Stab in the back, betrayal, disloyalty. That is something that we're all afraid of. Unfortunately it may happen during the group negotiations. Not because of the bad will, but rather the fact, that not everybody can endure the pressure of two parties at once.
We had to negotiate against two other parties with my teammate We had some agreements, knew our tactics and approach. Armed with our positive attitude, calculations and negotiation checklist we started the discussion.
I quickly realized that "other principal" was not so aggressive and competitive (even dough we've agreed to do it), but is rather calm and doesn't talk at all. The other two parties formed some kind of coalition, cause they had mutual objectives (new heating system) and could compromise on other, less important issues. We, on the other hand, wanted to build a new pool for the school, but we kindly got into crossfire.
The psychological situation looked more or less like that: 4 people against me and 1 neutral (my teammate). I thought that I have to do something with that, but I didn't really know what actually. I thought that I really need a helping hand there, so I asked my teammate to speak...
I regretted that as soon, as I said it, cause he agreed to our opponents demands. It was totally against our case study objectives, so I thought that I was alone.
It is very hard to think about it, even though it was just a classroom negotiation, cause the feel of being backstabbed is not nice. I know that he didn't mean anything wrong. I am not trying to accuse him, but still it was a very weird feeling. I would describe it as anxiety, cause you loose something that you two agreed to.
However, in such situations you usually come up with different and unconventional solutions. Luckily, everyone wanted to have a good feeling after the negotiation, so they really wanted to give me at least something to cheer up. I couldn't not seize my opportunity, so I proposed that we will do everything other except those two major investments (pool or heating system). This outside the box solution was actually well welcomed and all parties agreed to that.
There are some obvious pros of negotiating in the group, but not when you are alone. I really like "the good and the bad cop" tactic, cause it makes the opponent a little confused. But it won't work when there is only one cop, right?
Negotiating in pairs may work only if you really know each other and think in the same way. Once, I had a friend with whom I was attending meetings. We had some projects to do in Student Government, so we needed partners. We usually went on those meetings together and that was very effective. I think it's all about mutual relationship and similar mindset.
Nevertheless, I hope I won't get into this situation ever again.
niedziela, 29 listopada 2015
poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015
Irrationality in negotiations
I was really happy that we managed to talk a little about rational/ irrational behavior on the last classes. First of all, it was interesting and secondly, I'm a big fan of behavioral economics, which deals with that matter. There are many things, that can be used in negotiation, but I will describe those 5, that are actually useful for me.
1. Anchoring effect
It is widely known, that people tend to be biased by random numbers and those can actually affect their perspective and rationality. Man can easily use anchoring. It is very effective, especially in bargaining. It is easy to anchor higher price when saying the initial price. Just make it slightly higher, than it should have been. Remember the famous Liebeck vs McDonald's lawsuit? Lawyers who represented Mrs Liebeck were able to get a great deal only because they started from the extremely high anchor. Case study is well described in the book "Priceless" (W. Poundstone) or in this link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
2. Endowment effect
"Do you want to give it a ride?". If you have bought a car at least once in your life, you had probably heard it. Used car dealers intuitively know the power of endowment effect. Multiple research showed that people value things more they actually own or... even hold in their hands. If you drive a car, you instantly think about it as yours, so you're more willing to buy it.
3. Loss aversion
People hate when they have to give something back, even if they're not using it. Imagine kids, who have to give their Lego blocks to younger cousins or Americans who don't have guns, but removing the 2nd amendment would make them riot. If you own something (endowment effect), you don't not only value it more, but also feel bad about giving it back. In negotiations, people feel uncomfortable when they have to compromise and give something they agreed to before. It is good to remember about it.
4. Paradox of choice
Barry Schwartz perfectly described this phenomenon in his book titled as the headline above. Imagine the situation where you're going to buy a pair of jeans. You want to buy them in the same way you used to several years ago. But then the shopkeeper asks you, cause maybe you want slim fit, regular, baggy or in a different type. I don't even have to mention the color. When there are many options and we have to choose only one, we feel bad, cause our alternative costs (costs of not choosing the other options) increase and that distinctly diminishes our utility - which is satisfaction in this particular case. It is good to frame the possible options in limited ways. Just give 2 or 3 options - your client will feel more comfortable. Schwartz described it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
5. Will to take the default option
Do you remember the last time when have you been installing something on your computer or registering into new internet shop? You probably just check everything what was needed, clicked OK and didn't bother. It's pretty much the same with written agreement - many people don't read them anyway. Presenting the deal like the default option may actually be a good idea. "If you don't agree, please sign here" or "If you don't want us to send you some additional things, please write us a special letter, which..." Sometimes picking up the pen is treated like a cost. Stupid, I know, but that's how it works. Ariely described it here: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions
Even United Kingdom's government used some default option stuff in their administrational policy. They even hired Richard Thaler, one of the inventors of behavioral economics.
To be successful in business we need to constantly think about our limitations as humans. After all, we're not homo oeconomicus, but homo sapiens, so we can be fooled all the time, by heuristics, biases, incentives around us. It is better to think that we're irrational - it's easier that way.
1. Anchoring effect
It is widely known, that people tend to be biased by random numbers and those can actually affect their perspective and rationality. Man can easily use anchoring. It is very effective, especially in bargaining. It is easy to anchor higher price when saying the initial price. Just make it slightly higher, than it should have been. Remember the famous Liebeck vs McDonald's lawsuit? Lawyers who represented Mrs Liebeck were able to get a great deal only because they started from the extremely high anchor. Case study is well described in the book "Priceless" (W. Poundstone) or in this link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
2. Endowment effect
"Do you want to give it a ride?". If you have bought a car at least once in your life, you had probably heard it. Used car dealers intuitively know the power of endowment effect. Multiple research showed that people value things more they actually own or... even hold in their hands. If you drive a car, you instantly think about it as yours, so you're more willing to buy it.
3. Loss aversion
People hate when they have to give something back, even if they're not using it. Imagine kids, who have to give their Lego blocks to younger cousins or Americans who don't have guns, but removing the 2nd amendment would make them riot. If you own something (endowment effect), you don't not only value it more, but also feel bad about giving it back. In negotiations, people feel uncomfortable when they have to compromise and give something they agreed to before. It is good to remember about it.
4. Paradox of choice
Barry Schwartz perfectly described this phenomenon in his book titled as the headline above. Imagine the situation where you're going to buy a pair of jeans. You want to buy them in the same way you used to several years ago. But then the shopkeeper asks you, cause maybe you want slim fit, regular, baggy or in a different type. I don't even have to mention the color. When there are many options and we have to choose only one, we feel bad, cause our alternative costs (costs of not choosing the other options) increase and that distinctly diminishes our utility - which is satisfaction in this particular case. It is good to frame the possible options in limited ways. Just give 2 or 3 options - your client will feel more comfortable. Schwartz described it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
5. Will to take the default option
Do you remember the last time when have you been installing something on your computer or registering into new internet shop? You probably just check everything what was needed, clicked OK and didn't bother. It's pretty much the same with written agreement - many people don't read them anyway. Presenting the deal like the default option may actually be a good idea. "If you don't agree, please sign here" or "If you don't want us to send you some additional things, please write us a special letter, which..." Sometimes picking up the pen is treated like a cost. Stupid, I know, but that's how it works. Ariely described it here: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions
Even United Kingdom's government used some default option stuff in their administrational policy. They even hired Richard Thaler, one of the inventors of behavioral economics.
To be successful in business we need to constantly think about our limitations as humans. After all, we're not homo oeconomicus, but homo sapiens, so we can be fooled all the time, by heuristics, biases, incentives around us. It is better to think that we're irrational - it's easier that way.
niedziela, 15 listopada 2015
Group negotiations
Take a tree branch and try to break it. You'll probably do it without any effort. But take more of them and it's not an easy task anymore. Groups were always stronger, than solitary units. Our ancestors did it and it's no difference in negotiations.
What I saw during our group negotiations during classes, was the initial feeling that I should find somebody who is similar to me. It wasn't only about the common interests we're supposed to share, but also the negotiation style or even the way we speak and behave. Humans are willing to have relationships with people who are like them and that's the fact. From the very beginning I wanted to cooperate with somebody, who was willing to do so.
I found it during Jordan Electronics negotiations, when Zack and I quickly realized that we have common goal and also the aggressive way of negotiating. Me and him started to draw some kind of charts, to come up with imaginary numbers and behave that we're actually professional and know more than our opponents. Then we decided to find somebody, who shared at least some of our thoughts and that was Rafal. With leader girl (I forgot her name, sorry) who wasn't definitely comfortable with her role we quickly imposed our way and solution. Justin was just condemned to loose this battle.
On the other hand, during Florist - Bakery - Grocery negotiations I tried to cooperate against Kuba, but my potential ally didn't catch a bite, cause I wanted to go there totally competitive. However, we started to push Kuba into corner a little, cause we've found that we need the same things. When Kuba realized what is happening, he tried to blow up the whole negotiations. It was a very aggressive and dangerous strategy. More like walking on the thin line, than having a mutual agreement, which is good for everybody.
Eventually, we came up with the "even" agreement and met in the middle. I wasn't fine with that, cause this equality felt like a failure for me. The goal was to "get as much point as I could". Everybody got 300 or something like that, so it was an optimal decision for the whole group, yet not so good for me personally.
I couldn't be on the last negotiation classes, so I can't really describe my feelings about those group conversations, yet I also have a thought, which I found when writing the paper for tomorrow's classes.
I realized, that when you're in the group, it's easier to make the final offer, which is like "take it or leave it". Being in the group gives you this kind of power: "who is not with us, is against us". I think that is also how the mob works. You just sometimes know, that you can do it, so you use your advantage. It is actually sociologically possible, cause everyone doesn't want to be excluded from the social group. If there are 3 people saying something and there is only you against them - probably you will bend. It's just easier to go with the flow, which is kindly sad, cause I see how much we can be influenced. Even if it leads to stupid decisions.
środa, 28 października 2015
Amiguous negotiations
We had this situation during the last class - we were negotiating, almost everyone was fine with the outcome, but nobody actually won. What happened? Why the situation looked like that? Very simple - this what happens when you negotiate and you can't really tell whether should you be satisfied or not.
We have a task for this blog post. Post something about negotiation, that you didn't really know what was the real outcome. I was thinking about something close to that and I found it.
Sometimes, probably in our future career, we'll have this situation: discussion about future progress of company / firm / project / task. Actually, nobody wins here, because we shouldn't really think about it so much. However, when it comes to discussion about ideas, negotiation plays a vital role.
I was a very active member of Student Government and I realized that negotiation is not only about bargain, but also about making people believe or approve the things you're saying.
The case happened during one of our integration trips. 80+ gathered to have party, integrate and actually think in low-stress environment about the future of our unit. We were really thoughtful and actually very curious about the open-space conversation that was about to be conducted.
Catherine, the former President of SG (Student Government) was in charge of whole discussion (remember I don't like her? That was her case in the previous post). She wanted to perform the SWOT analysis and therefore whole analysis of "what will happen to us".
As you know, I am really eager to talk and to share my opinion, so I started from saying what's wrong, what should be changed, what I really liked, and what I thought that was bad. There were other people who really wanted to participate in that and there were some of them, who didn't share my opinion. In fact, some of them were really brutal and maybe a little to honest.
I told what my point was. Some people agreed, some didn't. So... I had to negotiate. Not to bargain, but to make them feel that we share the same values. I started from saying that we share the same values and goals (future of SG), however, some of them were still reluctant. That was the kind of negotiation, which I couldn't really tell what was my real goal. I knew that I wanted to be the one who's right, but I didn't really know what is the purpose of that. It was the same as with the board meeting negotiation we had in class. My drive was to win, but why? I can't really tell.
I remember, that I had to drop out some cases that weren't so important for me (like administration stuff management), in order to pursue more important things (like promotion and sponsoring). We were just writing things on flip chart, yet I still thought I had to negotiate really hard, so at least some of them would agree with me and go along with what I'm saying.
Eventually, I found that some people agreed with me and 90% of what I told was in those god damned flip charts, but still I thought that I accomplished nothing. Yeah, I just wasted one hour to make people believe in what I was saying, but still what was the point of that? I couldn't really tell that I won and nobody did, so do I couldn't say that everybody was fine with that. That was pretty much the same as with the last negotiation. I thought that I was fine, but the overall goal was different than what I was pursuing all the time.
The conclusion is, I didn't know what my goal is. I really wanted to win, that's the point. Chasing the white rabbit is not always the good cause. Especially, that you don't really willing to catch it. And even if you do, there is not much to do with the trophy.
We have a task for this blog post. Post something about negotiation, that you didn't really know what was the real outcome. I was thinking about something close to that and I found it.
Sometimes, probably in our future career, we'll have this situation: discussion about future progress of company / firm / project / task. Actually, nobody wins here, because we shouldn't really think about it so much. However, when it comes to discussion about ideas, negotiation plays a vital role.
I was a very active member of Student Government and I realized that negotiation is not only about bargain, but also about making people believe or approve the things you're saying.
The case happened during one of our integration trips. 80+ gathered to have party, integrate and actually think in low-stress environment about the future of our unit. We were really thoughtful and actually very curious about the open-space conversation that was about to be conducted.
Catherine, the former President of SG (Student Government) was in charge of whole discussion (remember I don't like her? That was her case in the previous post). She wanted to perform the SWOT analysis and therefore whole analysis of "what will happen to us".
As you know, I am really eager to talk and to share my opinion, so I started from saying what's wrong, what should be changed, what I really liked, and what I thought that was bad. There were other people who really wanted to participate in that and there were some of them, who didn't share my opinion. In fact, some of them were really brutal and maybe a little to honest.
I told what my point was. Some people agreed, some didn't. So... I had to negotiate. Not to bargain, but to make them feel that we share the same values. I started from saying that we share the same values and goals (future of SG), however, some of them were still reluctant. That was the kind of negotiation, which I couldn't really tell what was my real goal. I knew that I wanted to be the one who's right, but I didn't really know what is the purpose of that. It was the same as with the board meeting negotiation we had in class. My drive was to win, but why? I can't really tell.
I remember, that I had to drop out some cases that weren't so important for me (like administration stuff management), in order to pursue more important things (like promotion and sponsoring). We were just writing things on flip chart, yet I still thought I had to negotiate really hard, so at least some of them would agree with me and go along with what I'm saying.
Eventually, I found that some people agreed with me and 90% of what I told was in those god damned flip charts, but still I thought that I accomplished nothing. Yeah, I just wasted one hour to make people believe in what I was saying, but still what was the point of that? I couldn't really tell that I won and nobody did, so do I couldn't say that everybody was fine with that. That was pretty much the same as with the last negotiation. I thought that I was fine, but the overall goal was different than what I was pursuing all the time.
The conclusion is, I didn't know what my goal is. I really wanted to win, that's the point. Chasing the white rabbit is not always the good cause. Especially, that you don't really willing to catch it. And even if you do, there is not much to do with the trophy.
poniedziałek, 19 października 2015
Coallition in negotiations
Sometimes to beat the bigger guy, you don't have to be strong. You just have to ally with other small guys. Isn't it what the wolves pack do all the time?
I recalled the situation in class, where I didn't want one of the girls (Catherine) I didn't like to be a new coordinator of a student camp we've organised back then in Poland in Student Government. Back then, she was also the Preisdent of Student Government and I was a member of board of directors. She normally would be involved in the decision process, however she was involved personally, so the decision had to be made in democratic way. Executives and board of directors were supposed to meet. However, the day before there was a party. I really couldn't let it go, so I approached several people I thought would be still undecided. It took me 2 or 3 hours of the event. Luckily, I've managed to talk some people through, so when there was a moment of choice, my candidate won with 5 votes for and 3 against. It meant I did it. That was the first time I was politicking in such brutal way, but it let me to the very interesting insight: "it's easier to negotiate in the wolf pack".
When I think about this case, I find that I did it in a very interesting and actually in a model way. According to the chapter 3.11 in the book: I first recognized the potential coallition opportunites. I thought about 10 people that would be voting and what were my chances. I will describe them:
As you see, I had 4 people who were inconvincible, but still had to face the ambiguity. However, I sat to the negotiation table a little more calm and thought that I still had some chances.
There were no cons in that situation. I didn't want her to lead the Student Government anymore, I knew she was not good enough, so I had to do what what was necessary. People don't like politics, me neither, but the strong coalition was needed. People who were 100% with me helped me to reach other. It is also important that it was a battle of her executives against her. Very complicated and actually not cool situation for you as a leader.
We still met with other party, looked on both candidates applications and ideas for organizing the camp. I had to use my rethorical skills at their finest, so people who were still undecided voted with me, not against me. I tried to be as rational as possible, didn't want to look like I'm prejudiced towards Catherine.
Eventually I got what I wanted. David won, Catherine had to swallow the bitter taste of loss and I slept better, because Student Government and university life was a big thing for me back then. Whipping the votes was important and actually kind of funny...
I recalled the situation in class, where I didn't want one of the girls (Catherine) I didn't like to be a new coordinator of a student camp we've organised back then in Poland in Student Government. Back then, she was also the Preisdent of Student Government and I was a member of board of directors. She normally would be involved in the decision process, however she was involved personally, so the decision had to be made in democratic way. Executives and board of directors were supposed to meet. However, the day before there was a party. I really couldn't let it go, so I approached several people I thought would be still undecided. It took me 2 or 3 hours of the event. Luckily, I've managed to talk some people through, so when there was a moment of choice, my candidate won with 5 votes for and 3 against. It meant I did it. That was the first time I was politicking in such brutal way, but it let me to the very interesting insight: "it's easier to negotiate in the wolf pack".
When I think about this case, I find that I did it in a very interesting and actually in a model way. According to the chapter 3.11 in the book: I first recognized the potential coallition opportunites. I thought about 10 people that would be voting and what were my chances. I will describe them:
- Agnes - former President of Student Government, best friend of Catherine, the candidate. Chance of success - 0%
- Ula - HR & Projects Executive, thankful towards Catherine for her position. Lost elections to David (my candidate), so she still had some problems about that. Chance of success - 0%.
- Magda - President of Board of Directors. You could write books about her integrity and lawful approach. She didn't like David (my candidate) because of his behavior on parties. On the other hand, she didn't like Catherine's approach towards leading the whole Student Government. Chance of success - 50%
- Mike - Administration Executive, liked Catherine, but was also a friend with David. He was easy to convince, for he also wanted to get a position secured in a team. Chance of success - 50%.
- Joanna - Finances Executive, didn't like Catherine at all, she didn't need to be convinced. Chance of success - 100%.
- Marlene - Marketing & Promotion Executive. She tried to be neutral, however she was one of my best friends, so she did it my way. Yet she was still anxious till the very end. Chance of succes - 90%.
- Filip - Business Development Executive. He has some arguments with David, didn't like his way of doing projects, yet still decided to choose "the minor evil", so he didn't pick Catherine. I also managed to encourage him a little, so he could help me during the argument. Chance of success - 85%.
As you see, I had 4 people who were inconvincible, but still had to face the ambiguity. However, I sat to the negotiation table a little more calm and thought that I still had some chances.
There were no cons in that situation. I didn't want her to lead the Student Government anymore, I knew she was not good enough, so I had to do what what was necessary. People don't like politics, me neither, but the strong coalition was needed. People who were 100% with me helped me to reach other. It is also important that it was a battle of her executives against her. Very complicated and actually not cool situation for you as a leader.
We still met with other party, looked on both candidates applications and ideas for organizing the camp. I had to use my rethorical skills at their finest, so people who were still undecided voted with me, not against me. I tried to be as rational as possible, didn't want to look like I'm prejudiced towards Catherine.
Eventually I got what I wanted. David won, Catherine had to swallow the bitter taste of loss and I slept better, because Student Government and university life was a big thing for me back then. Whipping the votes was important and actually kind of funny...
czwartek, 15 października 2015
Negotiation Ethics - 50 shades of gray
Negotiating represents everyday situations. We do lie, puff, bluff, hide the truth and are very often dishonest. People won't be different in negotiation. This is my opinion and approach. Actually I was this bad guy - 2137 number during the test.
Misrepresenting information is bad, lying to somebody also. However, when I have a car to sell, I won't hesitate to hide that air conditioning system is leaking. First of all, it doesn't affect safety and secondly, I don't care about this buyer. From rational economics perspective, this is a good attitude. However, we are irrational usually, so honest behavior is actually not so seldom. It is not easy to tell whether it's already a lie or just hiding the information. We are surrounded by ambiguity. Those ethical questions are neither black, nor white. Usually, as mentioned in a title, they're in many shades of gray.
According to 2.12 reading I prefer The Poker School of negotiating. Everytime I sit upon the table, I perceive negotiation as challenge and a game. I like collaboration - I'm more than happy to agree, but I still think about my personal interest. Moreover, I think that Poker School is more interesting than Pragmatic School, not even mentioning the Idealist School. I like the feeling of winning, I'm addicted to success and this is my driver. After the negotiation ends, I usually forget about whole situation and go over it. During the negotiation I have some kind of flow, that makes me care only about the outcome. When we collaborate and have mutual agreement, I still feel that I won. But if we can't, I won't hesitate to be selfish. It's funny actually. I don't know from where those incentives come, but frankly I started to like this feeling.
I also like the limitations and rules of that game. Usually those are legal, but also social restrictions. You need to move very carefully, because you can step on a land mine easily. You have to make a judgment call sometimes, for instance: "should I lie or not?" I am curious about it and actually looking forward to it in the future. Especially, that negotiation classes are risk free environment, so I can experiment a little. Nevertheless, the more I negotiate, the more I like this kind of ethical strategy. Probably my Mother wouldn't be glad about it...
I find it as a clever tactic. Misleading an opponent, confusion, chaos - isn't the same thing Sun Tzu wrote about in his "Art of War" several thousand years ago?
The only thing I can't yet apply to Poker School tactic is definitely anger or emotion management. When I don't like something, I say it loud. When someone upsets me, I retaliate. True players don't do that.
I know, however, that I have some limitations. As I mentioned above, I would never lie, if the case would affect human's life or health. But saying some petty things, just to sell the product - I don't actually mind. Or paying for information, or undermining the negotiating position of other party, or promising things I can't deliver (as long as it doesn't affect my company) - it's not a problem for me. Am I bad?
I don't think so. I treat it as a game. Exciting, interesting, complicated, but only a game. I hope it will stay like that.
Misrepresenting information is bad, lying to somebody also. However, when I have a car to sell, I won't hesitate to hide that air conditioning system is leaking. First of all, it doesn't affect safety and secondly, I don't care about this buyer. From rational economics perspective, this is a good attitude. However, we are irrational usually, so honest behavior is actually not so seldom. It is not easy to tell whether it's already a lie or just hiding the information. We are surrounded by ambiguity. Those ethical questions are neither black, nor white. Usually, as mentioned in a title, they're in many shades of gray.
According to 2.12 reading I prefer The Poker School of negotiating. Everytime I sit upon the table, I perceive negotiation as challenge and a game. I like collaboration - I'm more than happy to agree, but I still think about my personal interest. Moreover, I think that Poker School is more interesting than Pragmatic School, not even mentioning the Idealist School. I like the feeling of winning, I'm addicted to success and this is my driver. After the negotiation ends, I usually forget about whole situation and go over it. During the negotiation I have some kind of flow, that makes me care only about the outcome. When we collaborate and have mutual agreement, I still feel that I won. But if we can't, I won't hesitate to be selfish. It's funny actually. I don't know from where those incentives come, but frankly I started to like this feeling.
I also like the limitations and rules of that game. Usually those are legal, but also social restrictions. You need to move very carefully, because you can step on a land mine easily. You have to make a judgment call sometimes, for instance: "should I lie or not?" I am curious about it and actually looking forward to it in the future. Especially, that negotiation classes are risk free environment, so I can experiment a little. Nevertheless, the more I negotiate, the more I like this kind of ethical strategy. Probably my Mother wouldn't be glad about it...
I find it as a clever tactic. Misleading an opponent, confusion, chaos - isn't the same thing Sun Tzu wrote about in his "Art of War" several thousand years ago?
The only thing I can't yet apply to Poker School tactic is definitely anger or emotion management. When I don't like something, I say it loud. When someone upsets me, I retaliate. True players don't do that.
I know, however, that I have some limitations. As I mentioned above, I would never lie, if the case would affect human's life or health. But saying some petty things, just to sell the product - I don't actually mind. Or paying for information, or undermining the negotiating position of other party, or promising things I can't deliver (as long as it doesn't affect my company) - it's not a problem for me. Am I bad?
I don't think so. I treat it as a game. Exciting, interesting, complicated, but only a game. I hope it will stay like that.
środa, 16 września 2015
Midwestern: Contemporary Art Case Study A & B
I've read the case study about problem in MCA musuem. It was a classical conflict between the top management facing financial problems. I won't describe the case, but I'll try to answer questions.
Part A.
1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
In my opinion, yes he is. There should be a difference and division between job description for CEO and board chairman. Actually, when deciding about Schmidt choice, Smith should be aware that some of his decision power is gone. I think he may have some problems with that he's not anymore playing first fiddle.
2. What type of conflict they are experiencing?
They are experiencing interpersonal conflict, which comes from differences between their leadership and management style. Smith is risk - averse and more conservative, Schmidt likes to risk and is ambitious to reach his goals. What is more, Schmidt doesn't like being controlled, so he feels that Smith is not trusting him or that he's not capable of leading the organisation.
3. What can organization do structurally to reduce conflict resulting from role ambiguity?
The first and most important thing is to set up a meeting, where Smith and Schmidt can discuss their differences. Feedback would be very important for the MCA's katharsis. Without that, the conflict will grow - they'll have to face the snowball effect. Secondly, there should be strict rules which divide what board directors do and what the executives do.
4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board?
First of all, he shouldn't be upset. It is good sometimes to admit, that you're not right, so he can show himself as a person who doesn't hold grudge. If that was the choice of whole top - management, so be it. The worst thing he can do is trying to prove everying, that they were not right. The only thing he can accomplish with this strategy is jeopardizing his relations.
5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
Actually, and that is the major problem, they're not very different. The JD is not specified, so it was just a matter of time, when such conflict would occur. Board chairman should be more a counsellor - i perceive him as more like Gandalf for organiztion and CEO should be more like Aragorn. Two of them play crucial roles in MCA, but the second one is more in charge, so he should make decisions.
Parb B.
1. What alternative approaches should Peggy Fischer use to collect the unfulfilled pledge?
In my opinion, lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, I have some ethical doubts about it and secondly, it will last for a very long time. Mutual agreement (and I know this from the Suits TV show ;)) is always the best. She should meet with Smith and talk to him in presence of lawyers. Then she should come up with the settlement, which both sides would respect.
2. Should Fischer involve the board in further discussions leading to a decision about whether or not to file a lawsuit? Or should she formulate a recommendation on her own for the board's next meeting?
I think she should choose more autocratic leadership style. Board has shown that it has no will to be helpful and also they have different opinions. Actually the board is the least professional part of this organization. She should make decision on her own.
3. Do you think the museum should sue the Smits? Why or why not?
As I wrote before, I think that lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, it's unethical to sue someone, who contributed a lot to development of MCA. Cancer argument doesn't matter here actually. Smith was responsible for growth of entire organization and this organization wants to sue him. It's just simply unfair. Secondly, I think it will be a very long process and it's probable that it won't end with MCA's victory.
Part A.
1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
In my opinion, yes he is. There should be a difference and division between job description for CEO and board chairman. Actually, when deciding about Schmidt choice, Smith should be aware that some of his decision power is gone. I think he may have some problems with that he's not anymore playing first fiddle.
2. What type of conflict they are experiencing?
They are experiencing interpersonal conflict, which comes from differences between their leadership and management style. Smith is risk - averse and more conservative, Schmidt likes to risk and is ambitious to reach his goals. What is more, Schmidt doesn't like being controlled, so he feels that Smith is not trusting him or that he's not capable of leading the organisation.
3. What can organization do structurally to reduce conflict resulting from role ambiguity?
The first and most important thing is to set up a meeting, where Smith and Schmidt can discuss their differences. Feedback would be very important for the MCA's katharsis. Without that, the conflict will grow - they'll have to face the snowball effect. Secondly, there should be strict rules which divide what board directors do and what the executives do.
4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board?
First of all, he shouldn't be upset. It is good sometimes to admit, that you're not right, so he can show himself as a person who doesn't hold grudge. If that was the choice of whole top - management, so be it. The worst thing he can do is trying to prove everying, that they were not right. The only thing he can accomplish with this strategy is jeopardizing his relations.
5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
Actually, and that is the major problem, they're not very different. The JD is not specified, so it was just a matter of time, when such conflict would occur. Board chairman should be more a counsellor - i perceive him as more like Gandalf for organiztion and CEO should be more like Aragorn. Two of them play crucial roles in MCA, but the second one is more in charge, so he should make decisions.
Parb B.
1. What alternative approaches should Peggy Fischer use to collect the unfulfilled pledge?
In my opinion, lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, I have some ethical doubts about it and secondly, it will last for a very long time. Mutual agreement (and I know this from the Suits TV show ;)) is always the best. She should meet with Smith and talk to him in presence of lawyers. Then she should come up with the settlement, which both sides would respect.
2. Should Fischer involve the board in further discussions leading to a decision about whether or not to file a lawsuit? Or should she formulate a recommendation on her own for the board's next meeting?
I think she should choose more autocratic leadership style. Board has shown that it has no will to be helpful and also they have different opinions. Actually the board is the least professional part of this organization. She should make decision on her own.
3. Do you think the museum should sue the Smits? Why or why not?
As I wrote before, I think that lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, it's unethical to sue someone, who contributed a lot to development of MCA. Cancer argument doesn't matter here actually. Smith was responsible for growth of entire organization and this organization wants to sue him. It's just simply unfair. Secondly, I think it will be a very long process and it's probable that it won't end with MCA's victory.
Subskrybuj:
Posty (Atom)