Reflect on a personal or business situation in which the cost of conflict was significantly greater than you would've preferred. Analyze the situation in relation to Stewart Levine's 10 principles of new thinking (p. 46). How would this have changed the situation? Could it have reduced the cost of conflict? What lessons did you learn from this exercise?
My example of conflict in business comes from flying. When you are the new employee in a flight department being trained by the company to operate the way that the company likes, there is most often a lot of listening one has to do as well as a lot of learning of new procedures company rules and regulations. What doesn't change is the way that you fly - but much like how some passengers in your car will constantly grab the dashboard or maybe push on that imaginary brake - some training captains can be a bit like that in the cockpit.
This particular conflict grew from a situation like this. The training Captain, who had very exacting standards would not hold back with criticisms, nor would his standards stay standard. Every day, just as you successfully completed a standard there would be something smaller, and sometimes very petty thing that this captain would find to criticize. Sometimes the standards he had espoused changed on the very next flight, so instead of 2000ft for example, he now wanted 2300 ft. Worse still, when he flew he held neither of these altitudes, instead flying around 2500 ft!
What happens in a cockpit is critical to the safety of flight. There is a reason two pilots are in the cockpit. We use Crew Resource Management (CRM), to manage the flight systems while always having at least one pair of eyes outside looking for traffic and monitoring for danger. The workload is divided evenly so that one person is not overwhelmed. The first link in any accident chain can be formed when the communication between the two pilots is poor. And so it was with the training Captain. His constant criticism made you feel worthless, and unable to fly the aircraft. In addition, when it was not your turn to fly you just didn't want to do or say anything in case that too was wrong (and even when it was not, the captain would find something to add or change to what you were saying). The cost of this cockpit conflict could have been way to high - ultimately ending in a pilot error that caused an accident. As it was the conflict cost was already way to high - the result of this was for communication between the pilots to cease altogether.
A further consequence of this 'sulking' was that there was little or no resource management. If anything it had the opposite effect. I would not say anything in the hope that he too would mess up so that I would have something to throw back when he told me I did something wrong again.
It was a horribly frustrating situation. I talked to a pilot who knew him at his previous company; it turned out that his direct boss there was exactly the same way. I talked to our chief pilot who claimed that he made her feel exactly the same way.
Finally, enough was enough and in a debrief after a flight I told him exactly what was wrong, and how his criticism was in fact degrading the flights and not enhancing it. It came, it seems, as somewhat of a revolution to the guy. He knew he could be a bit harsh, but was not meaning to be so harsh that he was jeopardizing the safety of the crew. He didn't seem to realize that what he was doing was having this effect, but he did know that he can be considered a little harsh at times (he had been told this before), and this was a good starting point for resolution.
Both parties involved knew that we both had to adopt an attitude of resolution (step 1) because the safety of both of us and those that we were transporting was at stake. For step 2, we both got a chance to tell our story after flying in the debrief, both of us listened to each other. For steps 3 and 4 in combination; nobody was looking for a win situation, though it was clear that the Standards Captain had certain standards that were going to be important to maintain and be consistent in - but that there were others that were frivolous and at best extraneous and not necessary to worry about. In addition, I had to make sure that I didn't take the things said personally, and give the standards captain some leeway while he worked on te way he verbalized his critique.
We definitely saw a vision for the future - we had to be working together as a tea in the cockpit, while maintaining the standards we needed for safe flight, and this vision of step 5 of the resolution circle helped us to craft a new agreement in step 6. The standards Captain would learn to relax more and tone down his critiques to make them less personal, and I would try hard to live up to any standards that we felt were critical as well as taking any criticism as the helpful advice it was intended for.
Since the big showdown things have gone remarkably well. All pilots in the company started seeing a change in the standards captain, and flying with him became enjoyable., it seems that step 7 - making the agreement become reality had also worked.
What was fascinating about this process was that neither of us had read Stuart Levine's book "Getting to resolution" before, and yet what we accomplished followed the prescribed solution without us even knowing it. Levine successfully maps out the process by which two people who remove emotion from a problem can successfully navigate a reasonable solution to a problem. I guess what I learnt from this exercise was that resolution is achievable through successful negotiation, with or without a guide to follow, but that both parties have to be amenable to finding that resolution (step 1) for this to work.
February 23, 2013
February 17, 2013
A632.5.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Reflect on the concept map that you created in the previous exercise and consider the Dan Gilbert video from module one. Discuss your protected values and how far you are willing to go to support those values. Explore the level of protection associated with each of your major values identified in the concept map and detail your thoughts on each. Finally, discuss how those protected values would influence your decision-making.
I have three protected values that I used in the concept map - Education, Non-Violence and Social Justice. In this blog, we will take each value in turn, and one or more of the belief's that make up these values and then see how protected they are in my consciousness.
Education.
Education for me, and for a nation is one of those things that should in my opinion always be a top priority. The very future of the nation will depend entirely on the next generations that are being educated in our schools, and yet the notion that a good school either costs the world or the same children's future by loading the economy with debt - has somehow hijacked the debate in recent years. Instead of concentrating on the quality of teaching and therefore the teachers, we have by some misdirection or another moved to testing the children as a way to accurately score the performance of their teacher. This has led to "teaching to the test", and while unions negotiate for ever more crippling benefits for their retirement they are still maintaining the tenure system.
In addition to these problems, education is not free. Primarily, education is not free past high school, with students paying higher and higher costs for courses with less and less overhead. At $1500 for 3 credits in a BSc degree based wholly in a virtual environment - even Embry-Riddle may have some explaining to do. It's not that the students may not get value for money - it's more that college's are essentially encouraged to increase tuition fees as high as the market will stand, regardless of the quality given, and unfortunately, this gives rise to a two tiered system of higher education. Either those who can afford it attend, or those that cannot attend and build up indescribable levels of debt which then cripple them in their formative years in the workplace.
When I was a high school student I was told that without a bachelors degree my work options would be limited. But it seems I wasn't the only one they told that too. In today's market the world and his wife has a degree, meaning that now, the only way to move forward is with a masters. In the process I feel that each is degraded. It's not so much getting a degree in a field so that you are an expert in that field, it has become having a degree in anything, just to get you the interview. For that reason, people with a BSC in Rural Resource Management are running sales departments in global healthcare and people with doctorates in Chemistry are network planners for business performance!
I still find it hard to believe that we fund the local school system through property tax. What the system says is; 'if you have a larger house you can clearly afford to pay more for the education of your children', or worse - if you have no children, for the education of others children. Then, when property taxes are reassessed downward, or people then do not value the school as much as the high taxes and people move away and the school budget is short - those remaining pick up the bill in yet higher taxes. Eventually you find that the school stays producing education at the same level (even a good level), but the locals pay more for that stagnancy every year. The situation at best is untenable, and as such - my value is completely protected. Nothing that has been suggested changes the status quo, and so until that happens my vote for a complete education overhaul including all those things in the concept map in immovable.
Non Violence.
As a British Citizen, who did not grow up in the US, the topic a gun control is both interesting and I feel unnecessarily complicated. What makes it so is the second amendment. The second amendment, written in a time where the most lethal weapon was a musket that fires 2 rounds per minute and was horribly inaccurate to boot. In addition, the country was under constant threat of conquest from the British, who (on paper at least) were the greatest military power of the time.
Fast forward to today. Fire rates for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are closer to 12-15 rounds per minute (allowing for cooldown, jamming and aiming between shots) and are deadly accurate at long distances. Now add in a clip that can take 30 rounds and the difference is enormous.
The arguments go back and forth. "No hunter needs an AR-15" is countered with "We use them for target shooting contests". If that is the case, then you won't mind storing these guns when not in use at the target range you use them at. The ridiculous pro-gun lobby in my mind does not have a case to answer with assault weapons. Just as we don't allow you SAM missiles artillery or tanks; you shouldn't have access to military grade guns. I'm not even a great fan of home protection with hand guns, but I can let that slide.
I have lived over 30 years in a country that banned all guns from the off. You are allowed a shotgun, but a two week process of background checks is instigated by the police, the firearms officer of the local force inspects the house security and the gun-safe you have to keep it in. At the same time, he is checking on your 'normalness'. You have to prove you are on an organized shoot to keep the gun at home. When the licence is issued it lasts 1 year, at which time the officer does it all over again. After the last school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland Gun control became a moral duty - not an argument about gun owners rights. The emotional debate played out by Americans on gun control is unique to America. Many residents of other countries where gun ownership is a privilege not a right find the arguments for free gun ownership without check; frankly, ridiculous.
When we talk about how protected these beliefs of mine are, I'm afraid on gun control I am immovable too. I would not 'negotiate' a better deal, rather I would start legislation to ban instead, the ammunition, the clips, the powder that goes into the bullets, legislate against ownership of more than 10 rounds without a licence or many other things that that can be done but don't step over the bounds of the second amendment. There is no negotiating with the lives of innocent people going about their daily business.
Social Justice.
Social justice is something I can and maybe will continue to negotiate on - in essence, these are strong beliefs that the country has little or no political will to counter - I feel probably as a result of the way in which politicians themselves are more beholding to the lobbyists and companies than they are to the few (30%) of the electorate that can be bothered to vote them into power. To me, social justice means that those in society with more, have a moral obligation to help those that do not. This is not exclusively a partnership between the upper classes and the superrich with the poorest of the poor. The middle classes have their role to play as well. And I think that they play their role to greater effect than do the rich. I believe that there is nothing the corporations of the USA would love better than to have the one person one vote system abolished. This would be their coup-de-gras in widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. When the rich get richer because of loopholes not open to the relative poor, or through methods of making money that willingly take advantage of the disadvantaged (private equity firms), then it is time for change.
Two other beliefs that I hold are held because I believe their enactment makes it harder for the USA to split into these two factions, the rich and the poor. I am a believer in Universal Healthcare, and I also believe that if you are going to stick with private insurance, the only way it will work is if everybody is paying for it - and only a mandatory requirement by law will make that possible. I have been fortunate to experience a socialized medicine system (the UK's National Healthcare System) and this countries own private system. Let me tell you the differences, if you can spot them are tiny. One should not believe the hype, just as you cannot believe that an AR-15 will fire 800 rounds per minute. The only real differences are twofold.
Firstly, private insurance companies are making money out of your sickness, making profit from others misfortune to satisfy the same shareholders that do not have such policies themselves. Meanwhile, those that legislate the healthcare bills, never have to worry about even seeing a bill from a hospital for the rest of their lives. It seems that everyone wants a slice of profit.
Secondly, drug companies are allowed to run riot, charging whatever they can get away with to different users,depending on quantities bought or some other deal that ties doctors into as many of one companies drugs as possible. A good deal on an antibiotic for example, may be wholly dependent on the number of flu vaccines used. Deals of this nature are not just commonplace, they are considered standard practice. Drugs are rarely launched onto the market in Europe through the FDA and then withdrawn a year later having an efficacy no better than a placebo as was the case with Tredaptive - or worse where the risk of worsening care was high as was the case with Vioxx. In a socialized system, one entity (in the UK's case the government) does the buying - prices are set by the buyer, and their use is marketed to the doctors by the company - deals are not offered for excessive prescribing because the doctor does not benefits from it.
I'll agree that socialized medicine has it's own problems, and for that reason - there being no perfect solution - I am willing to negotiate these protected values for something else.
In terms of decision-making, these hot button issues definitely effect the way in which I vote, and equally the places I live and the services I will use. I like to think that decisions I make are not always purely selfish. I will help others where I can and I believe in paying my far share, I also believe that if you represent something or someone, that is what you should do - or quit.
I have three protected values that I used in the concept map - Education, Non-Violence and Social Justice. In this blog, we will take each value in turn, and one or more of the belief's that make up these values and then see how protected they are in my consciousness.
Education.
Education for me, and for a nation is one of those things that should in my opinion always be a top priority. The very future of the nation will depend entirely on the next generations that are being educated in our schools, and yet the notion that a good school either costs the world or the same children's future by loading the economy with debt - has somehow hijacked the debate in recent years. Instead of concentrating on the quality of teaching and therefore the teachers, we have by some misdirection or another moved to testing the children as a way to accurately score the performance of their teacher. This has led to "teaching to the test", and while unions negotiate for ever more crippling benefits for their retirement they are still maintaining the tenure system.
In addition to these problems, education is not free. Primarily, education is not free past high school, with students paying higher and higher costs for courses with less and less overhead. At $1500 for 3 credits in a BSc degree based wholly in a virtual environment - even Embry-Riddle may have some explaining to do. It's not that the students may not get value for money - it's more that college's are essentially encouraged to increase tuition fees as high as the market will stand, regardless of the quality given, and unfortunately, this gives rise to a two tiered system of higher education. Either those who can afford it attend, or those that cannot attend and build up indescribable levels of debt which then cripple them in their formative years in the workplace.
When I was a high school student I was told that without a bachelors degree my work options would be limited. But it seems I wasn't the only one they told that too. In today's market the world and his wife has a degree, meaning that now, the only way to move forward is with a masters. In the process I feel that each is degraded. It's not so much getting a degree in a field so that you are an expert in that field, it has become having a degree in anything, just to get you the interview. For that reason, people with a BSC in Rural Resource Management are running sales departments in global healthcare and people with doctorates in Chemistry are network planners for business performance!
I still find it hard to believe that we fund the local school system through property tax. What the system says is; 'if you have a larger house you can clearly afford to pay more for the education of your children', or worse - if you have no children, for the education of others children. Then, when property taxes are reassessed downward, or people then do not value the school as much as the high taxes and people move away and the school budget is short - those remaining pick up the bill in yet higher taxes. Eventually you find that the school stays producing education at the same level (even a good level), but the locals pay more for that stagnancy every year. The situation at best is untenable, and as such - my value is completely protected. Nothing that has been suggested changes the status quo, and so until that happens my vote for a complete education overhaul including all those things in the concept map in immovable.
Non Violence.
As a British Citizen, who did not grow up in the US, the topic a gun control is both interesting and I feel unnecessarily complicated. What makes it so is the second amendment. The second amendment, written in a time where the most lethal weapon was a musket that fires 2 rounds per minute and was horribly inaccurate to boot. In addition, the country was under constant threat of conquest from the British, who (on paper at least) were the greatest military power of the time.
Fast forward to today. Fire rates for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are closer to 12-15 rounds per minute (allowing for cooldown, jamming and aiming between shots) and are deadly accurate at long distances. Now add in a clip that can take 30 rounds and the difference is enormous.
The arguments go back and forth. "No hunter needs an AR-15" is countered with "We use them for target shooting contests". If that is the case, then you won't mind storing these guns when not in use at the target range you use them at. The ridiculous pro-gun lobby in my mind does not have a case to answer with assault weapons. Just as we don't allow you SAM missiles artillery or tanks; you shouldn't have access to military grade guns. I'm not even a great fan of home protection with hand guns, but I can let that slide.
I have lived over 30 years in a country that banned all guns from the off. You are allowed a shotgun, but a two week process of background checks is instigated by the police, the firearms officer of the local force inspects the house security and the gun-safe you have to keep it in. At the same time, he is checking on your 'normalness'. You have to prove you are on an organized shoot to keep the gun at home. When the licence is issued it lasts 1 year, at which time the officer does it all over again. After the last school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland Gun control became a moral duty - not an argument about gun owners rights. The emotional debate played out by Americans on gun control is unique to America. Many residents of other countries where gun ownership is a privilege not a right find the arguments for free gun ownership without check; frankly, ridiculous.
When we talk about how protected these beliefs of mine are, I'm afraid on gun control I am immovable too. I would not 'negotiate' a better deal, rather I would start legislation to ban instead, the ammunition, the clips, the powder that goes into the bullets, legislate against ownership of more than 10 rounds without a licence or many other things that that can be done but don't step over the bounds of the second amendment. There is no negotiating with the lives of innocent people going about their daily business.
Social Justice.
Social justice is something I can and maybe will continue to negotiate on - in essence, these are strong beliefs that the country has little or no political will to counter - I feel probably as a result of the way in which politicians themselves are more beholding to the lobbyists and companies than they are to the few (30%) of the electorate that can be bothered to vote them into power. To me, social justice means that those in society with more, have a moral obligation to help those that do not. This is not exclusively a partnership between the upper classes and the superrich with the poorest of the poor. The middle classes have their role to play as well. And I think that they play their role to greater effect than do the rich. I believe that there is nothing the corporations of the USA would love better than to have the one person one vote system abolished. This would be their coup-de-gras in widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. When the rich get richer because of loopholes not open to the relative poor, or through methods of making money that willingly take advantage of the disadvantaged (private equity firms), then it is time for change.
Two other beliefs that I hold are held because I believe their enactment makes it harder for the USA to split into these two factions, the rich and the poor. I am a believer in Universal Healthcare, and I also believe that if you are going to stick with private insurance, the only way it will work is if everybody is paying for it - and only a mandatory requirement by law will make that possible. I have been fortunate to experience a socialized medicine system (the UK's National Healthcare System) and this countries own private system. Let me tell you the differences, if you can spot them are tiny. One should not believe the hype, just as you cannot believe that an AR-15 will fire 800 rounds per minute. The only real differences are twofold.
Firstly, private insurance companies are making money out of your sickness, making profit from others misfortune to satisfy the same shareholders that do not have such policies themselves. Meanwhile, those that legislate the healthcare bills, never have to worry about even seeing a bill from a hospital for the rest of their lives. It seems that everyone wants a slice of profit.
Secondly, drug companies are allowed to run riot, charging whatever they can get away with to different users,depending on quantities bought or some other deal that ties doctors into as many of one companies drugs as possible. A good deal on an antibiotic for example, may be wholly dependent on the number of flu vaccines used. Deals of this nature are not just commonplace, they are considered standard practice. Drugs are rarely launched onto the market in Europe through the FDA and then withdrawn a year later having an efficacy no better than a placebo as was the case with Tredaptive - or worse where the risk of worsening care was high as was the case with Vioxx. In a socialized system, one entity (in the UK's case the government) does the buying - prices are set by the buyer, and their use is marketed to the doctors by the company - deals are not offered for excessive prescribing because the doctor does not benefits from it.
I'll agree that socialized medicine has it's own problems, and for that reason - there being no perfect solution - I am willing to negotiate these protected values for something else.
In terms of decision-making, these hot button issues definitely effect the way in which I vote, and equally the places I live and the services I will use. I like to think that decisions I make are not always purely selfish. I will help others where I can and I believe in paying my far share, I also believe that if you represent something or someone, that is what you should do - or quit.
February 10, 2013
A632.4.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
During the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage. For example, a seller may fabricate existence of another interested buyer or a buyer may misrepresent the price and availability of an item from a different vendor. Reflect on deceptions in negotiations and describe four ways to evaluate information during negotiations. Relate an example of a recent negotiation in which you have been misled and one in which you may have overstated a claim.; define how far you would be willing to go to leverage your position.
It's a sad fact that "100 percent of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001). Is this a reflection of negotiating skills or a moratorium on the human beings ability to consistently be able to lie and deceive?
Broadly speaking there are four areas in which most deceptions take place: reservations prices (lies about your "bottom line"), Interests (lies about a common interest between the two parties) Intentions (lies about doing something else if the negotiation falls through) and Material Facts (lies about the actual facts). Interestingly, it is only lies about material facts that can get you in serious trouble with the law, as they generally represent fraud, although there are even some cases here where the buyer needs to beware, and exercise reasonable prudence in checking the facts represented.
Weather the lie is told to promote one's own self interest or to promote someone else's it is true that in most cases, lies can be harmful to the negotiation process. So the question remains - how do we spot a lie in a negotiation?
There are in fact many many cues that indicate a liar, from vocal cues like hesitations and increased use of "um" and "err" through to visual cues like increased sweating and blinking. However, we often fool ourselves into thinking we are better at picking up this cues than we really are, and so the best defense against a false representation in a negotiation is to be prepared and take steps that will reduce the likelihood that they will be lying in the first place. Let's talk about four ways you can do this:
1) Prepare your questions before the negotiation. The way in which you phrase a question can reveal much either in the answer, or by what is NOT said in the answer. By repeating the same question often to the other party, and perhaps only changing the phraseology a little the other party has little chance to omit things of importance, and a good chance of making serious errors in their justification. In other words, its easier to dodge a single question, but much harder if you keep coming back to the same specific area.
2) Increase the costs of deception. This is something again that can be done before the negotiation starts. Make it clear that this may not be a one time deal - but an opportunity for multiple deals - the likelihood that they will lie and risk the future business should be greatly lessened. If that cannot be done, another way is to bring in a prominent third party into the transaction.
3) Ask Direct Questions. Probably the greatest weapon during a negotiation, is to ask direct questions. Studies have suggested that people are much less likely to lie when asked directly about something. In particular there is the reduction in lies by omission If the other party is going to lie it will be by commission, but a direct question makes it hard to leave out any important facts.
4) Pay attention to non verbal cues. We've all seen the movies where the cops after the interrogation are convinced that the guy is lying in the interview. This is likely not because of what he said, but the non verbal cues that accompanied it. Increased breath rate, sweating, more blinking are more obvious cues, but more subtle things like reduced amount of gesticulation may also give away a lie.
One recent example of a negotiation where I have been mislead was in the sale of my house this summer. A buyer, represented by one of the more reputable real estate brokers offered a cash sale on my house which we accepted. The house inspection was done by her, and the rest of the paperwork was being completed by the relocation company. As it turned out, on the day of signing, this woman had no money at all. Not only that, it later transpired that she had not put down a deposit for the house, bounced the binder check that was being held by the Realtor and also bounced the check for the house inspection. The whole thing unraveled very fast, but the woman continually insisted she had the money, but she needed longer and longer to gain access to it. It also transpired that the realtor knew she had bounced the check two days after presenting the offer, but chose to say nothing to everyone involved. A series of "red flags" would have been obvious in hindsight, but because of so many deceptions by her and her realtor, these were not fully realized until closing day. There were some clues that I could have been more diligent about following up. She mentioned two other houses she had tried to buy but had fell through at the last minute, one because the well collapsed, the other because the seller pulled out. After closing day I checked up on these houses - as it turned out I was the 5th person to discover the fraudulent nature of this woman, and she seemed quite well known to most other realtors.
I've also sold a used car that I owned, and not been entirely truthful about it. I can admit that I have never sold anything that was dangerous, but I remember this car I sold to a young guy that while in fantastic shape engine wise, had no windows that worked. They were electric windows, I claimed I had no idea why they didn't work - and seeing as the AC was fine I didn't bother to investigate. Of course I did know. The windows did not hold in place, because small bits of plastic had snapped and broken in the mechanism. I had propped the windows permanently shut with bits of wood inside the car door. Did I feel guilty about my lie of commission? A little, but I justified it as being OK because the car went for a song anyway. I'm sure if opening the windows was a deal breaker he wouldn't have bought it.
I really wouldn't go much further to leverage my position. At least I like to think I wouldn't. We all watch the game shows where one is pitted against another and in order to win you have to do the other contestant a disservice - I just don't think that's me, so I wouldn't go on the show to put myself in that position in the first place. I'm a pretty honest guy, I know people make mistakes and can accept that, and hope others can accept that in me too. Guilt doesn't really factor as a reason why not to lie, at least not for me - I guess I'm generally to honest or too empathetic for the really hard negotiations that involve outright deception.
It's a sad fact that "100 percent of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001). Is this a reflection of negotiating skills or a moratorium on the human beings ability to consistently be able to lie and deceive?
Broadly speaking there are four areas in which most deceptions take place: reservations prices (lies about your "bottom line"), Interests (lies about a common interest between the two parties) Intentions (lies about doing something else if the negotiation falls through) and Material Facts (lies about the actual facts). Interestingly, it is only lies about material facts that can get you in serious trouble with the law, as they generally represent fraud, although there are even some cases here where the buyer needs to beware, and exercise reasonable prudence in checking the facts represented.
Weather the lie is told to promote one's own self interest or to promote someone else's it is true that in most cases, lies can be harmful to the negotiation process. So the question remains - how do we spot a lie in a negotiation?
There are in fact many many cues that indicate a liar, from vocal cues like hesitations and increased use of "um" and "err" through to visual cues like increased sweating and blinking. However, we often fool ourselves into thinking we are better at picking up this cues than we really are, and so the best defense against a false representation in a negotiation is to be prepared and take steps that will reduce the likelihood that they will be lying in the first place. Let's talk about four ways you can do this:
1) Prepare your questions before the negotiation. The way in which you phrase a question can reveal much either in the answer, or by what is NOT said in the answer. By repeating the same question often to the other party, and perhaps only changing the phraseology a little the other party has little chance to omit things of importance, and a good chance of making serious errors in their justification. In other words, its easier to dodge a single question, but much harder if you keep coming back to the same specific area.
2) Increase the costs of deception. This is something again that can be done before the negotiation starts. Make it clear that this may not be a one time deal - but an opportunity for multiple deals - the likelihood that they will lie and risk the future business should be greatly lessened. If that cannot be done, another way is to bring in a prominent third party into the transaction.
3) Ask Direct Questions. Probably the greatest weapon during a negotiation, is to ask direct questions. Studies have suggested that people are much less likely to lie when asked directly about something. In particular there is the reduction in lies by omission If the other party is going to lie it will be by commission, but a direct question makes it hard to leave out any important facts.
4) Pay attention to non verbal cues. We've all seen the movies where the cops after the interrogation are convinced that the guy is lying in the interview. This is likely not because of what he said, but the non verbal cues that accompanied it. Increased breath rate, sweating, more blinking are more obvious cues, but more subtle things like reduced amount of gesticulation may also give away a lie.
One recent example of a negotiation where I have been mislead was in the sale of my house this summer. A buyer, represented by one of the more reputable real estate brokers offered a cash sale on my house which we accepted. The house inspection was done by her, and the rest of the paperwork was being completed by the relocation company. As it turned out, on the day of signing, this woman had no money at all. Not only that, it later transpired that she had not put down a deposit for the house, bounced the binder check that was being held by the Realtor and also bounced the check for the house inspection. The whole thing unraveled very fast, but the woman continually insisted she had the money, but she needed longer and longer to gain access to it. It also transpired that the realtor knew she had bounced the check two days after presenting the offer, but chose to say nothing to everyone involved. A series of "red flags" would have been obvious in hindsight, but because of so many deceptions by her and her realtor, these were not fully realized until closing day. There were some clues that I could have been more diligent about following up. She mentioned two other houses she had tried to buy but had fell through at the last minute, one because the well collapsed, the other because the seller pulled out. After closing day I checked up on these houses - as it turned out I was the 5th person to discover the fraudulent nature of this woman, and she seemed quite well known to most other realtors.
I've also sold a used car that I owned, and not been entirely truthful about it. I can admit that I have never sold anything that was dangerous, but I remember this car I sold to a young guy that while in fantastic shape engine wise, had no windows that worked. They were electric windows, I claimed I had no idea why they didn't work - and seeing as the AC was fine I didn't bother to investigate. Of course I did know. The windows did not hold in place, because small bits of plastic had snapped and broken in the mechanism. I had propped the windows permanently shut with bits of wood inside the car door. Did I feel guilty about my lie of commission? A little, but I justified it as being OK because the car went for a song anyway. I'm sure if opening the windows was a deal breaker he wouldn't have bought it.
I really wouldn't go much further to leverage my position. At least I like to think I wouldn't. We all watch the game shows where one is pitted against another and in order to win you have to do the other contestant a disservice - I just don't think that's me, so I wouldn't go on the show to put myself in that position in the first place. I'm a pretty honest guy, I know people make mistakes and can accept that, and hope others can accept that in me too. Guilt doesn't really factor as a reason why not to lie, at least not for me - I guess I'm generally to honest or too empathetic for the really hard negotiations that involve outright deception.
February 2, 2013
A632.3.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Shoemaker and Russo discuss the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it. Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life experience. Could you have framed each situation differently? What did the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or "frames" would've helped you through the process? How much "risk" do you feel was in your recommendation? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise?
I think it's important just to outline what Frame Blindness is, and this is best summed up when managers "look out at the world through one mental window, and fail to notice the views offered by other windows" (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001). Frame blindness can take several forms, but more commonly its when you use an out-of-date frame an apply it to a new problem, or when you try to solve a problem with the wrong kind of frame (say using a sales frame to solve a marketing problem).
Following are three ways that you can avoid falling into these traps and take charge of the situation:
1) Understanding the frames of others.
This is in my view one of the most important tools in the framing kit. Almost everyone is overconfident, and feels like they have a handle on the situation. This can be heightened by the fact that you may well have formed a team and come to a consensus decision on the right course of action, or may purely come from the fact that it is you who was put in charge.
However, it is terribly important to consider both the highlights and the shadows of other peoples frames. This may not just be those in the workplace. This could be competitors or regulators too. I can think of many examples of this in flight instruction. Flying is something that involves many decisions both in the air and on the ground. Mechanical, fuel, weather and personal factors all have to be taken into account, and because of the unpredictability of many of these factors, often a decision may change several times.
When I was a flight instructor, I felt that my primary task was to impart on my student the ability to make a good decision, and the way I did this (unbeknownst to me) was by framing. Without the ability to make a good decision the no amount of skill on the stick can save you all the time. Often, the student pilot in ground school will have made his decision, and then we may well together pick it apart by using the frame viewpoint of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and for those of us unfamiliar with who these people are - these are the government men and women who will investigate an accident.
The question I always posed was "Lets consider how the NTSB would have written this up in an accident investigation (if your decision led to an accident)". Take the student who wants to take off downwind because it is a more direct route. When you explain that if he has an accident, the first question the NTSB is going to ask is "why did you takeoff downwind?" the student looks again at his decision. Just reading accident reports you can tell in the first few sentences where the problem lies. In the classroom we call these things 'links'. It only takes three links to have an accident, and if you can break one of the links in this accident chain you will avoid the accident altogether. Looking at the decision from the frame of hindsight, the student usually can see more clearly the consequences of his decisions, and certainly reduce any risk that was involved, while probably breaking that chain.
2) Recognize your Key Assumptions.
There is an old saying that goes if you assume something, all that does is make an ASS out of U and ME. It's pretty corny, and yet also quiet true. We all make assumptions, even if we think we have all the available facts and opinions we need not to do so. I've fallen into this trap many times, and often because I have not fully been briefed on a situation. I once had an employee who was disabled and whose sales figures were quiet honestly disastrous. I had inherited the guy, and was under the impression that really it was his disability that was keeping his figures down, and not his technique in the field. I had been the same by his previous boss and his sales compatriots. Combined with the fact that as a manager I assumed I had to be extra careful not to offend (or get sued) when it came to his disability, I spent many months basically putting up with poor performance while ramping up the encouragement as much as possible.
What I needed to do here was to sit down and recognize the assumptions I was making. As it turned out, it was not the man's disability, but his poor initial training that was the problem, which came to light in a one on one session I had with him. What had previously taken up much of my time and concern (his disability) now was no longer a factor, and all of my previous work based on the information I thought I knew about his problem was for naught. It was also entirely obvious that if I had had this conversation with him at the start and discovered where his frame of reference was, I could have helped myself and the department much earlier on.
3) Observe the symptoms of Frame Misfits.
This is my final choice for avoiding frame blindness in which you essentially identify surprises inconsistencies and difficulties as an indication that my own frame may well be weak. I like the idea of going to the people that disagree with your decision and then finding out how they are looking at the problem, or rather just trying the opposite of what you think is right just to see if you actually are!
In a way, it almost sounds like fun. I really don't think I have personally ever had the freedom to do just the opposite from what I want - just to see if I can be proved wrong; this seems to me to be the perogative of the owner/director/president/chief of staff, and not the middle manager. I don't think I have ever seen it in practice either, but I believe that is because when it comes down to it - only the real entrepreneurs want to see themselves and their businesses as anything else but the next best thing since sliced bread. What is really fascinating here though is that in any complex decision, you must constantly be questioning your own frame and yourself, looking for the things that you may have overlooked. Complex decision-making is indeed aptly named - it is complex. Taking a simplified or assumptive position is inevitably going to lead to a poor decision made.
I think it's important just to outline what Frame Blindness is, and this is best summed up when managers "look out at the world through one mental window, and fail to notice the views offered by other windows" (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001). Frame blindness can take several forms, but more commonly its when you use an out-of-date frame an apply it to a new problem, or when you try to solve a problem with the wrong kind of frame (say using a sales frame to solve a marketing problem).
Following are three ways that you can avoid falling into these traps and take charge of the situation:
1) Understanding the frames of others.
This is in my view one of the most important tools in the framing kit. Almost everyone is overconfident, and feels like they have a handle on the situation. This can be heightened by the fact that you may well have formed a team and come to a consensus decision on the right course of action, or may purely come from the fact that it is you who was put in charge.
However, it is terribly important to consider both the highlights and the shadows of other peoples frames. This may not just be those in the workplace. This could be competitors or regulators too. I can think of many examples of this in flight instruction. Flying is something that involves many decisions both in the air and on the ground. Mechanical, fuel, weather and personal factors all have to be taken into account, and because of the unpredictability of many of these factors, often a decision may change several times.
When I was a flight instructor, I felt that my primary task was to impart on my student the ability to make a good decision, and the way I did this (unbeknownst to me) was by framing. Without the ability to make a good decision the no amount of skill on the stick can save you all the time. Often, the student pilot in ground school will have made his decision, and then we may well together pick it apart by using the frame viewpoint of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and for those of us unfamiliar with who these people are - these are the government men and women who will investigate an accident.
The question I always posed was "Lets consider how the NTSB would have written this up in an accident investigation (if your decision led to an accident)". Take the student who wants to take off downwind because it is a more direct route. When you explain that if he has an accident, the first question the NTSB is going to ask is "why did you takeoff downwind?" the student looks again at his decision. Just reading accident reports you can tell in the first few sentences where the problem lies. In the classroom we call these things 'links'. It only takes three links to have an accident, and if you can break one of the links in this accident chain you will avoid the accident altogether. Looking at the decision from the frame of hindsight, the student usually can see more clearly the consequences of his decisions, and certainly reduce any risk that was involved, while probably breaking that chain.
2) Recognize your Key Assumptions.
There is an old saying that goes if you assume something, all that does is make an ASS out of U and ME. It's pretty corny, and yet also quiet true. We all make assumptions, even if we think we have all the available facts and opinions we need not to do so. I've fallen into this trap many times, and often because I have not fully been briefed on a situation. I once had an employee who was disabled and whose sales figures were quiet honestly disastrous. I had inherited the guy, and was under the impression that really it was his disability that was keeping his figures down, and not his technique in the field. I had been the same by his previous boss and his sales compatriots. Combined with the fact that as a manager I assumed I had to be extra careful not to offend (or get sued) when it came to his disability, I spent many months basically putting up with poor performance while ramping up the encouragement as much as possible.
What I needed to do here was to sit down and recognize the assumptions I was making. As it turned out, it was not the man's disability, but his poor initial training that was the problem, which came to light in a one on one session I had with him. What had previously taken up much of my time and concern (his disability) now was no longer a factor, and all of my previous work based on the information I thought I knew about his problem was for naught. It was also entirely obvious that if I had had this conversation with him at the start and discovered where his frame of reference was, I could have helped myself and the department much earlier on.
3) Observe the symptoms of Frame Misfits.
This is my final choice for avoiding frame blindness in which you essentially identify surprises inconsistencies and difficulties as an indication that my own frame may well be weak. I like the idea of going to the people that disagree with your decision and then finding out how they are looking at the problem, or rather just trying the opposite of what you think is right just to see if you actually are!
In a way, it almost sounds like fun. I really don't think I have personally ever had the freedom to do just the opposite from what I want - just to see if I can be proved wrong; this seems to me to be the perogative of the owner/director/president/chief of staff, and not the middle manager. I don't think I have ever seen it in practice either, but I believe that is because when it comes down to it - only the real entrepreneurs want to see themselves and their businesses as anything else but the next best thing since sliced bread. What is really fascinating here though is that in any complex decision, you must constantly be questioning your own frame and yourself, looking for the things that you may have overlooked. Complex decision-making is indeed aptly named - it is complex. Taking a simplified or assumptive position is inevitably going to lead to a poor decision made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)