What kind of person are you: Competitive? Big-picture thinker? Assertive? Conciliator? Other?
Such tags tend to promise clarity, but bring in a bundle of behaviours and attitudes that may or may not relate. When these words find themselves describing quadrants or supporting wider groupings on a personality test, you almost need a glossary to explain the context (and the particular bundle).
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 thread that I try to weave through most what I do (including my writing in this space) is that communication can be strategic on the smallest (micro) levels. By strategic, I mean trying to get the most for the least. By communication, I mean storytelling through writing, talking or meeting with people. Sample supply-chain related stories (aka – agendas) include: sharing the upside of the switch to centralized purchasing, understanding why a process is not working in practice, or encouraging diverse groups to share all their information.
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
Let’s grant Francois Houle (Univ of Ottawa) his presumed wish to go back in time to before he hit send on the e-mail warning to Ann Coulter this week. We will weigh the decision based on some negotiation theory.
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.
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.
Earlier this month, I attended a talk at Schulich Business School where Operations Management faculty and PhD students played host to Dr. Kevin Hendricks from Wilfred Laurier University. As is often the case, we began with introductions; the audience was small enough for us to go quickly around the room of students, who were largely looking for research tips. Describing my connection (negotiations instructor) and my interest (helping positive change take hold), I got the sense that people in the room asked themselves “What is he doing here?” I was very clearly “outside” this particular group. It’s not the first—and certainly not the last—time that will happen.
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)
One thread that I believe runs through the content on this site is “things that help or hinder productive conversations.” (Go ahead and substitute “collaborations” as the direct object of that last sentence.) I provide this in response to recent feedback that my writing was “all over the place.” In my defense, these “things that hinder” are literally “all over the place.” Conflict is my muse.
An article from the Economist this month discusses banning hands-on cellphone activity in the U.S.; similar contentious legislation is coming to Ontario. The Economist article begins by wondering why the U.S. has high instances of driving-related fatalities, and goes on to suggest that driver distraction is a significant factor. The hypothesis seems to be, if it is bad now, it will get worse because everyone is trying to do too many things at once (e.g. multi-tasking) and young people are particularly susceptible to the lures of squeezing in a text message while merging into the fast lane.
Here is where the fun begins because people start looking for solutions.
- We should ban something for drivers: hands-on phones, all phones, all talking, loud music, music with words, anything verbal, etc.
- Cars/phones should be made safer: add sensors that flash when you get to close to something; wireless signal should be cut off during certain weather and road conditions; voice recognition texting, etc.
During this debate, you will hear other responses, but many will fit into those two buckets. Both, I suggest, miss the key point of the problem. It is not a legislation or technology problem. This is a human problem: A driver’s amount of attention is finite. The amount of attention required to drive safely varies and can change quickly.
Drivers often have help managing their attention: a talkative passenger will quiet down when the driver gets cut off. Also, the driver turns the stereo down/off when there is particularly bad downpour, or simply stops paying attention to the podcast as he/she begins looking for a parking space. The problem with cellphone conversations (hands-free or otherwise) is that the other party can’t see changing demands on the driver’s attention. The driver is on their own to say “It started raining really hard; can I call you back?,” which demands even more attention, and makes the immediate problem even worse.
There are many times when a driver has ample extra attention, maybe even too much. E-mail/text messages may be perfectly safe waiting for predictably long left turns; and loud music (or even phone conversations) can be just the thing to keep a bored driver alert enough to reach a distant destination.
I am not sure what the solution is to “driving while distracted.” There may be laws and technological advances. I will hope that a good chunk is left to personal responsibility to maintain a minimum attention reserve. I do think that the conversation/collaboration toward a solution will be “helped/less hindered” if people are focussed on the same problem.
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.
- 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
