Type “Competition + Process Improvement” into the News section of your favourite search engine, and you will likely get a story (or a press release) that talks about a company overcoming new-millennium hyper-competition. The focus is on the solution (especially if you land in a press release), but one can imagine the work that goes into getting to solution. Not to mention, sustaining it. You may be living that “work” right now.
The classic problem-solving methodology is very straightforward: (1) identify the problem, (2) generate possible solutions, and (3) pick the best one. A prerequisite is to maintain a rational and objective focus, along the lines of “Getting-to-YES” style negotiating. Emotions cloud those operating “in the moment,” but in situations where parties (willingly or not) have to collaborate, distortion can come from many different – and surprising – places.
Rightly or wrongly, we have all pushed back (or been pushed) with a challenge to the legitimacy of our interests. Parents talk about “needing vs. wanting” ice cream after dinner (remember all those children that go to bed hungry); in the workplace, we ask people to separate “nice to have” from “need to have.” In all of this, the message is that “need” trumps “want,” which may cause some subtle limitations to successful results.
Too often, “need” identifies one potential solution (”We need a better inventory system”), while “want” can get to the root goal (”We want to remain competitive with as few changes as possible”). The wording and semantics may seem a better fit with strategic visioning than with everyday discussions, but think of the “want” behind some of these “need” statements:
- “We need more budget to do this project.”
- “We need to reduce head count.”
- “We need support from management/other divisions/the union.”
At the risk of treading into a discussion on inspirational leadership, visions talk about wants (or hope) that would offer almost-universal solutions. Each of our above “need” messages offers a solution that will become a problem for at least one other party:
- Extra dollars come from someone else’s budget;
- Head-count reduction hits “Joe Plumber” pretty hard, and
- Support takes other people’s time and energy.
The first thing to identify is a problem that we can all address. The corporate vision statement may do it, but the responsibility may fall to leaders and micro-leaders.
- “We want this company/unit to remain in business/this country.”
- “We want to reach a sustainable operating size.”
- “We want our company to be more responsive to external change.”
Far from being flowery, these may convey the real, wider-reaching need for change and improvement.With a recent MBA class of mine, the discussion focussed on an idealistic entrepreneur’s encounter with venture capitalists (from CBC’s Dragon’s Den). In the “identify the problem” stage, the initial class consensus was “she needs money,” (which, by the way, is the whole reason for going on the show in the first place, right?). I would (and did) argue that a focus on what you want to accomplish changes the discussion from “give me your money” to “do you want to help me do what I want to do?”
The difference can be very subtle, but can be extremely important. The latter offers more options, including, for example, referrals to other contacts or organizations if the dollar return happens not to be there. Money is one answer, and it may be the only one. You risk not finding out for sure unless you explain your vision. It is not simply a matter of substituting words (find and replace “need” for “want” won’t do it). Try switching the approach to the problem…from mine to ours. Some leaders/vision statements do it well; other times, those in the day-to-day discussion have to help identify shared problems.
This originally appeared in the October 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).
I was recently taking my negotiations class through the basics of Power (can someone make you do something?), Rights (am I allowed to do this?), and Interests (what do I want out of this?). In my presentation of the information, I was preoccupied with the previous days events. The issue that was on my mind was transportation in cities, specifically bicycling in Toronto.
When it comes to cars versus bicycles, there is not much confusion about who holds the power when the rubber hits the road…or the shoulder blade hits the sidewalk, which happened to be the case. In terms of rights, I think I had every right to be biking along side the snake of traffic that crawled south on Mount Pleasant last week. Although the conversation that I had that evening with one of Toronto’s finest suggested maybe I can’t pass cars on the right… Hmmm.
Like most of these situations, Interests are the highest leverage place to start. From the cyclist’s prospective, they enjoy physical exercise, dodging gas prices and parking rates, and all the other counter-culture benefits they seek. Stepping away from the issue, the ability for more people to bike in the city would reduce the number of cars on the street and the demand on downtown parking spots, both of which would be in the interest of drivers. It is a tough one but part of the solution will be convincing drivers that cyclists should be welcome on the streets, which means you have to look for them when you are making that last-minute right hand turn.
School is back in for lots of people, including, yours truly. Among my back-to-school activities was spending a day this week in the Schulich Centre for Teaching Excellence. It lived up to its name in providing a high bar, as well as insight, tools, resources and support to clear the bar. Following the “diversity” that underpins all aspects of the school, instructors are encouraged to meet/exceed expectations in any way they see fit.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there was lots of discussion on how to handle the use of laptops (the entire facility has wireless Internet access), and presumably other communication devices in the class. Just like the real world, there is no formal policy, and the guidance from experienced faculty covered the gamut, including one instructor who said that a full out ban was the best answer. Comparable rules in the workplace are not unheard of (e.g. hand over your device to the Blackberry Check before you enter the meeting… don’t lose that ticket!).
What to do?
For those of you taking my course this semester, here is what you can expect. In the spirit of “dialogue,” we will clarify expectations on both sides, and see if we can agree upon (negotiate) some behaviours that support meeting those expectations. I have no idea if it will work but I do have a strong BATNA. I would suggest that students show up with pens and paper just in case.
For those of you not taking the course, I will keep you posted on any agreement that we reach and detail it here, if possible. I am not expecting anything groundshaking, nor do I think this approach is extremely innovative. In most settings, I think that the behaviours and norms develop, but I hope this dialogue can clarify and accelerate a healthy balance while meeting needs and expectations of all parties. I know of some organizations that are starting to encourage these same dialogues.
Maybe we are onto something here.
I just got back from Japan.
Jet lag always gives me time to contemplate, and the near 180 degree nature of Tokyo/Toronto time zones usually guarantees at least two day/night reversals on either side of my trip. This very early August morning proves mornings are indeed shortening, at least until that wondrous day in October when “Fall back” gives a brief reprieve from wake-up darkness. Due to my recent travels, my contemplations turned to a discussion that I once had in a Japanese class around a newspaper article that proposed the introduction of “daylight savings” to Japan (”sunny time” as the article tagged the North American phenomena).
“People in Japan would never agree to ’sunny time’ because we work long enough as it is,” came my teacher’s summary. What on earth is the link between moving dawn until after 5AM and working even longer hours? After diligent effort and multiple paraphrasing to erase any doubt of a missed nuance, I grasped the link: There is an understanding in the Japanese workforce that you cannot leave work before dark. Darkness is by no means an indication that you can go home (or, more commonly, out for beers with your co-workers), but sunlight is not to be encountered on your homeward commute. My notion of “end of day” may also have slid because many of my “foreigner-friendly” jobs (i.e. teaching English, translating to English, etc.) had mid-morning start times.
That this conversation took place in a language class made it natural for me to suspect I was actually misunderstanding, which made me genuinely open to really understanding the core issue. I am not sure I would probed to the same extent had the conversation taken place in English (or had my Japanese been better!). What we had was a fundamental difference in beliefs. For me, daylight savings time could mean getting in a full-round of golf after work, or bike riding with the kids after dinner. To my Japanese teacher, and potentially to Japan’s average working Taro, the clock change was like watching the “fall back” time change while working the night shift… but for everyday of the summer!
Fundamental differences don’t fall easily, and that is exactly why daylight savings time will never be implemented in Japan. But given the absence of evidence the change breeds the promised energy efficiency, is Japan really worse off?
Fundamental differences are at the heart of the proposal to limit a physicians rights to exercise moral judgement in delivering medical care. Some life and death issues (beginning and end) cannot be driven by science and rationality, but instead fall prey to fundamental beliefs (aka: morals) that may conflict with legislation. When this is the case, and when operating within the laws of the land, it is most realistic to have patients find doctors who share (or at least don’t oppose) the fundamental belief in question. The trade off should be seeing that doctor OR getting the medical treatment in question.
NOTE: The case may be different in rural areas where the supply and demand dynamics are different.
If you really like daylight savings time, you shouldn’t live in Japan. Conversely, if you really like Japan, you had better be flexible about Springing ahead and Falling back. No one can have both. Patients are not different.
This trilogy started with a discussion of three books, the last of which is Getting to Maybe, co-authored by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quinn Patton. The subtitle for the book is “How the World is Changed,” which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to “how changes happen in the world” or to recent trends that have changed the world? It doesn’t really matter.
In my understanding, “Getting to Maybe” entails prolonging the discussion. The emergence of a “yes” or a “no” indicates are hard stop or start in direction. Some examples of conversation endpoints are:
- “No, we are not going to pursue this partnership,”
- “Yes, we need to develop a new offering,” and
- “Yes we need growth, but, no, your ideas for growth are beyond our capabilities.”
Depending on who is involved and how those individuals operate, the time involved to reach these end-points could be minutes or months. A “maybe” is not an end, it is a continuation, extension, or hiatus. There is an understanding–on both sides–that the dialogue will continue or resume.
Recently ending a lengthy run for the development of 3Ms “Post-it” as the most overused business cliche is the Google 20 per cent rule, whereby employees must devote one day a week to unrelated projects. This could easily be termed “maybe time,” which would allow those bringing forward the above ideas to:
- Continue exploring future possibilities for “this partnership” to take shape;
- Tinker with the current offerings to recreate relevance with an existing market segment; and
- Examine the fluidity of our capabilities to explore novel growth strategies.
The power of “maybe” is in accepting that no one knows for sure. Decisiveness is necessary, but can at times be limiting. There are times when keeping too many options open becomes counter productive. Given the speed at which things change, one might expect an increased need for decision. I would argue that with the state of constant flux, some things may benefit from being able to simmer for a little while. Maybe time let’s these things ripen… or rot.
I have run into friends and colleagues whose strongest motivation was to combat a perception that he or she “couldn’t” do something. Maybe time legitimizes a pursuit that would either be done “underground” or would be a nagging “shoulda” when things inevitably turn south. Passionate and motivated employees will likely make their own maybe time, but will appreciate having it included among official activities.
To “get to maybe” also demands those in authority (formal or informal) to recognize and pull back from “gut feeling” decisions, when maybe is a viable option. Backing up from a knee-jerk decision takes self awareness or deft positioning of the “maybe” or both in order to further the dialogue.
No matter who is working together, the right ideas can emerge if information flows well. At different stages “Yes,” “No” and “Maybe” from all sides of the interaction can support that information flow. Go ahead, call me naive.
August Busch IV said “While the process was at times difficult for all parties, in the end, the right outcome happened for everyone” as comment on the recent acquisition of his family’s company by InBev. I would love to have a glimpse into some of those “difficult” discussions and if there were any personal bests set in depths of facial redness or heights of blood pressure readings.
There will certainly be opposition from other areas, as well. From a business perspective, the deal appears to be solid, as indicated in a description of the Wall Street Journal account of the deal, but will no doubt face opposition when the potential efficiencies start to be realized and, as Tom Pirko of Bevmark consulting says here the company is forced to behave like other global companies in pushing workers and suppliers to market levels. Busch’s “everyone” likely does not include suppliers of hops and electricity that will bear the brunt of increased “buyer power” from this new entity.
Can we assume that this is an objectively good deal?
If so, all parties, including workforce and suppliers, should be content: benefits are reasonable, and any heartache was eventual. The dollar figure ($70/share or $52 billion) gets a lot of attention, but as always there is much more to the deal than the price. I am intrigued by the decision to rename InBev to include the legacy of the Busch family. “Anheuser-Busch” is much more recognizable, I have to assume, to Bud drinkers than “InBev” is to those imbibing Stella-Artois, let alone any Labatt product.
Perhaps we will never know what it was that tipped the scale on this negotiation, but if August Busch IV was able to move the company into the future more easily given that the family name will live on, more power to him and to those who were at the table to close the deal.
This is obviously not all about ego and family legacy. Busch et al have two seats on the Board, and InBev will be able to benefit from this hands-on experience in further exploring the US market, as well as bringing Bud products to the rest of the world. It is fascinating, however, to see the subtle indications of what were obviously emotionally heated discussions. I am not surprised that a couple of cold ones were cracked at the end of it all. Well deserved!
My take on William Ury’s “The Power of the Positive No” (follow-on to “Getting to Yes”) is that clarity on what we don’t want helps refine what we do want. There in lies the “Positive No.”
It can take some thinking to get to what is the No and what is the Yes. David Cameron, the U.K.’s leader of the opposition, didn’t mince words this week in saying No to a society with diminished personal responsibility, and Yes to one with more personal accountability. Bold words for a politician, but any individual’s “ideal” will have a strong degree of good-old human judgment of “this beating that.”
Some of the No assertions are tough to make because they expose our values. In school I had to say “No” to a fellow student who wanted to repurpose an assignment a friend had used in the same class the previous term. The difference in orientation came down to our respective Yes and No statements.
- Me: Yes to learning by doing, and No to taking someone else’s work.
- My Classmate: Yes to efficient use of available information, and No to reinventing the wheel unnecessarily.
A thousand personal beliefs, experiences and orientations inform my and my classmate’s position. It is almost pointless to argue who is right because it comes down to conflicting emotional judgments that could stem from “fear of getting caught,” “pride in own work,” etc.
Being aware of our ideal is important; how open you are about it is another matter. Declaring these ideals really does put you “out there,” and it is tough to keep control of a conversation or exchange that touches these. That said, whether it is No to being underemployed, No to being micro-managed, or No to imbalance in life, sometimes the buck actually stops. In my working history, it has always (eventually) felt good/paid off to stick to real Nos. (All due respect to my time-starved classmate!)
I was called “naive” this past week during a conversation with a client.
The context of the comment was skeptical rather than critical because I had suggested that it was possible to have productive conflict conversations where teams neither like nor trust each other. My optimism/naivety comes in no small part from three books, whose titles and approaches complement. Below is the list, and at the risk of minimizing each work’s unique contribution, I provide one essential take-away from each:
- Getting to Yes: Use objective criteria as support; be receptive to objective support for the other position.
- The Power of the Positive No: Distill what is unacceptable (e.g. your “No”); pursue the acceptable/desirable.
- Getting to Maybe: Dialogue creates opportunities; extend the dialogue by latching onto the “Maybes”
So how does this help a conflicting senior team discussion when all niceties and “benefit of the doubt” are long gone?
You don’t have to have “the answer” (e.g. the Win/Win “Yes”) to provide support to a position. Those at the top of the org chart should be prepared to explain their rational, even if it is: “I don’t know for sure, but I think we need to do something and this approach is closest to the strategy that we are all working towards.”
MAJOR ASSUMPTION #1: One hopes that this can be correctly interpreted as, “If you don’t want to do this, you will have to change my mind.” Our org-chart topper has to be truly open to having their mind changed, provided the counter proposal is grounded in objective information… no matter who brings it forth.
MAJOR ASSUMPTION #2: One also hopes the dissenting second-in-command has intrinsic motivation for the venture to succeed. This motivation doesn’t have to be financial, but certainly could be based on self-serving profit sharing. It could also be interest in job security, emotional investment in the project/team/venture, pride in overcoming a challenge, etc.
Remove either of those assumptions and hope for a quality result is, indeed, naive.
If you are the team CEO, project head, team lead, etc., are you really open to dissenting opinion from those that report to you? If you are not ready to listen, you better be “enlightened.”
If you are on the team and you don’t like the direction: (1) are you motivated to express your dissent (as opposed to holding out for a personally satisfying “I told you so” opportunity); and (2) are you prepared to back up the position to move from “I told you so” to “I tried to show you so” with objective support?
Look up or forward to thoughts on “No” and “Maybe.”
I was surprised to see that the lead story on CBC’s The National last night was about the fight for the right to use the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. I started to get suspicious when the story concluded with by suggesting that proposed the CBC could run a contest to pick another theme song.
As a student of the negotiation process, I thought I smelled a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The theory suggests that if you have a good BATNA, let the other side know it! And if you have a medium such as the CBC network, let others know it, too.
At first blush this BATNA seems pretty good, but when you think of the branding equity built up 40 years in “da da da da dah,” you quickly realize that the best is not all that good. When I was in grade 5, the city of Ottawa ran a contest for a city song. The winner was a really good song called, if memory serves, “Ottawa, the place to be.” I can’t recall hearing it since, and a quarter century out, I could find no reference to this song today, which is no surprise.
The contest, should it happen, would no doubt generate a great new song, jingle, theme, etc. Reality TV has proven there is some real talent in the masses. As good as it could be, it would not replace branding imprint of the predecessor. As the market for spectator sports gains competition from the likes of soccer, especially, I think the CBC should hang onto all the HNIC equity it can.
Without knowing both sides it is impossible to comment on the bulk of the negotiation, but from the public declaration of a viable alternative, I would gather the CBC has made a calculated bet to pressure a deal. I hope they get it, and I hope they realize what’s at stake.
“When is too much choice a bad thing?” is up for discussion in this front page story on the 2008 Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. The argument put forward appears to be individuals that are given more choices do not necessarily obtain a result that is optimal for their preferences. In the era of “access to information,” individuals may find themselves unaware of the trade-offs that they are making. (e.g. A child should be given choices within healthy eating options rather than being given the choice of what to eat because children may not understand the consequences of eating, say, candy exclusively).
In retail transactions, I recall a friend of mine (A) was buying golf clubs through an employee purchase plan of his friend (B) who worked for the Canadian distributor. Like many employee purchase plans, you can get great stuff cheap, but you have to know exactly what you want. (Imagined phone dialogue; B is inputting data online.)
A – I want Driver, 3-wood and 3-iron through SW of Such-n-Such model.
B- Great. Right-handed; Standard length and lie, right?
A – You got it.
B – What shaft flex do you want?
A – Regular.
B – Where do you want the kick point?
A – What is that?
Obviously, you need a degree of sophistication to buy golf clubs this way; it’s the Dell model of “tell us exactly what you want; you will get it cheap.” I am afraid that cheap overshadows the value that others can add by making some decisions for you: “I shoot in the mid to high nineties. I tend to slice my driver, fairway woods and long irons. I will hit a good drive 280; and from 150 yards out, I swing a 6 iron. What have you got for me?” The knowledgeable retailer can steer me in the right direction, and gently try to sell me the clubs that are at the upper end of my budget, but I have to be ready to pay a little more.
The trends that remove the value-added information in return for lower costs (which is usually the trade-off), gives people more choice because they choose to choose. Do they realize that if you don’t know enough to choose what’s right, your satisfaction hinges on choosers being able to say “Can you tell me the difference between the two?” and choice-offerers having the knowledge to say, “Your choice here is really a trade-off between A or B?”
It may be the old claim that you can have it “cheap, good or fast, but you have to choose two of three,” re-written as “do the work up front to know what you need, then tell me; OR pay a little more and I will translate your wants into what you need.” Again, trust has no small role in these exchanges because you have to trust that the person is looking out for your best interest more than their best interest.
There should be no mystery as to why more choice reduces satisfaction. It takes a lot of work to be informed enough to make those decisions.
- September 2010
- 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
