…Negotiate Better Results!Corporate Social Responsibility, Effective GrievanceMechanisms, and Stakeholders Engagement Stra...
…Negotiate Better Results!percent of management time and energy is spent dealing with anger, which leads todecreased produ...
…Negotiate Better Results!of action on their concerns, and angry if they feel either they must do something or have toquit...
…Negotiate Better Results!Others mention that cooptation that have developed collaborative conflict managementsystems repo...
…Negotiate Better Results!sector; as well as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Environmental and SocialStandards, ...
…Negotiate Better Results!Designing Effective Grievance Mechanisms and Dispute Resolution Systems as aStakeholders Engagem...
…Negotiate Better Results!implement new processes and procedures which can introduce organizational change willlikely run ...
…Negotiate Better Results!An important step in process design is deciding who should be involved in the process, whoshould...
…Negotiate Better Results!with concerns the design team would take those consideration and work further on it and,if there...
…Negotiate Better Results!top of the evolving context of companies CSR responsibilities and subsequent capacityneeded to r...
…Negotiate Better Results!       L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J, Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building       handbo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ORASI Consulting Group 2011 Luis Ore


Published on

Corporate Social Responsibility, Effective Grievance Mechanisms, and Stakeholders Engagement Strategies as Competitive Advantage

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ORASI Consulting Group 2011 Luis Ore

  1. 1. …Negotiate Better Results!Corporate Social Responsibility, Effective GrievanceMechanisms, and Stakeholders Engagement Strategiesas Competitive AdvantageBy Luis E. Oré, Consensus Building, Negotiation & Relationship Management ConsultantAssociation for Conflict Resolution’s International Section, Chair 2010-2011Many think that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is about the way in which companiesdecide to allocate profits; however, it is not about philanthropy, it is about how companiesare managed. For some, CSR is about protecting human rights and observing fair labornormative standards; for others, the main concern deals with environmental and socialconcerns. For those in the public sector, CSR deals with the concept of sustainabledevelopment. Others look at CSR as initiatives to reduce or eliminate the social deficitassociated with globalization. Regardless of how organizations frame CSR, it is applicable toall types of businesses; regardless of the business’ size, there is always room forimprovement. In fact, companies that implement a set of best practices and policies tomanage strategically their impacts and externalities are more likely to endure than thosethat do not.It’s not uncommon to find unsatisfied corporate’ stakeholders, whether they are internalstakeholders (for example, workers and employees) or external stakeholders (forexamples, local communities), many speak up and raise their voices about their grievances,concerns, worries, aspirations, and other motivation, and some stakeholders express theirgrievances, concerns and interests “behind-the–scenes” or what some may say under thesurface through “informal means” – perhaps building up a sense of dissatisfaction or evenanger. Stakeholders may even get together and protest in from of facilities or participate inrallies in public squares and streets. Some express their concerns regarding the processesand procedures that may see as ineffective to handle those grievances and concerns.Dealing with Internal Stakeholders & Grievance MechanismsWhen we consider internal stakeholders such as workers dealing with peers andsupervisors and diverse challenging situations they may have at their workplace, workersdo not have many alternatives to address their concerns. Many realize that the effects ofconflict in the workplace are widespread and costly. In the U.S. approximately, 24 to 60_____________________________________________________________________________________* Luis E. Oré is director and senior consultant with ORASI Consulting Group Inc., a training and developmentconsulting firm specializing in negotiation, consensus building, relationship management, and conflict prevention.Oré assists businesses with cross-cultural and international negotiations, strategic alliances, organizationalchanges, dispute resolution system design, and foreign direct investment, especially between the United States ofAmerica and Latin-American countries. Oré has Masters of Arts degree in conflict management and inorganizational communication, a J.D. from the University of Lima (Peru), and extensive training in negotiation andconflict management from CMI International Group, Western Kentucky University, Lipscomb University, and theProgram on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Luis Oré serves as Chair of the Association for Conflict Resolution’sInternational Section, collaborates with the Consensus Building Institute and diverse committees with the AmericanBar Association, he can be contacted directly via email: luis.ore@orasicg.com www.orasicg.com
  2. 2. …Negotiate Better Results!percent of management time and energy is spent dealing with anger, which leads todecreased productivity, increased stress among employees, hampered performance, highturnover rate, absenteeism, and at its worst, violence and even death. In fact, conflict is agrowing industry and distracts us from our purpose, whatever it may be. Many say “weneed to work together” but in fact most do not have the skills to do it effectively. If teams orunits run into a conflicting situation they may not know how to handle it properly and theirmembers will not accomplish the results they are aiming to reach. When organizationsinvolve legal counsel or outside attorneys to deal with conflicting situations, it is mostlikely that they will accomplish high skyrocketing legal bills. Besides time, energy, andresource consumption, there are other challenges that workplace differences and conflictsbring about. Conflict handling processes and procedures affect employees’ satisfaction,employees’ moral, and employees’ turnover rates, and even the way they handle their owndifferences.When organizational members, whether employees, staff or management deal withconflicting situations they don’t have many alternatives to deal with those challenges andconcerns. If one adds the complexity of cross-cultural factors that most organizations areexposed to, things get worst. When dealing with organizational or workplace conflict andemployee-management issues and relations, most organizations use an open-door policy ora formal grievance procedure for handling employees concerns with an adjudicating rightsapproach (rights-based approach) and some forward thinking organizations use somelimited alternative dispute resolution procedures such as internal mediation to deal withsome of these challenges. These are some concerns:Concerns about Open Door Policy: Besides having a great opportunity to help employeesdeal with their conflicts at the closest level to the issue, an open door policy, sometimes canlead to frustrating situations because decisions might be made based on an adversarialapproach of what is right. A rights-based approach might bring about win-lose situationsthat at times can escalate conflicts. Sometimes a supervisor or the appropriate person whoassists the employee in resolving an issue is not equipped or trained with proper problem-solving and conflict management skills. Diversity is also an issue that affects how peopledeal with differences; cultural awareness and competence dealing with conflict should alsobe considered for training.Concerns about Rights-Based Procedure, Formal Grievance Procedures andAdjudicating Rights Approach: “The most common characteristic of people (employees)who have a concern or grievance is that they just wish their problems would go away –they ‘do not want any process.’ People with concerns and complaints fear loss of privacyand respect with supervisors, coworkers, even families. Sometimes, people with complaintsfear they do not have enough evidence to prevail in a formal investigatory procedure.Sometimes they value the relationship they have with the reason they see as the source oftheir problem, and fear this relationship (and other relationships) will be placed at risk ifthey file a grievance. Considering workplace conflicts, many complainants aresimultaneously uncomfortable about doing nothing, uncomfortable about taking any kind www.orasicg.com
  3. 3. …Negotiate Better Results!of action on their concerns, and angry if they feel either they must do something or have toquit. In general, from experience and mounts of research, people (employees) who want toraise a concern or complaint overwhelming want different options to address their issues,and prefer their own choice of options when appropriate.Of course, there are situations and problems, such as criminal behavior, which requireformal procedures. However, there are lots of reasons why people don’t want to use theseformal procedures. For instance, people with concerns and complaints fear loss of privacyand respect with supervisors, coworkers, even families. Sometimes, people with complaintsmay fear they do not have enough evidence to prevail in a formal investigatory procedure.Sometimes they value the relationship they have with the reason they see as the source ofthe problem, and the relationships they have inside and outside the workplace, and fearthese relationships will be placed at risk if they file a grievance. People just want theproblem to stop.Concerns about a Limited Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure: Sometimesorganizations decide to use alternative dispute resolution procedures but many times theseprocedures are utilized for a short list of issues and most of the times these procedures arenot in place as a first step in grievance processes. If a limited alternative dispute resolutionprocedure for a closed list of few issues is used after a right-based approach has beencompleted, parties involved in a conflict will likely have battle mind-sets and will dig intotheir positions which will make this dispute resolution process less efficient. It may be toolate to turn grievances and employees concerns to an efficient process such as mediation.Employees just want the problem to stop. What about your organization differences-handling approaches, conflict-management procedures, dispute resolution mechanismsand policies for dealing with conflict? How are they working for you? How are theorganization’s human resources and legal procedures helping you reduce the costs andconsequences of conflict? How is the organizational members’ diversity and cross-culturaldifferences handling approaches affecting your work and organizational performance?How is your current conflict management system helping your organization to engageemployees, reduce expenses and risk, and increase productivity?Regardless of unionized or nonunionized organizations, employees look of effective waysfor dealing with their challenges. In a Gallup survey of attitudes toward union participation,90% of the respondents agree that employees should have some type of organization fordiscussion and resolving concerns with their employees. As Kochan and Osterman (1994)affirm that, “this results suggests that the vast majority of Americans recognize the needfor effective employee voice at the workplace, even if some question the effectiveness oftraditional unions as the instrument of this voice (…) America currently suffers from a“representation gap” in the labor force and in the American workplaces” (p.143-144).Interestingly, a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse and Cornell’s PERC Institute onConflict resolution of over 530 corporation in the fortune 1000 category revealed that 90%of respondents view alternative dispute resolution as a critical cost-control technique. www.orasicg.com
  4. 4. …Negotiate Better Results!Others mention that cooptation that have developed collaborative conflict managementsystems report significant litigation costs savings, for instance, Brown & Root reported an80% reduction in outside litigation costs, Motorola reported a 75% reduction over a periodof six years, and NCR reported a 50% reduction and a drop of pending lawsuits from 263 in1984 to 28 in 1993.As Kochan and Osterman assert “Achieving competitiveness at high standards of livingrequires a high rate of growth in productivity, product innovation, and adaptability tochanging markets. This in turn requires corporate strategies that give high priority todeveloping and fully utilizing the skills of the work force.” (1994, p.6) There is no doubtthat effective internal mechanisms for dealing with internal challenges, differences anddisputes as part of a corporate social responsibility strategy will foster a better workenvironment, a better place in which organizational member can produce, innovate andadapt to change.Dealing with External Stakeholders & Grievance MechanismsWhen we consider external stakeholders (such as host communities) dealing withcompanies developing investment projects (such as oil, gas, mining, energy, hydroelectric,dam, infrastructure, agro-industry) in their communities and the interests, concerns orfears they may have, many times community members tend to organize protests againstcompanies trying to implement investment projects. Stakeholders may engage in a “legalfight” using the legal system, administrative procedures or the court system to block thedevelopment or implementation of projects. Communities may also try to engage in directtalk with companies however many times these conversations are approached by multipleparties with an adversarial mindset or an antagonistic framework which result in impassesand conversations’ break down.Many stakeholders and local communities are demanding companies to manage the socialand environmental impacts of their operations. Traditional public relation and adversarialresponses, as well as the lack of strategic capacity to constructively engage stakeholdersconcerns may leave companies vulnerable not only to legal and reputational risks but alsoto social risk and social conflict which can prevent companies from operating efficientlyand incurring significant losses. Incorporating CSR practices into management ofoperations may serve to mitigate and reduce those risks. It’s key to manage social risks.It is well-known that companies that do good will do better, better at creating shareholdersvalue and better at avoiding conflicting confrontations with stakeholders. Leading andforward thinking companies have realized that by doing good they do better, consequentlyseveral multinational mining and other extractive industry companies have voluntarilyengaged in standard setting initiatives to manage the social and environmental dimensionsof their operations. This is also in alignment with the Environmental and Social Standardsof (IFC), which we know that many development projects need to comply with theEnvironmental and Social Standards of the International Financial Company (IFC), aninstitution of the World Bank Group that is responsible for transactions with the private www.orasicg.com
  5. 5. …Negotiate Better Results!sector; as well as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Environmental and SocialStandards, the Equator Principles (Financial industry standard for managing social andenvironmental risk in project financing) and the ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Standards.For instance, World Bank’s International Financial Company requires that all projects withpotential significant adverse social or environmental impact (Category A) and someprojects with potential limited adverse social or environmental impacts (Category B)include grievance mechanisms as part of its management system. This is crucial becauseforeign investors can include effective grievance mechanisms, not only rights-basedapproaches but also interest-based approaches, which can produce more sustainable andpositive results and strengthen working relationships with diverse stakeholders.Stakeholders will continue scrutinizing companies operations and spotlight their impacts.If companies don’t engage stakeholders concerns they may develop reputational damageand losses. Whether company operations are related to hydroelectric power andinfrastructure development in the Amazon jungle or extractive industry dealing with oil,gas, or mining in the Andean region, Conflict Resolution practitioners and CSR Practitionershave to advise the company and community to engage constructively with one another toprevent conflict and resolve crisis. Constructive engagement should consist of economic,environmental and social costs and benefits of the project, and deliberating mutual gainsoutcomes integrating the interests and concerns of companies and stakeholders.Companies may conduct conflict prevention due diligence, social risk and stakeholdersassessment, set standards initiatives, develop consensus building strategies, consult withaffected communities, obtain communities consent before initiating operation or obtaininga social license. Thinking through what is important for companies’ endurance, long-termbenefits, and competitive advantage, organizations of all sizes should design andimplement stakeholders’ engagement strategic systems, processes and procedures.What can we do about dealing with stakeholder grievances? Can we do better? Would it bepossible engaging stakeholders in a more positive fashion? If so, how do we accomplishthis?Yes. It can be done. Companies can build winning organizations to last. Companies andorganizations can help strengthening organizational members and stakeholder capacity toaddress their concerns in a more positive and constructive way. Companies andorganizations can engage their stakeholders to design, develop and implement moreeffective mechanisms and systems for dealing with stakeholders’ grievances and concerns.They can engage and build dispute resolution systems. Effective dispute resolution systemswill retain and attract top talent, provide positive environment, improve corporate-community relations, increase brand benefits by promoting reputation for beingresponsible, and create a competitive advantage that allows them to differentiatethemselves from the competition in an economy with shrinking markets shares anderoding profit margins. www.orasicg.com
  6. 6. …Negotiate Better Results!Designing Effective Grievance Mechanisms and Dispute Resolution Systems as aStakeholders Engagement and CSR Strategy part of the Organizational ManagementSystemAs with any organizational change effort, it will require hard work and commitment, butmost importantly it needs stakeholder engagement and ownership. As Jim Sebenius put it,“The difference between successful and unsuccessful change efforts is the quality of thenegotiations that shape them. Without negotiation, you cannot get genuine agreement, andwithout agreement, sustainable change is impossible. Negotiation is a means of advancingthe full set of your interests by jointly decided action. Effective negotiation leads to optimalsolutions and winning coalitions.” (Sebenius,1995).A Dispute Resolution System is a coordinated set of processes or mechanisms that interactwith each other to prevent, manage, and/or resolve disputes, conflicts and grievances. Thedesign of a dispute resolution system would imply an intentional effort to harnessresources, processes, and capabilities to achieve a set of specified objectives for the disputeresolution system. Based on Ury, Brett and Goldberg work (1993) a conflict managementbig picture would show three different approaches to resolving disputes:  Reconciling interests: trying to meet the needs, concerns, desires, and fears –things that one cares about or wants. (Interest-base approach)  Adjudicating rights: looking to some independent standard with perceived legitimacy to vindicate who is “right” or “correct”. (Right-base approach)  Using power: using one’s leverage to force or coerce someone to do something. (Power-base approach)In this sense, an effective dispute resolution system suggests that most disputes should behandled with an Interest-base approach, when this approach does not resolve the matter athand, disputing parties should try to resolve their differences through a Right-baseapproach, and less conflicting situations should be addressed with Power-base approaches.In general, an effective conflict resolution process clarifies the disputing parties’ interests,builds a good working relationship, generates good mutual gains options, is perceived aslegitimate, is cognizant of the parties’ procedural alternatives, improves communicationand leads to wise commitments. Bordone, R. (2008) asserts that the following are the stepsfor designing a system: (1) Conduct a conflict or stakeholder assessment. (2) Ascertain system objectives and establish priorities among them. (3) Develop the new system, working in concert with relevant stakeholders. (4) Implement the system, building in sufficient education and training along the way. (5) Evaluate the system and modify in accord with changing needs and objectives of the organizational/institutional stakeholders.Before engaging in the dispute resolution design effort, an organization and its leadershipneed to seriously consider what they really want and the reasoning that explains theirinterests. It may be helpful trying to answer the question: What do they want and why thisis important to them? What’s the purpose? All initiatives, strategies or plans intended to www.orasicg.com
  7. 7. …Negotiate Better Results!implement new processes and procedures which can introduce organizational change willlikely run into organizational resistance. According to Decaro (1996) before deciding toeither implement or propose a strategy for an organizational change it is required toanalyze the situation. It is necessary to analyze what the current situation is, what thedesired state is, and what issues could interfere with the organizational change. Amongthose possible interferences, a crucial one is to find out if there is a challenge related to thefact that the organization does not want to change or part of it wants to change while theother part does not. Maybe some organizational members want to change but others not.Do they want to change? If organizational members do not want to change it will beextremely difficult to change, they will resist to the change. Therefore, it is important tounveil the interests, issues, and beliefs of these members that resist the change. Decaro(1996) argues that one thing that reveals existing interests, issues, values and beliefs inconflict is the inconsistency of the messages, especially between what it is said and what itis done, or between what it is said and done in a moment and what it is said in anothermoment but with similar circumstance. When messages are inconsistent, two positions ofthe same entity express its thoughts, and then confusion is generated. The key is to listen toand allow organizational members to express the ideas or interests that provoke theirbehavior. Thus, it is important to unveil what causes those behaviors. It is crucial to have ashared understanding and know what the organization and individuals want and whattheir purpose is.Continuing with the steps for designing a system, the goals and objectives of an stakeholderassessment are: to identify stakeholder; to understand stakeholders interests (understoodas the motivation underlying their positions including aspiration, wishes, hopes, desires,expectations, concerns, fears, worries, and anything that might be at stake); to maprelationships and connections between stakeholders; and to map the nature of the disputesin or with the organization. Considering this last objective, it is important to highlight thatit is crucial to clearly understand what the disputes are about, how the disputes arehandled and why the disputes are handle that way.Several authors make emphasis on the principles for design and implementation; we have,for instance, the Six Principles of Dispute Systems Design: 1) Put the focus on interests. 2)Build in “loop-backs” to negotiation. 3) Provide low-cost rights and power backups. 4)Build in consultation before, feedback after. 5) Arrange procedures in a low-to-high-costsequence. 6) Provide the necessary motivation, skills, and resources.” (Ury, Brett, &Goldberg, 1993, p.41-64), and the Six Principles for Guiding Design Architecture: 1)Develop guidelines for whether ADR is appropriate. 2) Tailor the ADR process to particularproblem. 3) Build in preventive methods of ADR. 4) Make sure that disputants have thenecessary knowledge and skill to choose and use ADR. 5) Create ADR systems that aresimple to use and easy to access and that resolve disputes early, at the lowestorganizational level, with the least bureaucracy. 6) Allow disputants to retain maximumcontrol over choice of ADR method and selection of neutral whenever possible.(Constantino & Merchant, 1996, p.120-121). www.orasicg.com
  8. 8. …Negotiate Better Results!An important step in process design is deciding who should be involved in the process, whoshould be part of this dispute resolution system design effort? To begin a stakeholders’assessment, the right people need to be identified, who the stakeholders might be. Theorganizational leadership needs to inquire who of these following people may be: Who arethe stakeholders with formal power to make a decision? Who are the stakeholders with thepower to block a decision? Who are the stakeholders affected by a decision? Who are thestakeholders or people with relevant information or expertise?In order to begin the stakeholders’ assessment, the organization’s leadership needs tointroduce the consultant, facilitator or person conducting the stakeholder assessment, thiscan be done via a formal communication or a letter to the identified stakeholders statingthat the assessor will be helping the organization with a new initiative to fulfill a corporatesocial responsibility interests and some voluntary operation standards comply and willengage in conversation with some of the employees.Once the stakeholders have reviewed the assessment report, the report will represent thewillingness of the stakeholders to engage in a consensus building effort to move forward tocreate a new conflict management system. The report of the assessment will have thepotential issues to be included on a tentative agenda to work on. With the commitment ofthe leadership of the organization to take on this endeavor and a set of proposed groundrules, the organization leadership will need to set up a time to bring together thestakeholders that need to be at the table to tackle this task on the first facilitated meeting.The stakeholder assessment will produce a set of stakeholders and people that need to beat the table as part of the design of the new system. The assessment will give us the rawmaterial of interests that will shape the tentative agenda for the “process design team” andit will include the proposed ground rules for their interaction, a timetable and a tentativework plan. With this information, the members of the “process design team” will engage ina constructive, consensus building dialog to joint-problem solve, which will be used toshare interests, generate options to meet those interests and discuss relevant objectivecriteria and principles of fairness to select the options that will create the conflictmanagement system and effective grievance mechanism. An important initial step is towork with the “design team” members to help them learn and internalize the diverse rangeof conflict management approaches, alternatives and systems, which will expose them toinformation and give them an opportunity to experience negotiation, mediation and otheralternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This capacity building segment will ultimatelyprovide them with the accurate information to help them make informed decisions duringthe design and implementation process of the new system.Once the new conflict management systems or grievance mechanism has been agreed on,the stakeholders or members of the design team will take the agreed result of theirdeliberation to their “constituents”, the stakeholders they represent or voice in the designteam (some call these represented stakeholders the “second tables” they represent) to havetheir feedback about any concern the constituents might have, if they have any feedback www.orasicg.com
  9. 9. …Negotiate Better Results!with concerns the design team would take those consideration and work further on it and,if there are not further concerns, the conflict management systems or grievancemechanisms would be finalized and ready to be implemented. The next step would be toimplement it and later evaluate its use and effectiveness.In order to have the new system successfully implemented and to help organizationalmembers, internal and external stakeholders internalize and use the new system, aneducation campaign should be launched, potential users will need to be either informed,educated or trained, depending on their degree of engagement, and simultaneously create areward and incentives system to get people using the new system and foster a neworganizational culture while modeling behavior, experiencing and sensing the benefits ofthis new system. A new and innovative culture might be created and continuousimprovement can result as simultaneous consequence of a new organizational conflictmanagement culture.After the new system is in place and being used by diverse stakeholders, there is a need forevaluation. After the design, development and implementation of a dispute resolutionsystem, the results need to be evaluated. Researchers and practitioners have establisheddiverse criteria for evaluating the system. In this sense, Ury, Brett & Golberg (1993)considers it important to evaluate the transaction costs, satisfaction with outcomes, effecton relationships and the recurrence of disputes. Constantino & Sickles-Merchant (1996)considered the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction. They measured each ofthese elements differently efficiency is measured by change in costs and time, effectivenessby the nature of the outcome, the durability of the resolution and the effect on theenvironment; and lastly, satisfaction measures the degree of satisfaction with the process,the relationship and the outcome. Finally, Susskind (1993) takes another look andevaluates the outcomes produced by the system based on how fair, efficient, stable andwise the outcomes are. Fairness is measured by the perception of the outcome as legitimatein terms of substance and process; efficiency is consider with respect to the process (lowcosts and speedy) and with respect to substance (the most integrative and value –creatingoutcome); stability of the outcome is measured by the degree of compliance of theoutcomes, in this sense stakeholder do not expend resource looking for “ways out”; andfinally, the wisdom of the outcome is measured based on what is known at the time theoutcome is reached and how wise it is.A Conclusion on stakeholders’ engagement strategies as competitive advantageThis article is about the core business function of a company and attempts to address theincreasing demands of corporation, companies, and organizations’ stakeholders thatcompanies be held accountable for the social and environmental internal and externalimpact of their operations. Stakeholders include employees, shareholders, consumers, andcommunities in which companies operate. Corporate Social Responsibility is a strategicresponse to the changing nature of stakeholders’ expectations. Stakeholders expectcompanies to abide by a wide range of standards and a strategy to engage stakeholders todesign, develop and implement dispute resolution systems will help organizations be on www.orasicg.com
  10. 10. …Negotiate Better Results!top of the evolving context of companies CSR responsibilities and subsequent capacityneeded to respond to social and environmental standard, grievance mechanisms, andeffectively address stakeholders’ expectations. ReferenceABA Section of International Law (2010). The CSR Journal: Legal Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility, January 2010Bordone, R. (2008). Dispute system design: An introduction. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 2008. Symposium. Harvard Law School. March 7, 2008Constantino, C. A., & Merchant, C. S. (1996). Designing conflict management systems: A guide to creating productive and healthy organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.Fisher, R. , & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond Reason: Using emotions as you negotiate. New York: Pinguin Group.Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.Kochan, T. A., & Osterman, P. (1994). The mutual gains enterprise. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA: Harvard Business School PressORASI Consulting Group (2010). ORASI Consulting Group, services and results http://www.wiserearth.org/uploads/file/0539962adfd5e073ab5dbfbb1671c8e8/ORA SI%20Consulting%20Group%20SERVICES.pdfOré, L. (2009). Cross Cultural Negotiation & Consensus Building Strategies for Foreign Investment Projects: Beyond Legal Systems. State Bar of Texas ADR Section’s Alternatives Resolutions Newsletter Vol.18, No.2, 27-34 pp. http://www.wiserearth.org/uploads/file/78ace89e643adbd327d11f1337f94a23/CRO SS-CULTURAL_NEGOTIATION_AND_CONSENSUS- BUILDING_STRATEGIES_FOR_FOREIGN-INVESTMENT_PROJECTS%20Luis%20Ore.pdfSebenius, J. K. (1995) Negotiating corporate change. Harvard Business School Publishing Video Series. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Publishing. VideoSusskind, L. , & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your meetings, build consensus, and get results.. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.Susskind, L. , & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). Conducting a conflict assessment. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J, Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 99-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems, and make decisions. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc.Straus, D. (1999). Designing a consensus building process using a graphic rod map. In www.orasicg.com
  11. 11. …Negotiate Better Results! L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J, Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 137-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J, Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 591-630). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ury, W. , Brett, J. , & Goldberg, S. (1993). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. www.orasicg.com