I run into this with my working descriptions for negotiation strategies.
A couple of semantic challenges are:

- Even if you are not “a competitive person,” you can still pick a strategy of “competing” in a certain situation;

- It can make strategic business sense to “accommodate” the needs of others and you don’t have to be weak-kneed to do it;

- Collaborating with a party does not mean agreeing with them all the time, and you don’t have to be “nice” to do it.

I will suggest that collaboration is a default for supply chain initiatives, given that the relationships (internal and external) have to be maintained over a period of time and that, in today’s competitive (semantics again!) environment, there is no room for compromising the returns on time and dollars spent.

So do you have to collaborate all the time on everything? Not at all.

Before giving you the model, let me give you this:
Glossary of Terms

Information: Results, data, examples and findings that may help in determining a superior course of action.

Expertise: Orientation, experience and training that enable one to see relevant implications of a decision prior to its implementation.

Authority: Structural or informal power to direct the actions of others, coupled with accountability for the consequences of a decision.

If you have all three, there is no need to collaborate. Why would you? You have all the information you need, you know what is important for the decision, and your sphere of responsibility allows you to “make the call.”

This doesn’t mean that you have to be obvious about “going it alone,” but engaging others would be strictly for relationship-building. You will decide if this is worth the effort.

Tune in next month for an elaboration on what to do when you have “two out of three” (which “ain’t bad,” according to Meatloaf).

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL.

The Case for Heads: Buffer for Cultural Differences
In stakeholder discussions with my classes and my clients, we often delve into cross-cultural dimensions that can reflect in different values and motivations. Doing my undergrad in business in the early 90s, cross-cultural management pretty much meant dealing with Japan. Now, in this country – and specifically in supply chain – you likely encounter people from different cultural upbringings several times a day.

To deal with cross-cultural issues, I always ask those with firsthand experiences to share their insight. It is safer to address some prickly stereotypes from the “inside.” This particular dimension of in-group/out-group dynamics creates an opportunity to buffer cultural disconnects (including clashing corporate cultures) by involving someone who can see both sides, and, perhaps more importantly, is seen to be able to see both sides.

Call them “agents” or buffers, due to experience of circumstance, using people in this way can go a long way to smoothing some natural tensions, as well as offering translations, including when “maybe” really means “no,” as can be the case with the Japanese culture.

The Case for Tails: Fight Your Own Fight
One of the case studies that I used this summer in my negotiation class involved a classic showdown between a beleaguered airline and its union. In a recent discussion, a student, who was sitting with me to “negotiate” a portion of the final grade, reiterated his position that management should have used a third-party mediator. The rationale being: no emotions, just facts. It really is simple, or at least was in the student’s mind.

If you have ever been “buffered” in this way, it can actually set off an entire new range of emotions that reflect frustration in not being able to make a case directly and suspicion that the “mediator” (or agent) will not accurately reflect your interests. I wonder, in retrospect, how this student would have reacted if I had appointed a third party to hear his case for an improved grade.

Many times you have to “fight your own fights,” if not for control of the situation then to establish yourself for this and future interactions. Relationships matter.

So what?

The interpersonal side of collaboration can be exceedingly complex. That said, there are some instances where the decisions are clear (e.g., work through someone or address a situation directly). Context can give you an idea, but rarely do we get certainty. Experimenting and taking chances (coin tossing?) can create situations that you can reflect upon and learn from.

Happy reflecting!

(See full published letter here, or in the print edition of Wed. June 2.)

Those running this kids’ soccer league saw the downside of a blowout game and constructed a rule to penalize a team (with a loss) if their margin of victory was greater than 5 goals. The belief, presumably, is that winning by more than 5 goals is unsporstmanlike. I think I understand the motivation, but I question the “rules-based” approach to this. If the league had a culture of sportsmanlike conduct, the rule is redundant. If the league lacks sportsmanship, rules won’t change that (e.g. if humiliating the opposition is a motivation, there are ways to do it outside of running up the score).

In my consulting work, I get to see a lot of attempts to introduce rules that make for better working situations by, for example, instilling such values as “respect” or  “teamwork.” How such values play out goes straight to the corporate culture. Does “respect” mean “don’t waste each others time,” or does it mean “don’t create any tension here”? Does “teamwork” mean “willingly involve others in what you are going” or does it mean “attend the summer company BBQ”?

Part of my consulting work is helping clients realize the culture they have, and envision the culture they want. Sometimes, we find the two are surprisingly close together. Other times, there is a considerable amount of revelation about the current state, and some clear decisions for leadership in forming the desired state (e.g. what do we mean by “respect”?).

Policies can play a part of the migration to a “better situation,” but they can also be extremely counterproductive:

“I know that meeting was a waste of time, but we agreed that one of our rules was ‘no interrupting in meeting,’ right?”

Policy has a clear place. I fundamentally question its use as the primary means of shaping cultural dimensions. You can’t regulate respect in the office, or sportsmanship on the field. If either are there, everyone knows it. If these are lacking, it is important to be clear about what you have, and be smart about how you make the shift.

Some ears may be deaf to these storylines, but there are three things that I think can help you be more strategic in telling your story (even to the metaphorical hard of hearing).

Three enablers of strategic storylines
1 – Seed the idea
Communication works on networks social, informal, or otherwise. People may pay more attention to things that are being discussed. Favourable discussion can lead to: “everyone is talking about how good this is, so it must be good.”

Deferring judgment, I bring you the social media example of the “tweet sheet,” which is, under one definition, a list of “key messages” that you send to your friends so they can independently “tweet” your messages to their networks and beyond.

Judgmental note: I was gobsmacked when I heard this. Isn’t social media supposed to be this bastion of authenticity? Everyone has an agenda!

The ethical discussion is beyond the scope of this column. Seeding ideas is one way to tell a story. You may be able to plant seeds in ways that fit with your way of operating.

2 – Use what’s there
Again, I draw from a marketing discipline. A consultant relayed the story of working with a producer of breakfast cereal: “One of the things that kept coming up was the stat that a cereal box is read X number of times. Finally someone decided to capitalize on that real estate!” Similar rational sits behind using the cleverly placed ads on bathroom walls.

Where are people looking already? Does the company newsletter attract eyes? Is there a place where people tend to wait (e.g. outside a particular directors office)?

Again, be wary of the line between “clever and subtle” and “overt and cheesy.” Best to keep well on the former side.

3 – Question the change
I was in a discussion last month that questioned the entire premise of “buy-in.” The logic being that, looking back at theories of motivation, people won’t do what they don’t want to do. (I was in a discussion yesterday where a client had recently realized that “power” was the answer.)

Asking the “what if” question of yourself gives you what you need to go forward. So, what if we can’t centralize all purchasing? What if we can’t get reliable information from sales? The steepness of the downside may illustrate how much effort you put into this.

==

My secret hope is that everyone makes their case well, and the result is actions and directions that serve the best interests of all involved. (My “best” includes a good dose of sustainability.) I will get you my “tweet sheet” and cereal box decals, if you want to help get this message out. Of course, we all realize that much of this could be (1) happening already, and (2) impossible to achieve. More of 1 will put me out of business, and I haven’t “bought into” 2 just yet.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MAY NEWSLETTER ON supplychaincanada.org

Tom Blackwell (National Post Health Care columnist) writes last month about the trends to bring Toyota-like efficiency into hospital and health-care environments. The successes are clear and are often demonstrated in reduced wait times and higher through put. Both of these offer defense to such criticisms as “you can’t treat people like automobiles” because you can treat processes like processes.

One of the perspectives that Mr. Blackwell introduces is that of consultant Tim Hill, who works in the implementation of such programs. His criticism is that, as the worm turns toward “everybody’s doing it,” clients may not be getting the value that they should (or, as Hill puts it, “A lot of health care facilities are getting ripped off.”). Needless to say, the eHealth initiative in Ontario has raised the level of scrutiny on consultants to the health-care industry, including perhaps myself and Mr. Hill.

Accountability for “providing solutions” has always been a tricky one for consultants and service providers. How many software executives would take payment from the efficiencies their product generates? Or how many advertising executives would link compensation to the sales impact of a campaign? With a larger understanding of shared interests, consultants can be encouraged to try to “solve the problem” rather than simply “provide the solution.” This may override the obvious tension of the pay-the-least vs. charge-the-most divide. Again, both sides need to be reasonable.

The bigger challenge is where “the problem” stretches beyond the area of the organization that hired the consultants. The natural temptation for any service provider is to give the client “what they want,” which may not be the solution they need. To use Mr. Hill’s example, the hospital may get the rigour of Lean processes (that they asked for!), but some important underlying issues remain unsolved.

Managing the tension of collaboration is possible when there is an understanding of the shared interests. This likely means that: (1) the customer is not always right; and (2) for consultants, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions… but we all knew that already.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MARCH NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org)

First up are M. Houle’s interests, including the overriding objective of the school. (e.g. promote constructive educational dialogue). Determining the latter will be a conversation given the published University “mission” statement, which is not clear enough to be workable.

Taking the overall goal into account with other interests (e.g. increase Ottawa U’s global reputation: mission accomplished on that one!) M. Houle would ask himself if bringing Ann Coulter to the university serves his purposes without compromising the overall goal. (There are some serious assumptions made before ticking “yes” to this, but let’s make them.)

M. Houle them selects between different negotiation strategies based on (1 or X-axis) the importance of demonstrable outcomes, and (2 or y-axis) the importance of the ongoing relationship with the other party. This becomes a 2×2 grid, across the axes of “low” to “high” for each dimension; the strategies are AVOID (low and low), ACCOMMODATE (relationship trumps outcome), COMPETE (outcome trumps relationship) and COLLABORATE (high and high). To oversimplify, we will call the single demonstrable outcome “a safe campus event” and the relationship is, obviously, with Ann Coulter and by association.

By sending his warning letter to Ann Coulter, M. Houle was executing on a COMPETITIVE strategy, which marks a strategic error. If you can’t have a safe event with her there, don’t invite her (AVOID). If you want to try to work with her to ensure the discourse remains constructive and educational, give her a phone call: dialogue is conducive–and necessary–to collaboration. Competitive tactics (e.g. strongly worded and public letters) invite retribution. Find her response on her blog, in public, for all to see.

Oh, the difference made by little things. Had M. Houle engaged Ms. Coulter in private dialogue and raised his concerns and hopes for, for example, a safe event, this would play out differently and much more positively for the University. Had she not been interested in this kind of discussion and responded in a competitive/combative manner, he could move to “AVOID” and be done with it.

We will never know how receptive Ms. Coulter would have been to such a phone call prior to the event. I wonder if such conversations took place in Calgary. We can’t know, because such discussions are kept necessarily informal and non-public, which is where such collaboration sometimes has it’s best chance.

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.

• 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.

You don’t have to spend too long with me before I start on about in-groups and out-groups. A fundamental belief of mine is that value-producing collaboration requires better communication across traditional divides (e.g. between the two groups). It can, however, be uncomfortable to spend time across a divide (as I can attest from some of the discussion involving research methods).

The set-up for Dr. Hendricks talk peaked my interest: “Many senior executives simply don’t understand the importance and value created by a well-performing supply chain.” His premise was that the best way to “prove” that companies should actively invest in pre-empting supply chain failures was to look at the stock price drop that followed a reported inventory “incident.” (For the truly peaked, click here.)

The take-away for the students was, as I understood it, that many of the traditional statistical methods (presumably familiar to these PhD students) are useless when looking at such incidents. There are other ways to inject the necessary rigour into the study, and this was the focus of much of his talk.

Perhaps a kindred spirit, I am certain that Dr. Hendricks does well in speaking to “practitioner” audiences, and clearly conveyed the importance getting this message out to other parts of organizations. Pre-emptive arguments that require investment are always difficult. Making the case to “senior management” may be easier with studies and findings he and others produce.

According to Hendricks, the majority of practitioners who take interest in this work do so because of such a failure and, conceivably, a drop in shareholder value in their recent past. This means that practitioners can simply wait for “an incident” to occur. Direct experience has a way of persuading.

THIS APPEARS IN THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (supplychaincanada.org)