2 – Chrysler Canada’s employees. Both of these deals were conceivably negotiated in good faith, so a deal is a deal, right?
Would you really give back what you won?
Topping the list of “don’t even go there” would be the danger of setting a precedent: “they” will take more or give less in the future. I might, however, suggest that mutual interests over the long-term could prevail if these “winners” concede to the “losers” so that there is a bigger “win” (or smaller loss) for both parties.
In both instances there is a sustainability argument to be made. Many people in very different positions have a stake in both the City of Toronto and Chrysler (and other automotive entities) surviving, succeeding and flourishing. The competition in the auto sector better illustrates how the “take what you can” attitude is misplaced.
When the going is good you don’t notice (can handle?) an extra load, so a company/organization can carry more than its share. When competition ramps up to the extent where “placing near the top” is no longer good enough, everybody has a responsibility to work together to “win.” If winning the marathon really matters, non ones cares that you finished in the top ten while carrying your kids on your back.
Chrysler and company (including unionized workers) should be focussed on proving that the current problems are not due to producing cars no one wants. They will need to be unburdened to prove that point. Once proven, let them carry as much as they can. If they can’t live the balance of provide fair wages and remain competitive, they should not be in business. Workers need to look at “fair” in the context of the bigger picture.
And I would not be too concerned about the precedents. One of the few certainties today appears to be that we are living in “unprecedented times.” Desperate times may call for collaborative measures.
In keeping with its mandate to “bring together partners,” the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council together with the Association for Canadian Community Colleges, spearheaded a gathering of self-identified stakeholders in training and certification related to supply chain. Like most “stakeholder” gatherings, the room included representatives from competing organizations. In this case, that meant representatives from “rival” colleges and institutions, as well as from bodies offering “competing” certifications. The potential value of such gatherings comes in identifying shared interests and in enabling better solutions.
My exposure to this sector is largely through such stakeholder gatherings. Cross-functional (or cross-associational) gatherings in “supply chain” often generate discussion around “what is supply chain, anyway?” The opportunity to clarify the function and value of the sector has the potential to unite the many stakeholders. All of a sudden, there is a pan-sector identity (e.g., in-group) whose job it is to convey that value proposition to non-sector (e.g., out-group) stakeholders, who include employers, job-seekers, students, their parents, other functional areas of the business, etc., etc. We all win when these “others” realize the strategic importance and potential of supply chain… and they win, too!
Interaction between competing forces also helps everyone, by fostering good-old differentiation. For colleges, associations and “others”, this is positive – and necessary – because competitive markets don’t tolerate a “six-of-one” and “half-dozen-of-the-other” split for long. Contact and dialogue help to define core competencies and clear the way for collaboration that helps the sector overall.
As a related example, I worked in media sales where we had one main competitor. At an ad-agency function, I recall turning a corner and coming face-to-face with my “rival account manager” who was talking to our mutual client. Once our poor client realized that she could not avoid acknowledging us to each other, she betrayed the look of someone forced between former spouses from an acrimonious marriage. Shortly after I left that company, the “six” and “half-dozen” merged into one company. Strange how competition forces new ways of working.
It is very easy to pay lip service to collaboration and looking for “win-win” solutions to today’s complex problems. Examples are rarer in reality, but I came across one recently whereby rival conference organizers found they both targeted events in Western Canada that addressed the environmental implications of supply chain. Isn’t it fitting that the two are co-branding their events to spur discussion on the opportunities for supply chain and corporate social responsibility to deliver positive impact? Check out “Supply Chains and the Environment,” to take place on May 25 and 26 in Calgary.
The lines between friends and enemies may be blurring. There is value to be had and created in stakeholder gatherings that help us look for intersecting interests. I guess it takes a sector council to foster that dialogue.
THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE FEBRUARY NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org).
I have written before about my involvement with the facilitation practice of Management Advisory Services, a volunteer consulting organization. (Visit the link for more information. To my paying clients: Let’s just say, you don’t qualify for these services, OK?) Similar to my other consulting work, in this volunteer role I help groups to either distill ideas or to effectively share their ideas… and sometimes both. The question at the heart of all of it is: Where is the value? Who sees it? Who needs help seeing what is there?
Over the past couple of weeks, I worked with a client who, not surprisingly, operates in a multiple stakeholder environment, where value comes from tapping into people’s time and energy, as much as, from funding and donations. To this agency’s credit, they were able to gather an impressive cross-section of perspectives to share and discuss ideas. (Homemade food was likely part of their recipe for success!) Ideas flew back and forth, and at least one occasion each of the two evenings, one of the “tougher” stakeholders occupied the floor momentarily.
The rosy collaborative vibe took a temporary back seat, and I know that at least a few people realized the importance of the critical/challenging insight. Those who were really listening could see the road map of the challenges in dealing with that particular constituency. Nobody likes a pothole, but it is certainly nicer to be able to see them clearly! The real danger in these situations is succumbing (like any human could) to “turning off” people who have turned you off.
To once again beat the drum on the power of effective conflict, last week I had a great conversation with a colleague who has similar passions to mine, though different orientations and approaches. Despite what our fellow patrons in the adjacent booth (@ The Abbott on Yonge Street) may have thought, we were not fighting! As tempting as it is to counter and explain yourself, good stuff comes from taking in the critique of others, which I think I was able to do. From my side, I left the conversation enriched (Again, the Ploughman’s Lunch may have had something to do with that!) and better prepared to move my ideas forward.
I would also assert that strong working relationships increase the chances of producing that value; they provide a foundation that won’t get shaky as easily. And, if you ask me, those relationships are going to need at least some face-time to materialize.
Here is an account of wrongful “not hiring” that is going to be heard by at BC Human Rights Tribunal. A woman is unsuccessful in a job interview. She believes that she is unfairly treated because she smokes. She gets her hands on an e-mail that claims this was part of the reasoning in the decision not to hire her. Game on!
If you have read other posts of mine (or attended courses or training with me), you will know that Getting to Yes’ “Power, rights, interests” model is one that I am quick to reference. The idea being that Power and Rights approaches often get bogged down faster than approach that starts with the Interests (e.g. what do you want?). Could it be that part of the problem with Human Rights Tribunals is that middle word? How does Human Interest Tribunal sound to you?
What does the woman want? Probably a job, but it will not end there: respect, some flexibility, smoking breaks? Maybe she wants to work with nice people. It is worth asking the question. The prospective employer wants an employee who will do the job, and to stick around because interviewing and hiring are time consuming. They want someone reliable and responsible, maybe they need someone who is independent. They likely don’t need someone who is “perfect,” and, if they are like me, are very suspect of people who claim to be so.
When the woman describes her “perfect attendance” in the interview, she is certainly telling them what she thinks they want to hear, but she is not telling the truth.
NOTE: I would suggest that if anyone is 100% truthful in an interview, they won’t get the job. Similarly, if an employer is completely straight with prospective employees, offer acceptance will plummet. There is an expectation that both sides couch things that cannot be supported objectively (i.e. she is the most difficult person to deal with; don’t get him going on his tomato garden, etc.)
An employer does want to hire someone they can trust. If “perfect attendance” is claimed in an interview and later found to be overstated (e.g. false), why hire the person? Does that not demonstrate a lack of judgement? Not hiring someone because they smoke is discrimination, but I hope that the reasoning goes beyond that. Not hiring someone because they exaggerated inappropriately in an interview is entirely justified. I will be interested to see where this ends up.
In work that I do with clients, the situations with the lowest return on time/energy (ROTE) consistently involve communications with those who don’t “get it.” “Getting it” and “not getting it” creates very strong in/out-group perceptions. “It” can take a number of different forms, and usually, I am on the outside looking in. I will hear, for example:
- THEY don’t get that a for-profit model can fit in health care.
- THEY don’t get that Canada is a different market from the U.S.
- THEY don’t get that they are losing the chance at more business down the road by being so contentious now.
My job is to help them to help the other side to “get it.” It can work, but not all the time. Recently, I fear, I was the one who was likely being accused of not “getting it,” which, honestly, is new for me. I actually pride myself on being able to see both sides of things, in most instances. As I understand, and tell my clients, when you are involved, things become less visible. On top of that, it can be completely unclear who is right.
For example, imagine those who did not want to give the automotive Big Three any U.S. Government funds.
For them, the situation is clear:
The Big Three (THEY) don’t get that the model is broken and more money is only prolonging their ultimate demise.
For those supporting a loan/bailout, it is equally clear:
The U.S. Gov (THEY) don’t get that we just need a bridge loan. Weather this storm, and we are set up for long-term success.
One of those positions is right, but only time will tell.
My recent challenge is bringing my “soft-skills” orientation into a “tech-savvy” environment in a discussion about creating value in information sharing and collaborating. Quite predictably, one of us is “not getting” that if and how people use any tool–not to mention the relationship between the parties–will dictate a large degree of effectiveness. Perhaps the other of us is “not getting” that in the future, personal relationships, perceptions and things like “the benefit of the doubt” have little or no role in the workplace.
One of those positions is right, but only time will tell.
There is no shortage of continuum-based models in business communication and negotiating. Although it is dangerous to oversimplify, I often force clients and students into binary decisions. One example from last fall was asking my class at Schulich Business School (during the current strike) whether they were sympathetic to the union or sympathetic to the school administration.
As an instructor/consultant, this creates better discussions because you can get away from the “it depends” that is necessarily pervasive in the domain of human behaviour. It also can get to the root of ideological divides (as people identify with different groups) and strategic trade-offs (where it really is this or that – e.g. sucking and blowing).The group identity idea made me think of a after-work beer-aided conversation I had with two of the three business partners that ran the company I was working for in Tokyo. I had just seen the movie “Lulu on the Bridge,” which is worth a watch.
In one scene, very recently acquainted Mira Sorvino and Harvey Keitel lounge in the morning (I won’t spoil it by telling you how they got there). She engages him in a game of “Are you this or that?” where you take turns asking the such questions. E.g. “Are you a river or an ocean?” Goofy, but cute, so I thought I’d throw it into our post-work drink banter.While Partner 1 pondered the decision, Partner 2 blurter out, “Come on, everyone would want to be an ocean.” In retrospect, that response actually told a lot about the personality at play. Not long after, that partnership dissolved. It was not over the river/ocean question, per se, but there was certainly something behind the metaphor in the differences of approach and vision.Sometimes there are “this and that” scenarios. It is natural to prefer one side to the other. I think. it’s dangerous to not acknowledge the other side.
Learning by doing is widely embraced as a driver of skill development. When I taught English in Japan, my objective was often to give people the tools, words, expressions, etc., that they needed to complete a “production” exercise (e.g having learned and practiced adverbs of frequency, students would create a weekly routine for, say, Paris Hilton when she is in jail. “Well she always checks the cutlery before she eats, she often asks for another blanket” and so on). Entertainment is never a small part of education.
Research suggests that when you are forced to “teach” something, your retention of that material increases dramatically over simply having to “do” something. (I would argue that my depth of comprehension of English jumped during my days of teaching it.) This is where the “reflective journal” fits into many skill development regimes and curricula. My MBA students have to keep a journal to share thoughts with me, or more specifically, show me where they are able to apply the learnings. The good ones could be used to teach others.
For example, in the course, we discuss acceptable alternatives (BATNAs, positions, et al) and the importance of thinking things through. My interactions earlier this month at Home Depot provide a good example of how this fits in the real world:
I bought a chandelier that had to be specially ordered. (”Special order” meaning, I think, items that had less than hotcake-like velocity in selling and therefor were stored elsewhere. Makes sense for the big box business model.) When I got the chandelier home, one of the glass fixtures was broken. Calling suggested that the only alternative was to take it back to the store to figure out what to do. I realized that my overriding objective was to make this trip to Home Depot my last for this particular transaction. (Note: This would be trip number 3, and still no chandelier.)
As a win-win guy, I ran through some possible scenarios. Maybe I return it; maybe they give me the glass bowl from the floor model (of which there was one); maybe they have some ideas that had not occurred to me. I was open to the discussion, but I also decided that I was not prepared to go back to the store again. Had I been passionately attached to the chandelier, my tune might have been quite different.
Not surprisingly, Plan A from HD Customer Service was “we’ll just order you another one; call in a week or 10 days and it should be here for you to pick up.” Sorry, three trips is my limit. A return should have involved a “restocking fee” (such are the rules for special order items), but this was quickly conceded, with a sigh that I suspect was intended to elicit guilt.
From a customer service perspective, I could not have been happier. I got what I wanted, which was to walk out of the store not needing to go back. From a negotiation perspective, there was a lost opportunity for customer services staff to keep the sale. Would it be possible to take an unbroken fixture off the floor model and send me on my way? I did not need to suggest it, so I didn’t. That may have been closer to a win-win, but in this situation, I am OK with win-lose as long as I am the former.
That may be lofty for the expectations of customer service staff at a big box store, but value has to come from anywhere you can get it, even if you are Home Depot. In this case, clarity of objectives on both sides, coupled with a solution-minded approach may have enabled value creation for everyone involved. That might not be too much to ask for/expect/instill in customer-facing staff in any business.
Post script: I ended up going to a local lighting store, who were able to arrange installation through an informal channel. This was one issue I hadn’t thought through. I can only imagine my experience in “learning by doing” a chandelier installation.
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
