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...
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz