Storyboard 8
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Storyboard 8

on

  • 327 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
327
Views on SlideShare
308
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 19

http://klewis-elearningportfolio.wikispaces.com 19

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Flash intro with ens model pieces coming together like a puzzle, marketing/branding process. Music background. Voices of Adam and Jeff emerge as music fades, timed for the last 2 comments from each player. We see the last bit.
  • Opening sequence - Viewer watches last interchange from the meeting ending … Its not going to happen!
  • On completion of the video segment, Select next to continue appears Micheal Hudson comments on the video snippet as an introduction to the refresher piece. His final statements segues to Adam and Jeff’s intros Ever been in this situation? Was it a successful outcome? Did you enjoy it? Are we seeing tough negotiators in action, working to strategy? Could be…or are we seeing people who have run out of options? Some might say, if force isn’t working, you’re not using enough… Welcome to this review of ENS model of I+N This review will allow you to Revisit ENS core concepts discussed initiating workshop, and Think more deeply about their application   First, remember how important for skilled nego’r to separate P from C Invite you to mount your Process helicopter and carefully watch the action Now let’s meet our negotiators
  • Select next to continue Venue: sitting at his desk. Role is to talk to the learner, get them to like him/care what happens, hint at some needs. Hi, I’m Adam Johnson, a procurement manager under our Lean Manufacturing program, 3months ago – how can we reduce supplier costs by 10%. In this organisation, that’s not an easy task 3 suppliers passing pre-qualification Due for renewal next month in accordance with policy Important he doesn’t re-sign with local vendor I might as well get on with it… These bullet points to drop in… Video exists
  • Select next to continue Venue: standing in front of server, on site. Role is to talk to the learner, get them to like him/care what happens, hint at some needs. Hi I’m Jeff Madison I’m an on-site manager heard a whisper through from the floor ECS have had to re-tender for their contract. I’m really upset about not being consulted. He’s told me to come to head office I have both barrels loaded I’m not going to let him put one over me Video exists
  • Scene plays out Video 1 Script exists Video exists
  • Michael Hudson comment on the interview segment with a segue or lead in to the framework As MH speaks, these words build on LHS Outcome? Content / Process? Needs of both parties? Styles used? Climate? Tactics? Phases? On completion of video, ‘Select next to continue’ appears. Mentor script So, what do you make of that? How did they do? What did you see? What did you hear? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how Adam and Jeff felt in this meeting? Then a segue to the model and needs This is currently a placeholder
  • User can input own reflections in blue text window which are saved to notes/report. Purple window has dropdown box options of the 6 model pieces: outcome, needs, style, climate, tactics, phases Submit saves notes to a ‘report’ and takes user to the next page/frees Next. Notes remain on screen on ‘back’. Character limit in input box On Submit, user moves to next screen Report – want to see what words sit next to which parts of the framework – interested in finding out what they notice in the default sense. What sticks.
  • The bold text appears on the screen The lite text is a roll over of each, providing more information Relationship A new operator will mean new onsite contractors will take time to settle in, and the re-cycled ones lose motivation. Workplace relationships will need to be established on new terms. Reputation The desire to be perceived as an effective operator Cost savings The commercial upside of the negotiation, of 10% savings. Disruption The commercial downside of the negotiation, the costs of transition and loss of team cohesion and morale puts the benefits at risk, with potentially increased errors and lost productivity. Get it done The desire to resolve this in one meeting. Revenge The private drive for payback in lieu of past failed negotiations leading to a loss of independence Career The hidden motivator, where making these changes promotes perceptions of a capable and promotable manager User drags the correct needs into the appropriate drop zones, which are effectively quadrants - above and below the waterlines for both Adam and Jeff. When dropped they stick regardless of correct/incorrect . When dropped above the waterline, they turn black (colour-code for content). When dropped below the waterline, they turn green (colour-code for process)....................... Is this possible? When 7 th piece goes in, learner clicks submit’.
  • The bold text appears on the screen The lite text is a roll over of each, providing more information User drags the correct needs into the appropriate drop zones, which are effectively quadrants - above and below the waterlines for both Adam and Jeff. When dropped they stick regardless of correct/incorrect . When dropped above the waterline, they turn black (colour-code for content). When dropped below the waterline, they turn green (colour-code for process)....................... Is this possible? When 7 th piece goes in, learner clicks submit’. See next screen for feedback on submit and correct placement
  • The user has finished the drag drop exercise and learner clicks submit’. Mentor pop-up box appears with instruction for user to rollover on the images of Adam and Jeff, to activate feedback. On rollover, displays appear containing ens comments for either Adam or Jeff, Includes the instruction to select next. Adam Get it done: Drives Adam above the waterline. All task and no change management or perception of Jeff’s needs. Cost savings: Drives Adam above the waterline. He engages the legitimate commercial benefits, however this emerges as lop-sided with the absence of his awareness of risk, which is the disruption. Ironically, this is common ground between Adam and Jeff, who are protecting their needs for productivity in different ways. Career: Drives Adam below the waterline. His comment about “senior people watching”… suggests desire for success, and to be seen in a favourable light by his bosses. Whilst not talked about, it fuels his determination to complete the agreement, cutting short his willingness to understand all the issues. Ironically, a desire for protection and advancement of reputation is common ground between Adam and Jeff – Adam with his bosses and Jeff with those onsite. Jeff Disruption: Drives Jeff above the waterline. The fear of disruption through change is a threat to efficiency and team cohesion and morale at the site – something that Adam has not considered. Relationship : Drives Jeff above the waterline. He explicitly details the damage a change of this nature might bring. Revenge: Drives Jeff above and below the waterline. He talks about this directly in terms of having to educate the previous Managers, and his frustration (behaviour) shows it is deeply personal. He is determined to win one of these discussions. (NOTE THIS IS CORRECT IF ITS DROPPED ABOVE OR BELOW) Reputation : Drives Jeff below the waterline. He is not looking for promotion (like Adam), but its a pragmatic value of Jeff to make decisions that benefit all parties – onsite and head office.
  • Rollover text pops up in the text box: Style indicators Adam Words: red we’re making a move on it Well its your job to maintain standards If you spent more time thinking about finances, your efficiencies wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. Behaviours: red Looking away Smirking Head shake Jeff Words: red We have this little chat every year, and IO tell you the same thing Who for?… you – not for us. I’m telling you - its not even worth thinking about idiot, its not going to happen! Behaviours: red Finger pointing Eye contact Leaning forward Does this match your thinking? There are no right or wrong answers, just process observations. When you have compared yours and ens suggestions, select next. NOTE: For the ‘ Needs’ rollover , populate it with the feedback from the previous screen: Adam Execution: Drives Adam above the waterline. Get it done quick and easy, move on to other things for Adam. Not so easy for Jeff. Cost / benefit %: Drives Adam above the waterline. He engages the legitimate commercial benefits, however this becomes lop-sided with the absence of his awareness of risk, which is the disruption. Career: Drives Adam below the waterline. His comment about “senior people watching”… suggests desire for success, and to be seen in a favourable light by his bosses. Whilst not talked about, it fuels his determination to complete the agreement, cutting short his willingness to understand all the issues. Jeff Disruption: Drives Jeff above the waterline. The fear of disruption through change is a threat to efficiency and team cohesion and morale at the site. Status Quo: Drives Jeff below the waterline. His comment about “heart attack” suggest this is a personal challenge to him. Maintaining equilibrium makes life easier, less stressful. He would be the one who has to manage the change on site, not Adam. Rebel: Drives Jeff above and below the waterline. He talks about this directly in terms of having to educate the previous Managers, and his frustration (behaviour) shows it is deeply personal. He is desperate to win one of these discussions.
  • Rollover text pops up in the text box, as above:
  • 3 bold headings from below appear in the whitespace near Adam’s thumbnail. Rollover text highlights observations as below. Or do all in one pop-up… Preparatory – Adam has prepared time (when), place (where), who (Adam/Jeff), mode (face to face meeting). He has failed to prepare the ‘what’ (agenda) beyond a headline, or a ‘how’ - by not describing the process that may follow. Opening – There are 7 opening tactics: OP go first; remain silent; suggest what OP might want; set a pre-condition; make first demand high; make major demand at beginning; lock yourself in. Adam chose option 6 – make major demands at the beginning. Tactics in play : Fait accompli - tactic no. 43 - take unilateral action and wait to see if OP reacts. Adam’s approach of telling, not consulting, assumes his decision is a foregone conclusion, making Jeff scramble to claw back power. Make negative comments - tactic no. 22 – Adam responds to Jeff’s position by putting him on the defensive, through questioning his competence, and position. Appeal to authority – tactic no. 16 -Adam’s reference to ‘senior people’ who support what he is doing is intended to build a sense of corporate consensus with Adam, and isolate Jeff.
  • Rollover text. Prefer that the rollover was on the model itself, rather than the RHS text box, which could be left blank….. (agree) Introduction: This first step was underused and undervalued. No attempt was made to develop common ground. Discovery The information exchange about the dynamics and cost savings, and of the change of contractor disruption represent a very clear differentiation of position – but not much discovery. Solving The meeting ended at a test of wills – “Its not going to happen”. Adam and Jeff were unable to commence Solving, as the Discovery phase was incomplete. Awareness of phases provides a guide to working out what to do next. Settlement Negotiation has not reached settlement phase. With phases, you can move through them, regress back through them, but you can’t skip them. Stuck at Discovery, mutual Settlement is not possible.
  • Rollover text on images of Jeff and Adam Adam As per table Jeff As per table
  • Freeze frame of Neg close in background Mentor: So, back to our two negotiators. How could Adam and Jeff reach some kind of negotiated agreement? From a learning perspective, our choices right now are prevention and cure. Prevention means Adam (and Jeff for that matter) could have done more preparation. Cure means that they both have to extract themselves from the hole they have dug themselves into. You have a choice about what to do first. Smaller video screen with Hudson introducing the two paths Review the video segment only shows the interaction between Adam and Jeff, not the whole intro and it plays in the small screen. Blue buttons flip – if Jeff and Adam video playing, Listen to Michael Hudson is on screen; If MH is on screen, Review A and J button is on screen.
  • Mentor Any negotiation can get stuck at the point of decision. The question is: what to do about it, regardless of how you got there. Here are some suggestions. If you had to choose one, which would you choose? Text instruction: Choose one, then click ok, and we’ll offer some feedback on the impact we think they might have… Radio button M/C No right or wrong answer – NOTE: client wants results collected in a database. Survey feedback to user is too complicated. Feedback to ens possible on a monthly/quarterly basis? Feedback Any of these options could have a positive or negative effect – it depends on the strategy of the other party. That said, Stop, reconvene later, on-site. (place/climate). Slows down the process (in this case - blue), sends a blue signal about willingness to consult. Use RQ/OQ questions. (mood, needs) Changes the focus from telling to enquiry, hence the mood should lighten (blue), and the opportunity for identifying the needs of both parties opens up (blue) leading to a successful Discovery phase. Use lower red (R3?) to assertively stay engaged, and avoid looking weak. (style shift) This option describes Adam’s needs. It may also have the effect of reducing the strength of Jeff’s red style, allowing more engagement. Shifting to a completely blue style may entrench a win/lose approach from Jeff (“being tough works”) and encourage him to be tougher. Apologise for the lack of consultation (blue), but stick with decision (red). (style shift) Blue with process and red with message is typically a good combination. It is unlikely to work given that Jeff appears to have no need to repair the relationship with Adam. Look for common ground, lighten the mood. (needs, phases) Cycle backwards through phases to Introduction phase and do this more effectively, to establish some shared interests.
  • This slide to demonstrate the RQ/OQ wall. Not sure if this is in fact an extras slide………… Smaller video screen in this section so that we can have each option selected from the one screen. The option button starts the different pieces of the video. When they’ve looked at each, next is activated Review RQ/OQ ppt build – (file with builds sent under separate cover) Option 1 RQ/OQ 1 (Video exists – Alt 1) Option 2 RQ/OQ 2 (Video exists – Alt 2) Option 3 RQ/OQ 3 (Video exists – Alt 3) Option 4 RQ/OQ 4 (Video exists – Alt 5) Text on screen: One of many process options is to ask more questions. One tool for use in the face of resistance is the RQ/OQ combination. If you would like to review how the RQ/OQ process works, click the black box. Mentor to give short description as ppt builds roll through. No script necessary. when someone resists your solution, and places an obstacle in front of you – listen first for the positive blue component. resist and delay the temptation to engage the red use a reflective question to draw a ‘yes’ response based on the blue part of their comment, then an the open question to expand on it. once you have created a series of positives, you may have increased the appeal of solving their problem. use a hypothetical question – “what if” to take them into solutions. We have 4 here. Look at them, and which ones would you choose? User selects the one they think works – feedback to come up including comment to select Next to move to continue the activity. Feedback below Include a blank feedback box with the final text: RQ/OQ No. 1 – dumped RQ/OQ No. 2 – OK Jeff – I think I hear you - so you think I’m a bit of an idiot…. Adam got a yes with Jeff’s “if the cap fits” remark. Adam’s question may have been light-hearted, but it has also gone to the negative. It is also below the waterline, and tapped Jeff’s competitive need, strengthening his resistance. An effective RQ is based on Jeff’s need, and its safer to stay above the waterline of needs. RQ/OQ No. 3 – ok let’s say we need something more useful to talk about… Adam got the ‘yes’ he was looking for. And then the open question achieved a willingness to outline what is worth thinking about. Sarcasm aside from Jeff, this is still a good start, and better than the other alternatives. RQ/OQ No. 4 – so you’re saying there’s something else we should do…. Adam’s first RQ achieved a “no” in response. He will need to find another RQ question to ask to get a yes. Adam is still clearly working against Jeff’s resistance. Its not uncommon for the OP to resist the compliance of giving any type of yes answer. But if the RQ is well targeted, it is a good sign of a way forward.
  • Mentor RQ/OQ does take some practice, but once you get a handle on it, you will avoid many obstacles. And remember its a good precursor to hypothetical solutions. ‘What if’ statements work well when the foundation has been laid. Use full width video screen for this video segment Next is available when video piece ends – Next takes you back to (S17) as shown on next screen
  • Smaller video screen with Hudson introducing the two paths – if this is not the first time the user has been here, they can elect to play the video but its not playing automatically. If the user has completed one path, a tick appears on that button to show it has been completed. The user can look at it again if they choose but once they start it they have to click through it ie no back button to this decision screen. This is the decision point screen – Hudson gives an intro to the two possible ways ENS can come into play. User makes a choice between the two paths – following path is Prevention Conclusion button not available until both paths have been viewed. LHS text same as on screen 20
  • Use the full screen layout MH over the top of the model to RHS ‘ Select next to continue’ comes up on screen when video segment ends. Graphic needs to be redesigned in the style of the other ones. Mentor One of the problems with this negotiation is that Adam experienced exactly the negotiation he deserved. While we would like you to be agile during the face to face time, our biggest feedback is to do more in preparation. How is it that Adam tendered the contract, and the onsite manager was the last to know? Many forget that internal influencing is one of the most strategic negotiations you can undertake. Systematic Preparation would allow Adam to manage the whole process more effectively. Let’s wind back the clock and let Adam revisit the preparation process to identify a smoother path forward. As a way in, let’s review the 3 time-zones briefly: At this point– highlight Prepare the: Content (what) … Process (how) …. Mindset of OP. >80% value achieved away from the table Prepare content, process and OP mindset Rarely is there one meeting only – acting on commitments is also preparing for the next meeting.
  • Roll overs for each button This needs to be redesigned in the style of the other models Establish objectives : identify the needs of both parties and the objectives that follow. This includes identifying common ground and the negotiating range to work with. Test assumptions : Differentiate between what you know as fact, and what you assume to be true. For example, what rules might have changed, how are circumstances different, what stereotypes might be false, what language or culture could be misunderstood? Research facts : consider financial, comparative, statistical, market-driven data. What data will the OP know about, or be blind to? How do these translate to strengths and weaknesses? What about data on people, or the other negotiators? Define issues : differentiate issues for the OP, for you and for any other stakeholders. Prioritise issues by importance, strategic value, blind spots, deal makers or breakers. Decide positions : set your parameters around each issue – including range and concession-trading. Reconsider needs : separate above and below the waterline needs for both parties. Develop Strategy : plan out how you will apply and respond to style, climate, tactics and phases. What strategy influences the other party? What strategy would be a problem for you is the OP played it? Rehearse options : Practice delivery of everything you have planned. Step into yours and the OP shoes through role play. Practice getting language right, and remaining confident as needed. Negotiate: During the negotiation, always remember to be a process observer. See image on Right first and then highlight yellow part
  • Show pop-up prep table over the black squares. Use the green button to trigger further Adam voiceover, and to activate the rollover Adam’ talks to camera. Adam’s script: My first step was to do this…. get manual / blow dust off…. And I realise now after giving myself the time to engage it, that I must overlook so much strategic value when I try to “wing it” – which I usually do... What did you notice about my content preparation.... ? Its 2 columns – preparing my case and Jeff’s – and preparing Jeff’s first so that I don’t lock myself into my own assumptions, and more easily identify some common ground that we may share. For the first two green process steps, this means dipping into the central model – working through needs, style, climate, tactics and phases. Model image appears next to those 2 steps And this e-learning module has been helping you to handle that process. Rehearsing has helped me avoid getting sucked into Jeff’s tough guy attitude, and to even sidestep triggering it in the first place. And when I get into the face to face discussion, I’ll keep that process helicopter hovering, right where the ceiling fan might be. Transition to next screen
  • Full video screen with MH over freezeframe of the alternate ending video Transition to Alternate ending – next screen Mentor script Adam’s preparation won’t guarantee him success, but perhaps you can see they hold great potential for shifting the mindset of Jeff before he arrives. Let’s show you how it could have been different. Without being too prescriptive, we hope you will see the fruits of his labours in his new approach.
  • Alternate ending piece (not this screen shot obviously!)
  • Conclusion button only becomes active once both paths have been chosen. Now.... We’ve completed both paths. AS a conclusion, your job is to reflect on your negotiating skills at present and identify at least one ‘do well’ and one ‘do differently’ that is drawn from your recent work experience. It may be an upcoming negotiation that you are preparing for. And if you are half way through one, perhaps you can still influence the path ahead... Stop for a minute now and type in what you think... Click next
  • Input box for user’s own reflection Submit Button saves comments to report and takes them to the next screen ENS to obtain consolidated report of what people type in – monthly / quarterly... Limit the number of characters
  • Hudson to write the script he wants to finish with. Ideas include: thanks for sticking with us lifelong learning print workbook of your inputs Watch out for other e-learning modules where we delve deeper into the strategy Call us for a workshop, to support your negotiating team, for some 1-1 support On completion of the video segment Exit program becomes available Print report opens a new window with the report which can then be printed – may be view report TBC

Storyboard 8 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Intro screen
  • 2.  Back   Next  Refresher training Select play to watch the video ( When the video has finished, the following instruction appears: Select next to continue.
  • 3. Refresher training Select play to watch the video ( When the video has finished, the following instruction appears: Select next to continue.  Back   Next 
  • 4. Adam Johnson, Procurement manager Goal: reduce supplier costs by 10%. Current status: 3 suppliers passing pre-qualification Deadline: due for renewal next month Select play to watch the video Select next to continue  Back   Next 
  • 5. Jeff Madison, Operations manager, on site Goal: re-sign current vendor - ECS Current status: heard rumour ECS have had to re-tender Deadline: due for renewal next month Select play to watch the video Select next to continue  Back   Next 
  • 6.  Back   Next  Adam Johnson Procurement Manager Jeff Madison Operations Manager Be the process observer Select play to watch the video Select next to continue
  • 7. Outcome? Content / Process? Needs of both parties? Styles used? Climate? Tactics? Phases? Select play to watch the video Select next to continue  Back   Next 
  • 8.  Back    Next  Work your way around the ENS Process Framework, thinking of Jeff and Adam’s comments or behaviours that reflect the model dynamics. Type your thoughts into the notebook opposite. When you have completed your reflection, select submit. Preparation Input box for notes Submit
  • 9.  Back    Next  Looking at needs only, we have identified six issues that might be affecting the course of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. Roll your mouse over each of the needs identified for more information. Select next to continue Get it done Revenge Career Relationship Disruption Cost savings Reputation
  • 10.  Back    Next  Some needs are stated and some are hidden. Identify which are Adam’s stated and hidden needs by dragging them into the appropriate area under his image. Then do the same for Jeff. Select submit when you have completed the task. Get it done Revenge Career Relationship Disruption Cost savings Submit Adam Drop zone – Drop zone - Jeff Drop zone – Drop zone - Reputation
  • 11.  Back    Next  Identify which are Adam’s needs and which are Jeff’s needs by dragging them into the space below their names. Select submit when you have completed the task. Submit Feedback Adam Get it done: Drives Adam above the waterline. All task and no change management or perception of Jeff’s needs. Cost savings: Drives Adam above the waterline. He engages the legitimate commercial benefits, however this emerges as lop-sided with the absence of his awareness of risk, which is the disruption. Ironically, this is common ground between Adam and Jeff, who are protecting their needs for productivity in different ways. Career: Drives Adam below the waterline. His comment about “senior people watching”… suggests desire for success, and to be seen in a favourable light by his bosses. Whilst not talked about, it fuels his determination to complete the agreement, cutting short his willingness to understand all the issues. Ironically, a desire for protection and advancement of reputation is common ground between Adam and Jeff – Adam with his bosses and Jeff with those onsite. x Adam Drop zone - Jeff Drop zone - Get it done Revenge Career Relationship Disruption Cost savings Reputation Jeff Disruption: Drives Jeff above the waterline. The fear of disruption through change is a threat to efficiency and team cohesion and morale at the site – something that Adam has not considered. Relationship : Drives Jeff above the waterline. He explicitly details the damage a change of this nature might bring. Revenge: Drives Jeff above and below the waterline. He talks about this directly in terms of having to educate the previous Managers, and his frustration (behaviour) shows it is deeply personal. He is determined to win one of these discussions. Reputation : Drives Jeff below the waterline. He is not looking for promotion (like Adam), but its a pragmatic value of Jeff to make decisions that benefit all parties – onsite and head office.
  • 12.  Back    Next  Style indicators Adam (thumnail) Words: red we’re making a move on it Well its your job to maintain standards If you spent more time thinking about finances, your efficiencies wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. Behaviours: red Looking away Smirking Head shake ens Process Framework Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. When you have investigated the model, select next. Jeff (thumbnail) Words: red We have this little chat every year, and IO tell you the same thing Who for?… you – not for us. I’m telling you - its not even worth thinking about idiot, its not going to happen! Behaviours: red Finger pointing Eye contact Leaning forward
  • 13.  Back    Next 
    • Climate observations:
    • Time
    • At short notice
    • Rushed meeting duration
    ens Process Framework Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. When you have investigated the model, select next.
    • Place
    • Off-site at head office
    • In neutral meeting room
    • 111
    • Mood
    • Rapport underused and undervalued.
    • Informing rather than consulting
    • Words/behaviour quickly escalate
  • 14.  Back    Next  Adam only Preparatory – Adam has prepared time (when), place (where), who (Adam/Jeff), mode (face to face meeting). He has failed to prepare the ‘what’ (agenda) beyond a headline or a ‘how’ with a view to the process that may follow. Opening – OP go first; remain silent; suggest what OP might want; set a pre-condition; make first demand high; make major demand at beginning; lock yourself in - chose option 6 – make major demands at the beginning. Tactical options: Fait accompli - tactic no. 43 - take unilateral action and wait to see if OP reacts. Adam’s approach of telling, not consulting, assumes his decision is a foregone conclusion, making Jeff scramble to claw back power. Make negative comments - tactic no. 22 – Adam responds to Jeff’s position by putting him on the defensive, through questioning his competence, and position. Appeal to authority – tactic no. 16 -Adam’s reference to ‘senior people’ who support what he is doing is intended to build a sense of corporate consensus with Adam, and isolate Jeff. ens Process Framework Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. When you have investigated the model, select next.
  • 15.  Back    Next  How far through the 4 phases were Adam and Jeff able to progress? ? Introduction: This first step was underused and undervalued. No attempt was made to develop common ground. Discovery - The information exchange about the dynamics and cost savings, and of the change of contractor disruption represent a very clear differentiation of position – but not much discovery. Solving - The meeting ended at a test of wills – “Its not going to happen”. Adam and Jeff were unable to commence Solving, as the Discovery phase was incomplete. Awareness of phases provides a guide to working out what to do next. Settlement - Negotiation has not reached settlement phase. With phases, you can move through them, regress back through them, but you can’t skip them. Stuck at Discovery, mutual Settlement is not possible. ens Process Framework Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. When you have investigated the model, select next.
  • 16.  Back    Next  What types of outcomes were Jeff and Adam focused on here? Adam thumbnail Short term: Gain agreement from the meeting. Control the business. Long term: to maximise profitability Content: Save cost Process: is represented by the assessments you have been making over the last few screens. Jeff thumbnail Short term: Stop the change in the meeting. Win out over Head Office. Long term: Retain long-standing on-site relationships and efficiences Content: Avoid disruption Process: is represented by the assessments you have been making over the last few screens. ens Process Framework Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction. When you have investigated the model, select next. Content Short Long Quick go ahead Maximise profitability Process Quick meeting to announce. Not on his agenda Content Short Long Stop the change Maximise efficiency Process Argue the case, however long it takes Business as usual
  • 17.  Back    Next  You have a choice about what to do: Select Prevention to explore the Systematic Preparation path. Select Cure to consider options for moving forward from this red/red impasse. . What can we learn from this situation? Cure Review Adam and Jeff’s meeting. Prevention Listen to Michael Hudson.
  • 18.  Back    Next  Process changes offer us unlimited strategic choices. From the list of actions opposite, which choice would you make? Cure
    • Mini-survey
    • Stop, reconvene later, on-site. (place/climate)
    • Use RQ/OQ questions. (mood, needs)
    • Use lower red (R3?) to assertively stay engaged, and avoid looking weak. (style shift)
    • Apologise for the lack of consultation, but stick with decision. (style shift)
    • Look for common ground, lighten the mood. (needs, phases)
  • 19.  Back    Next  One of many process options is to ask more questions. One tool to use in the face of resistance is the RQ/OQ combination. Here you can see four versions. Select each option to see what happens. When you have watched each one, select the one you would prefer to use. Select next to continue. Cure Screen populates with diff video clips as they are selected Review the RQ/OQ process RQ/OQ No. 2 RQ/OQ No. 3 RQ/OQ No. 4 SOLVING ---> HQ RQ to redirect OQ RQ OQ RQ OQ RQ DISCOVERY Sounds good… but it will cost a lot of money Sounds good … … but it will cost a lot of money
  • 20.  Back    Next  Conclusion to Cure. There are an unlimited number of process options to help make a shift. Select next to continue. Cure
  • 21.  Back    Next  You have a choice about what to do: Select Prevention to explore the Systematic Preparation path. Select Cure to consider options for moving forward from this red/red impasse. What can we learn from this situation? Prevention Cure  Review the video segment Conclusion
  • 22.  Back    Next  Prevention Select next to continue.
    • Manage the 3 key time zones.
    • Adam:
    • prepared the content
    • was short-sighted on the process
    • failed to understand Jeff’s mindset
    Three Key Time Zones
  • 23.  Back    Next  At each step, systematically prepare the viewpoints of both sides. Roll the mouse over each step to see a brief definition. Click here to see where this model connects with the 3 timezones . Text box Prevention Three Key Time Zones
  • 24.  Back    Next  The outcomes of Adam’s preparation. Roll your mouse over the black pieces to see Adam’s preparation. Click here, to get Adam to tell you how he prepared process. Prevention Select next to continue.
  • 25.  Back    Next  Adam’s ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s Adam and Jeff try again
  • 26.  Back    Next  Adam’s ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s Adam and Jeff try again
  • 27.  Back    Next  You have a choice about what to do: Select Prevention to explore the Systematic Preparation path. Select Cure to consider options for moving forward from this red/red impasse. When you have completed both sections, select Conclusion. What have we learned from this situation? Prevention  Cure  Review the video segment Conclusion
  • 28.  Back    Next  Your ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s List three things you can do right now to prepare better for your next negotiation. Type your thoughts into the notebook opposite. When you have completed your reflection, select submit.
    • Do well
    • .
    • Do differently
    Submit Preparation/Pre-Negotiation
  • 29.  Back    Next  Our ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s You can print the notes you made against the various activities by selecting the ‘Print report’ below. Print report