Downloaded 22 times
More Related Content
Similar to General mngt skills (2)
General mngt skills (2)
- 1. Linda Mohamed Balboul GeneralManagement Skills
- 2. “Our deepest fearis not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There is nothing enlightened in shrinking so that other people might feel insecure around you. We were all meant to shine as children. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” Marianne Williamson in Return to Love Often mistakenly attributed to Nelson Mandela
- 3.
- 4. A Leadership Story (Storyadapted from Stephen Covey (2004) “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” Simon & Schuster).
- 6. Leadership – TheDefinition “Leadership is the process of influencing others to achieve the organisational goals” “Leadership is an interaction between the leader, the followers, and the situation” Manager says “Go!”, leader says “Let’s go!” Leader knows the way, shows the way, & goes the way.
- 7. Leader Vs. Manager Leader Manager -Innovate - Administer - Develop - Maintain - Inspire - Control - Have long-term view - Have short-term view - Ask what and why - Ask how and when - Originate - Imitate - Challenge status quo - Accept the status quo - Do the right things - Do things right
- 8.
- 9. Functions Performed byManagers
- 10. Are All LeadersManagers?
- 11. Quality of aPerfect Leader Creative and disciplined Visionary and detailed Motivational and commanding Directing and empowering Ambitious and humble Reliable and risk-taking Intuitive and logical Intellectual and ethical Coaching and controlling Inspiring Be not a perfect leader, only an effective one! Be not a perfect leader, only an effective one!
- 13.
- 14. Leadership Theories GreatMan Theory Trait Theory Behavioural Theories Contingency Theories
- 15. Great Man Theory Assumptions Leadersare born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need. Description Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. Discussion The 'great man' theory was originally proposed by Thomas Carlyle. Gender issues were not on the table when the 'Great Man' theory was proposed. Most leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than leadership.
- 16. Trait Theory (1800s– 1940s) Assumptions People are born with inherited traits. Some traits are particularly suited to leadership. People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits. Description Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders. Ralph Stogdill (Handbook of leadership,1974) identified the following traits and skills as critical to leaders.
- 17. Behavioural Theory (1940s– 70s) Assumptions Leaders can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based in definable, behaviour. learnable Description If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the more temporary 'traits' or 'capabilities'. Discussion A behavioural theory is relatively easy to develop, as you simply assess both leadership success and the actions of leaders. With a large enough study, you can then correlate statistically significant behaviours with success. You can also identify behaviours which contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding.
- 18. Contingency Theory (Fred Fiedler) Midas(Golden touch) make unsuccessful decisions sometimes Assumptions The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of followers and also various other situational factors. Description Contingency theories are a class of behavioural theory that contend that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around them change. Discussion Contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.
- 19. Leadership Styles Leadership Style:the patterns of how a leader interacts with his/her followers. “Leadership style impacts the motivations of employees, either positive or negative.” The 6 leadership styles: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Coercive Authoritative Affiliative Democratic Pacesetting Coaching
- 21. 1. Coercive Style •Why: – Obtaining immediate compliance • How: – – – – – Provides clear directives – no empathy Tightly control situations Use occasional attention-getting strategies Emphasises the negative Focus on getting the job done • Slogan: “Do what I tell you!” “You must do this NOW!”
- 22. 2. Authoritative Style •Why: – Mobilising people toward a vision. • How: – – – – Develop a clear vision Obtain people’s perspective Empower and delegate Set standards & monitor performance – Use balance of positive & negative feedbacks • Slogan: “This is where we’re going & why.” “Come with me.”
- 23. 3. Affiliative Style •Why: – Promoting harmony and collaboration among working groups. • How: – – – – Promote friendly interactions Put people first & tasks second Try to meet people’s emotional needs Identifies opportunities for positive feedback – Provide job security & work/life balance • Slogan: “People come first.” “Everyone must get along.”
- 24. 4. Democratic Style •Why: – Building group consensus & commitment through group-management in making decisions. • How: – – – – – Give people full participation Emphasise the importance of consensus Include all view in the decision-making Listen to group for ideas Reward group rather than individual • Slogan: “What do you think” “Let’s see what the group wants to do”
- 25. 5. Pacesetting Style •Why: – Setting high performance standards and getting quick results from a highly motivated & competent team. • How: – Lead by example – Allow individual to work independently – Delegates demanding tasks to only outstanding performers – Exert tight control over poor performers – Promote individual effort rather than teamwork • Slogan: “Do as I do.” “This is how it must be done! WATCH ME!”
- 26. 6. Coaching Style •Why: – Developing people for future performance. • How: – Help employees identify their performance strengths & weaknesses – Work with individuals to establish long-range goals – Encourage people to solve their own work problem – Treat mistakes as learning opportunities • Slogan: “Try this!” “Let’s see how can I support you!”
- 27. Using the RightStyle “There is no certain guideline to be an effective leader.” “There is no a fixed way to fit all situations.” •Effective leaders consider – The skill level and experience of the team – The work involved – The organisational environment – Your own preferred or natural style A good leader will find him- or herself switching instinctively A good leader will find him- or herself switching instinctively between styles according to the people and work they are dealing between styles according to the people and work they are dealing with. with.
- 28. Six steps ofCharismatic Leadership Process Mahatma Gandhi as an example of his leadership in India’s non-violent freedom movement Step 1: Identification It is a stage where the aspiring leader is on the social horizon; the followers are in distress and are looking forward to someone who will identify himself with their problems. The social situation is increasingly getting worsened in this stage. This is the time when the leader establishes him as a potential leader but the followers, by large, remain passive. In Gandhi’s leadership this can be said to have taken place during the years 1915-1920 when Gandhi was back to India from South Africa. India had no tall leader whom it could depend on and Gandhi’s charisma was just started showing its colors
- 29. Step 2: ActivityArousal In this step the leader arouses the follower to become the part of the change. Followers who were passive admirers of the leader till the earlier phase become active supporters of the leader and the cause for which he is identifying himself. The longer this stage lasts the longer is a span of the charismatic leadership. In Gandhi’s case this step lasted from 1920 till 1930. Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement in 1921 is a precise example of activity arousal stage where he awakened the whole country to rise against the British rule Step 3: Commitment 1. Demonstrating the extreme commitment of the leader towards the goal and same commitment from the followers towards the leader. 2. This demonstration often takes the shape of some kind of sacrifice on the part of the leader or impending danger on the leader. This sacrifice or danger makes the image of the leader as courageous and dedicated in the eyes of many followers. 3. Interestingly, this same act makes some of the elite followers disillusioned and they start suspecting their leader as pompous and hypocrite. 4. This is the stage where the leadership can be split into two categories as a personalized leadership and socialized leadership. 5. In either way, the personalized leader will become dictator and will lose his charisma and the socialized type of leader will help routinizing the leadership! 6. The example for personalized leader can be of Hitler who ultimately became a dictator. Gandhi can be seen as a socialized type of leadership.
- 30. Step 4: Disenchantment Thisphase is quite unavoidable and sometimes even intentional on the part of the leader. Sometimes, because the leaders themselves know that they are not immortal, they try to bring the routinization in the leadership. This routinization brings the feel of loss of goal to some followers. This step may lose some of the strongest followers from the leader. This step is also an outcome of the scenario when the leader seems to be failing. As the charismatic leaders are not very good at the formal procedural leadership more routinization brings more failure and more disenchantment of the followers. In Gandhi’s case disenchantment started from 1933 and lasted till 1938 in which stage he lost many of his old followers Step 5: Depersonalisation This step is a logical follower of the earlier step of disenchantment. The leadership style becomes more and more like bureaucratic leadership. The leader starts delegating his tasks to his followers. This phase comes in Gandhi’s leadership during 1938-1942. This is the period when he made it clear that Jawaharlal Nehru will be his political heir. It is the time when he withdrew himself partly from the active politics
- 31. Step 6: Alienation 1. 2. 3. 4. Inthis step, due to the formalization and bureaucratization of the leadership, charismatic leadership becomes increasingly redundant. The followers feel that the organization and the leader are going away from the initial goal and thus they start alienating themselves from the organization and the charisma of the leader fades as the social situation which has made him appeal to the masses has changed. This stage does not necessarily mean the failure of the leader. In many cases, having achieved the goal for which the charismatic leader had risen, the leader becomes redundant for his followers and the goal itself becomes redundant for the leader. Years 1942-1948 show this phase in Gandhi’s leadership. Though Gandhi remained popular and worshiped leader of India till his assassination, his charisma faded gradually in his last years Weber, Maximillan. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Chapter: "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization" translated by A. R. Anderson and Talcott Parsons, 1947.
- 32. Sources of Power Thispower comes from being the technical or project management expert This power comes from another person liking you, respecting you or wanting to be like you
- 34. The Blake MoutonManagerial Grid
- 35. Blake & MoutonManagerial Grid Best Country Club “Laissez-faire” type Team management type The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style, which was added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt whichever behavior offers the greatest personal benefit. The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid Produce or theory before 1999. In The Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate perish Middle-of-the-road “Authority” between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers using this style type praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking. type C ) wo L( Impoverished type (Low) Concern for Production (High)
- 36. Motivation • Motivation: A sortof tool that provides direction, intensity, and persistence. Key Elements Direction: guidance for beneficial goal Intensity: how hard a person tries Persistence: how long a person tries
- 37. Motivation Theories McGregor’s TheoryX and Y (Douglas McGregor 1960) Theory Z: William Ouchi Theory X Theory Y Managers who accept this theory believe that people need to be watched all the time. Employees are incapable, avoid responsibility and avoid work whenever possible Managers who accept this theory believe that people are willing to work without supervision and want to achieve. Employees can direct their own effort.
- 38. Maslow’s Hierarchy ofNeeds Abraham Maslow: A Theory of Human Motivation 1943 Self-Actualisation Esteem Belonging Safety Physiological
- 39. McClelland’s Acquired-Needs Theory DavidMcClelland The Achievement Motive (1953): proposes that .people acquire needs through their life experiences Achievement - Power - Affiliation Need for Achievement ( (nAch Need for Power ( (nPower These people should be given projects that are challenging but reachable They like recognition People whose needs for power is socially oriented rather than personally oriented are effective leaders and should be allowed to manage others They like to organise & influence others Need for These people work best when cooperating with others (Affiliation (nAff They seek approval rather than recognition
- 40. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory )FredrickHerzberg: “Motivation to Work” (1953 Job-Content Factors = Motivators Job-Context Variables = Hygiene Factors Hygiene Factors Motivators Salary Achievement Technical supervision Recognition Company policies and administration Responsibility Interpersonal relations Advancement Working conditions The work itself Adapted from Table 12–3: Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory McGraw-Hill/Irwin
- 41. Why Motivation? Direct behaviourtoward particular goals. Lead to increased effort and energy. Increase initiation of, and persistence in, activities. Enhance rational processing. Determine what consequences are reinforcing Lead to improved performance. Motivated employees always look for better ways to do a job. Motivated employees are more quality oriented. Motivated workers are more productive.
- 42. Delegation Why: Free time forother activities Develop followers Strengthen the organisation Why not: Delegation takes too much time Delegation is risky The job will not be done as well The task is a desirable one Other are already too busy
- 43.
- 44. Tuckman’s Stages ofGroup Development
- 45. Stages of GroupDevelopment (cont.)
- 47. Space Shuttle Challengerdisaster Because NASA had already that the Challenger explosion not It is important to notedelayed the launch for weather, it waswas One of the most well-known examples of groupthink can be entertaining the idea of postponing of second rocket booster caused by the hardware failure it a a solidtime for severe found in the Space chose to Challenger disaster, which weather conditions. NASAShuttle rely on test results on the o-rings (SRB) o-ring, but the decision system was NASA on that made by despite Thiokol's warning that the on Januaryalso unreliable occurred just after liftoff 28, 1986. day was also flawed Pressures were put on Thiokol engineers to conform to NASA's desire to launch, so they deal to hold a private meeting. Within five While you may not asked with life-or-death situations in the minutes, Thiokol agreed, without please know that groupthink can groups that you are a part of, any further objections, to proceed with the launch lead to ineffective decisions that can have negative consequences. The faulty from NASA to recommendeve of the Challenger in a Pressure decision making on the a launch placed Thiokol launch wouldthe day before a concerned Thiokol would brave men and difficultsoon prove to be the launch, NASA had received from On position; many were fatal mistake. Seven be expelled a the women lost their lives do what NASA was groupthink. program if they did not that day due to asking of them. warning from Thiokol - the subcontractor directly responsible forathe development of the group, o-rings SRB allowing Finally, having private meeting isolated the concerning the abnormally cold temperatures expected groupthink to run its course in the group of Thiokol engineers. Up to for the Thiokol the launch and the potential threat the this point, day ofhad stayed with its recommendation to cancel to launch, but once it wouldthat insistence diminished. performance isolated, bring to the o-ring.
- 48.
- 50. Interpersonal Communication Oral Communication –Advantages: Speed and feedback. – Disadvantage: Distortion of the message. Written Communication – Advantages: Tangible and verifiable. – Disadvantages: Time consuming and lacks feedback. Nonverbal Communication – Advantages: Supports other communications and provides observable expression of emotions and feelings. – Disadvantage: Misperception of body language or gestures can influence receiver’s interpretation of message.
- 51. Communication Model (Theory) Thesender is responsible for making information clear and complete so that the receiver can receive it correctly, and for confirming that it is properly understood. Noise Encode Decode Sender Medium Decode Receiver Encode Noise
- 52. Intonations: It’s theWay You Say It!
- 53. Grapevine (gossip/rumour) • GrapevineCharacteristics – Not controlled by management. – Perceived by most employees as being more believable and reliable than formal communications. – Largely used to serve the self-interests of those who use it. – Results from: • Desire for information about important situations • Ambiguous conditions • Conditions that cause anxiety
- 54. Communication Types Formal written Formalverbal Informal written Informal verbal •Complex problems •Project management plans •Project charter •Memos •Communication over long distances •Making changes to a contract •Informing a team member of poor performance (2 nd notice) •Clarifying a work package •Presentations •Speeches •Conducting a bidder conference •E-mail •Hand-written notes •Meetings •Conversations •Milestone parties •Requesting additional resources •Trying to discover a root cause of a problem
- 55. Communication Methods • Interactive Communication • PushCommunication • Pull communication – Most efficient way to ensure a common understanding – one person provides info and the other one receives it and respond. – E.g. meetings, phone calls, video conferencing – Does not certify that it is reached or understood – one way stream of info – one person sends info to people who need and doesn’t expect feedback. – E.g. letters, email, press release, faxes, voice mail – Used for very large information volumes, very large audiences – the project manager places the info in a central location for others to retrieve it; hence, “pulling”. – E.g. intranet site, e-learning
- 56. Communication Blockers Many projectmanagers UNKNOWINGLY introduce communication blockers into their projects. 1.The use of slang, jargon, or phraseology that is indigenous to one’s culture can cause miscommunication with other cultures. 2.“What’s your game plan?” 3.“The nuts and bolts of the…” 4.“Zero in on the problem” 5. Such negative comments, as “What a bad idea”, “This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard” ALSO can hamper effective communication.
- 57.
- 58. Conflict Defined Aprocess that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about. Encompasses a wide range of conflicts that people experience in organisations: – Incompatibility of goals – Differences over interpretations of facts – Disagreements based on behavioural expectations
- 59. Conflict Management According toone survey, managers Spend about 25% of their time dealing with conflict Rates conflict management as important as communication, motivation, and decision making Concept of loss: conflicts occur because people fear losing something important.
- 60. Conflict Management Is conflictbad? Should we spend time preventing the root causes of conflict? Who should resolve the conflict? Reasons of conflict: 1.Schedules 2.Project priorities 3.Resources 4.Technical opinions 5.Administrative procedures 6.Cost 7.Personality
- 61. Functional vs. dysfunctionalconflict • Conflict is functional when it stimulates creativity, challenges group-think, indifference and improves the quality of the decision. • Conflict is dysfunctional when it delays communication, reduces group cohesiveness, subordinates group to individual goals or threatens the group's survival.
- 62. Conflict Management Confronting (Problem Solving) Compromising Meanssolving the real problem so that the problem goes away Win-win situation Finding solutions that bring a degree of satisfaction to both parties Lose-lose situation Withdrawal (Avoidance) Smoothing (Accommodating) The parties retreat or postpone the decision. NOT the best choice in solving conflict Emphasises on the points of agreement rather than the difference in opinion Collaborating Forcing Trying to incorporate multiple viewpoints in order to lead to consensus Pushing one view at the expense of others (the WORST kind)
- 63. Negotiation Negotiation: “Is theart, science & wisdom of reaching an agreement by differences through creativity” resolving (Creative Negotiating, Stephen Kozicki, Adams Press, 1998) Text-book Definition: “A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.”
- 64. Five Negotiating Facts Youare negotiating all the time Everything you want is owned or controlled by someone else There are predictable responses that you can count on in the negotiating process There are three critical factors in every negotiation: power, information, time. The proper “mesh” of personality types is important to the negotiating success
- 66. Bargaining Strategies Distributive Bargaining“positional” Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources (fixed pie); a win-lose situation; zero-sum game The key question is: “Who is going to get this resource?”
- 67. Distributive Negotiation Example “CarBuying” When buying a car (Positional Bargaining) the buyer buys car for less than dealer cost. Will this be problematic for the buyer? No, because the dealer accepts the deal (perhaps, to reduce inventory and obtain cash flow).
- 68. Bargaining Strategies Integrative Bargaining“principled/interestbased” Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution. The key question is: “How can the resource be best utilised?” Is less confrontational than distributive negotiation, and permits a broader range of alternative solutions to be considered. Opportunity for a true win-win solution
- 69. Integrative Negotiation Example “PeaceTreaty” Egypt-Israel negotiated a peace in 1978 1. Egypt insisted on sole sovereignty of Sinai 2. Israel insisted on keeping some of Sinai 3. With each side only considering their own position, they were unable to negotiate a deal If positional bargaining doesn’t work, how can Israel and Egypt make a deal?
- 70. Solution: Principled Negotiation The1978 Egypt-Israel Peace Negotiations was: (Principled Negotiation) Egypt insisted on sole sovereignty of Sinai Israel insisted on keeping some of Sinai By finding difference in underlying motivation Egypt: territorial integrity; Israel: security Solution: give land to Egypt; establish demilitarised zone for Israel (creative option)
- 71. Bargaining Zone Model YourPositions Initial Target Resistance Area of Potential Agreement Resistance Target Initial Opponent’s Positions
- 72. Fisher & Ury’s1981 ”Principled Negotiation” Separate the people from the problem Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on objective criteria
- 73. The Negotiation Process Knowthe “BATNA” The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement The lowest acceptable value (outcome) to an individual for a negotiated agreement The “Bottom Line” for negotiations
- 74. 1. Preparation &Planning Do your homework. • • • • What are your interests? What are theirs? How can you find out? What’s your BATNA? What’s theirs? Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse “deadlock”. What do we know about their circumstances that might affect the negotiations? Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy.
- 75. 2. Definition ofGround Rules – Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? – To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? – During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.
- 76. 3. Clarification &Justification – When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, expand, clarify, reinforce, and justify your original demands – This need not be confrontational. – You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position.
- 77. 4. Bargaining &Problem Solving The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give and take in trying to reach an agreement. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.
- 78. 5. Closure &Implementation The final step — formalising the agreement Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.
- 79. ... defining roleswithin a team Roles Responsibilities leader •conducting the negotiation •ruling on matters good guy/girl •showing understanding for the opposition bad guy/girl •intimidating the opposition •stopping the negotiation hardliner •keeping the team focused •emphasising difficulties sweeper •bringing all views together •suggesting ways out of a deadlock Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.21
- 80. ... using seatingtactically BAD GUY GOOD GUY BOSS HARDLINER SWEEPER Your team Opposing team Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.28
- 81. ... using seatingtactically GOOD GUY BOSS HARDLINER BAD GUY SWEEPER Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.28
- 82. Global Implications Conflict andCulture – Japanese and U.S. managers view conflict differently – U.S. managers more likely to use competing tactics while Japanese managers are likely to use compromise and avoidance Cultural Differences in Negotiations – Multiple cross-cultural studies on negotiation styles, for instance: • American negotiators are more likely than Japanese bargainers to make a first offer • North Americans use facts to persuade, Arabs use emotion, and Russians used asserted ideals • Brazilians say “no” more often than Americans or Japanese • Experience has shown that people from various cultural backgrounds react very differently to silence: For example: If there is silence • • Americans assume the other party is angry with them Japanese are simply evaluating what they have just heard
- 83. Unethical Negotiating Tactics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Lies TheDecoy/The Red Herring Cherry Picking The Deliberate Mistake The Erroneous Conclusion The Default Escalation/ Raising demands Planted information Lock-in tactic
- 84.
- 85. Ploys • • • • • • • • • • • • A is forAristotle’s Appeals B is for BATNA C is for the Coquette Principle D is for Dumb Is Smart E is for Emotional Ambush F is for Fait Accompli G is for Gallipoli H is for Hot Potato I is for the Iroquois Preparation Method J is for Just See If I Don’t… K is for Knowing Your Opponents L is for Later, or, I’ll Think About It And Get Back To You Later
- 86. Ploys, continued.. • • • • • • • M isfor Modest Diffidence N is for Needs Not Positions O is for Obligation P is for Power Ploys Q is for Questions R is for Reluctant Player S is for Salami • • • • • • T is for Tentative Overtures U is for Uncertainty V is for Variables W is for Writing the Agreement X is for Xchanging Concessions Y is for Yikes, You’ve Got To Be Kidding • Z is for Zipped, or Keeping Your Mouth Zipped
- 87.
Editor's Notes
- #7 Sun Tzu's The Art of War Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, The Art of War is a military strategy book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organisation and an opponent's. Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as advice for the city of Florence, Italy. Machiavelli recommended that leaders use fear—but not hatred—to maintain control. THE fame of Niccolo Machiavelli rests mainly on his II Principe, written probably about 1514, but not published until 1532, five years after the death of the author. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of Nations aims for efficient organisation of work through Specialisation of labour. Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day, Smith analysed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10 specialists, enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.
- #16 Thomas Carlyle commented that "The history of the world is but the biography of great men", reflecting his belief that heroes shape history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration. In his book On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, Carlyle set out how he saw history as having turned on the decisions of "heroes", giving detailed analysis of the influence of several such men (including Prophet Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon). Carlyle also felt that the study of great men was "profitable" to one's own heroic side; that by examining the lives led by such heroes, one could not help but uncover something about one's true nature. The validity of the assertion that groups flourish when guided by effective leaders can be illustrated using several examples. For instance, according to Baumeister et al. (1988), the bystander effect (failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends to develop within groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in groups guided by a leader. Moreover, it has been documented that group performance, creativity and efficiency all tend to climb in businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make is not always positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling their own agendas at the expense of others, including his/her own followers (e.g. Hitler, Josef Stalin). Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing stringent and manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but usually do so through negative means.
- #17 Discussion There have been many different studies of leadership traits and they agree only in the general saintly qualities needed to be a leader. For a long period, inherited traits were sidelined as learned and situational factors were considered to be far more realistic as reasons for people acquiring leadership positions. Paradoxically, the research into twins who were separated at birth along with new sciences such as behavioural Genetics have shown that far more is inherited than was previously supposed. Perhaps one day they will find a 'leadership gene'. Ralph Stogdill, (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free Press
- #19 This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the 'Midas touch' or “the Golden touch’ suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions. The Fiedler contingency model is a leadership theory of industrial and organisational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler (born 1922), one of the leading scientists who helped his field move from the research of traits and personal characteristics of leaders to leadership styles and behaviours. Least preferred co-worker (LPC) According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented) and high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. The contingency theory allows for predicting the characteristics of the appropriate situations for effectiveness. Three situational components determine the favourableness of situational control: 1.Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates. 2.Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured. 3.Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself. Examples Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), they may waste so much time in the disaster, that things get out of control and lives are lost. Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's position power is strong if management backs their decision. Finally, even though the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be extremely strong if they can gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership is preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style. The considerate (relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in an environment where the situation is moderately favorable or certain. For example, when (1) leader-member relations are good, (2) the task is unstructured, and (3) position power is weak. Situations like this exists with research scientists, who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented.
- #22 provide clear directives: it’s an order. Set for people without soliciting their input or listening to their reactions mentioned the negative over the positive when providing feedback. Clearly indicates the negative consequences of an subordinate’s failure to comply.
- #23 Obtains subordinate perspective on the vision & how to achieve it, without leaving doubt as to who is in charge.
- #25 give people full participation in setting the direction of the work & establishing the plans to achieve it
- #26 Exerts tight control over poor performers by explicit task instruction or removing work when performance is not adequate Promote the individual effort rather than teamwork
- #27 A leader using this style likes to manage the growth of all employees by focusing on their strengths & weaknesses & developing action plans to support career goals.
- #28 1: routine or new and creative 2: stable, radically changing, conservative or adventurous, in-crisis
- #33 Power is a measurement of an entity's ability to control its environment, including the behaviour of other entities. The term authority is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Much of the recent sociological debate on power revolves around the issue of the enabling nature of power. A comprehensive account of power can be found in Steven Lukes Power: A Radical View where he discusses the three dimensions of power. Thus, power can be seen as various forms of constraint on human action, but also as that which makes action possible, although in a limited scope. Much of this debate is related to the works of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984), who, following the Italian political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), sees power as "a complex strategic situation in a given society social setting". The best forms of power are the Reward and the Expert. Penalty is the worst. Formal, referent and penalty are powers derived from the PM’s position in the company. Expert power is earned on your own.
- #36 Five Management Styles The grid is divided into five possible management styles: Country-club manager Impoverished manager Middle-of-the-road manager Team manager Produce-or-perish manager The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the x-axis and concern for people as the y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership styles are as follows: The indifferent (previously called impoverished) style (1,1): evade and elude. In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to preserve job and job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions. The accommodating (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply. This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive. The dictatorial (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and dominate. With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management. The status quo (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and compromise. Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve suitable performance but doing so gives away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are met. The sound (previously, team style) (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style, high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company. The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style, which was added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt whichever behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit. The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid theory before 1999. In The Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking.
- #37 Key Elements Direction: guidance for beneficial goal Intensity: how hard a person tries Persistence: how long a person tries
- #38 Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job. According to Dr. William Ouchi, a Japanese Management theorist in the 1980s, Theory Z management tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction.
- #39 Basic Human Needs Food Water Air Clothing Shelter Sex Safety and Security Protection Stability Pain avoidance Routine/order Social Needs Love Affection Acceptance Friendship Needs of association Inclusion Esteem Self-respect Self-esteem Attention Appreciation Respect from others Self actualisation Achieve full potential Growth Learning Fulfillment Maslow based his study on the writings of other psychologists, Albert Einstein and people he knew who clearly met the standard of self actualisation. Maslow used Einstein's writings and accomplishments to exemplify the characteristics of the self actualised person. He realised that all the individuals he studied had similar personality traits. All were "reality centred", able to differentiate what was fraudulent from what was genuine. They were also "problem centred", meaning that they treated life’s difficulties as problems that demanded solutions. These individuals also were comfortable being alone and had healthy personal relationships. They had only a few close friends and family rather than a large number of shallow relationships. One historical figure Maslow found to be helpful in his journey to understanding self actualisation was Lao Tzu, The Father of Taoism. A tenet of Taoism is that people do not obtain personal meaning or pleasure by seeking material possessions. When Maslow introduced these ideas some weren't ready to understand them; others dismissed them as unscientific. Sometimes viewed as disagreeing with Freud and psychoanalytic theory, Maslow actually positioned his work as a vital complement to that of Freud. Maslow stated in his book, “It is as if Freud supplied us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half.” (Toward a psychology of being, 1968) There are two faces of human nature—the sick and the healthy—so there should be two faces of psychology Maslow is seemingly known as a revolutionary psychologist because of his ability to set out the right way for future psychologists. He helped to answer and explain the following questions: Why people do not self-actualise even if their basic needs are met? How can we humanistically understand the problem of evil
- #40 Need for Achievement (nAch): The desire to do something better or more efficiently, to solve problems, or to master complex tasks. Need for Power (nPower): The desire to control other persons, their behaviour, or to be responsible for other people. Need for Affiliation (nAff): The desire to establish and maintain friendly and warm relations with other persons.
- #41 Hygiene factors help to prevent dissatisfaction (dis-ease) – thus the term hygiene as it is used in the health field Only motivators lead to satisfaction Efforts to motivate human resources must provide: Recognition A chance to achieve and grow Advancement Interesting work
- #45 The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent models. Adjourning and transforming. In 1977, Tuckman, jointly with Mary Ann Jensen, added a fifth stage to the 4 stages: adjourning, that involves completing the task and breaking up the team.
- #48 Perhaps one of the most well-known examples of groupthink can be found in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which occurred just after liftoff on January 28, 1986. If you were alive at that time, you may have watched this horrific tragedy unfold on live TV. But what most people did not know about that day was the events that led up to the explosion and how they would forever change the lives of the seven crew members onboard the Challenger on that fatal day. It is important to note that the Challenger explosion was caused by the hardware failure of a solid rocket booster (SRB) o-ring, but the decision made by NASA on that day was also flawed. The decision was simple (to launch or not to launch), the decision was flawed, and the decision was final. On the day before the launch, NASA had received a warning from Thiokol - the subcontractor directly responsible for the development of the SRB o-rings - concerning the abnormally cold temperatures expected for the day of the launch and the potential threat to performance it would bring to the o-ring. Because NASA had already delayed the launch for weather, it was not entertaining the idea of postponing it a second time for inclement weather conditions. NASA chose to rely on test results on the o-rings despite Thiokol's warning that the system was also unreliable. Pressures were put on Thiokol engineers to conform to NASA's desire to launch, so they asked to hold a private meeting. Within five minutes, Thiokol agreed, without any further objections, to proceed with the launch. Remaining on schedule for the launch took priority over safety that day. Both parties feared public and political response to another launch cancellation. Any rationale offered to NASA to delay the launch was immediately dismissed. Pressure from NASA to recommend a launch placed Thiokol in a difficult position; many were concerned Thiokol would be expelled from the program if they did not do what NASA was asking of them. Finally, having a private meeting isolated the group, allowing groupthink to run its course in the group of Thiokol engineers. Up to this point, Thiokol had stayed with its recommendation to cancel the launch, but once isolated, that tenacity diminished. This faulty decision making on the eve of the Challenger launch would soon prove to be a fatal mistake. Just moments after the Challenger launched, the o-ring failed and the Challenger exploded. Seven brave men and women lost their lives that day due to groupthink. While you may not deal with life-or-death situations in the groups that you are a part of, do know that groupthink can led to ineffective decisions that can have negative consequences. By taking the steps mentioned earlier to reduce the chances of groupthink, you and your groups will have a much higher chance of avoiding groupthink-related negative outcomes.
- #52 Effective listening: The receiver should decode the message carefully and CONFIRM the message is understood. This includes: Watching the speaker to pick up physical gestures and facial impressions Thinking about what to say before responding Using active listening (HURIER method): The conceptualisation that describes effective listening as made up of the following six components: Hearing, Understanding, Remembering, Interpreting, Evaluating, and Responding.
- #63 Problem solving (the DAIPIR) method: Define the problem Analyse the problem Identify solutions Pick a solution Implement the solution Review and confirm that the solution has solved the problem
- #73 Members of the Harvard Negotiation Project, Fisher and Ury focused on the psychology of negotiation in their method, "principled negotiations", finding acceptable compromise by determining which needs are fixed and which are flexible for negotiators.
- #84 The Decoy The other side can use the Decoy Gambit to take your attention away from what is the real issue in the negotiation. The Red Herring The Red Herring Gambit is a further twist on the Decoy Gambit. With the Decoy, the other person raises a phony issue to get concessions on a real issue. With the Red Herring, the other person makes a phony demand that he will subsequently withdraw, but only in exchange for a concession from you. If the Red Herring distracts you, it will deceive you into thinking that it's of major concern to the other side when it may not be. The classic example of the use of a red herring came during the Korean War armistice talks (1950 – 53). Very early in the talks the parties concerned agreed that each side would be represented at the table by officials of three neutral countries, along with their own national negotiators. The South Korean side selected Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland as their three neutral negotiators. The North Koreans chose Poland and Czechoslovakia, but couldn't seem to choose a third. They suggested that the talks start, and they would identify a third country later. What they were really doing was leaving an opening for the Red Herring Gambit. When the time came and they had set the stage, they announced their selection for the third country: The Soviet Union. The international outcry was unanimous: "The Soviet Union? Now wait a minute. The Soviet Union isn't a neutral country." The North Koreans responded by saying that the Soviets were not directly involved in the conflict, and there was no reason for them to be considered biased. They waged the battle of the Red (pardon the pun) Herring for quite a while, until the situation became absurd. The North Koreans continued to insist that they couldn't understand what the objection was to using the Soviet Union as a neutral third party, until the objections of the South Koreans seemed as ludicrous as the demands of the North Koreans. The negotiations had stalemated Just as it seemed that the pointless arguing would continue forever, the North Koreans announced that they would abandon their insistence on having the Soviets at the negotiating table, but they expected a reciprocal concession. Both sides had agreed earlier that during the negotiations, neither side would rebuild their airstrips. The North Koreans realized later that this left them at a severe disadvantage because we could fly planes off aircraft carriers, but they needed their runways. So the North Koreans decided that it was time to use the Red Herring Gambit and suggested the Soviet Union as the third neutral country. Now it was time to name the price: They would concede and choose a different country to represent them, but only if the South Koreans would waive the restriction on rebuilding the airfields. The North Koreans never seriously thought that we would agree to letting the Soviet Union be part of the negotiations. However they were able to magically create a bargaining issue out of thin air and then trade it off later for an issue about which they really cared. Cherry Picking Cherry Picking is a gambit that a buyer can use against a seller with devastating effect, unless the seller is a Power Negotiator and knows his or her options. If you're thinking of acquiring a new piece of equipment for your company, you can use Cherry Picking to your advantage. Shop around and accumulate information before you make a decision. Call up companies and have all their sales people come in and make a presentation to you. You'll find that one has a good point in a particular area, perhaps a fast shipment. Another has a low price and a third has a good guarantee. So, from all these interviews, you piece together the ideal piece of equipment. Then you go back to the one you like best and say, "I'd like to buy your equipment except that I want to get the longer guarantee. Or I want to get the faster shipping." In this way, you create the type of deal and the kind of contract that you want. So, buyers should push for itemized contracts whereas sellers should avoid it. Because Cherry Picking is to me an unethical gambit, the perpetrator is less likely to do it to someone he knows and trusts than he is to a comparative stranger. So, sellers can forestall this tactic by building a personal relationship with the buyer. Another way to handle people who might want to Cherry Pick you is to forestall the Gambit. Let's say that you're a contractor who is trying to sell a remodeling job to a homeowner, and you know she's going to talk to all the other contractors in town-how do you forestall it? The answer is to know more about your competition than they'll ever learn. So the homeowner says, "I want to check with some other people before I make my final decision." You respond, "I absolutely agree with you." Always agree up front, right? Salespeople should always agree with any objection however ridiculous it is and then work to turn it around. "I absolutely agree with you. You should check with other companies before you make a decision. But look, let me save you some time. Have you talked to Ted Smith over at ABC Construction? He uses XYZ cabinets that have this feature, this feature, and this feature; but they don't have this. Then if you talk to the national department store company down at the mall, the sales person who'll come out will be Fred Harrison, and he'll tell you about model number such and such. By the time you've gone through letting her know how much you know about the competition, she's going to think, "Why on Earth do I need to waste my time talking to all these other people, when this person knows more than I'll ever learn.“ The Deliberate Mistake The Deliberate Mistake is a very unethical tactic, and as with any con job, it requires a victim who also lacks ethics. The seller baits the hook when she prepares a proposal and deliberately leaves out or under-prices one of the elements. For example, the car salesperson who runs an adding machine tape on the cost of the car but includes only the price of a tape player, when the car also has a CD player. If the buyer takes the bait, he starts thinking that he now has an opportunity to put one over on the car salesperson. He becomes eager to close the deal before the salesperson spots the mistake. This eagerness makes the buyer a sloppy negotiator, and he may end up paying more for the car than if he had pointed out the mistake. Apart from that, the salesperson still has the option of "discovering" the mistake before the buyer consummates the sale and, with an accusing look, shames the buyer into paying the extra amount. The counter-gambit may sound high minded, but it's obvious. Never try to get away with anything. If your greed doesn't cost you at that moment, it will certainly catch up with you later down life's road. Instead, point out the mistake and say, "I assume that you're not charging me for the CD player because you're trying to get me to make a decision now?" The Erroneous Conclusion A variation of the Deliberate Mistake is the Erroneous Conclusion close. Using this method, the salesperson asks a question of the buyer, but deliberately draws an erroneous conclusion. When the buyer corrects the salesperson, she finds that she has made a commitment to buy. For example, the car salesperson says, "If you did decide today, you wouldn't need to take delivery today would you?" The buyer responds, "Well, of course we'd want to take it today." The real estate sales person says, "You wouldn't want the sellers to include the refrigerator would you?" The buyers hadn't been thinking of doing that, but the refrigerator looks better than theirs does so they reply, "Do you think they would include it?" The salesperson responds with, "Let's include it in our offer and see what happens." The Default The Default Gambit is one that involves a unilateral assumption that obviously works to the advantage of the side proposing it, such as the company that sends a payment check to a vendor after having deducted two and a half percent. Attached is a note that says, "All of our other vendors discount for payment within 15 days, so we assume you will too." Or the salesperson who writes a potential buyer, "Because I haven't heard from you on your choice of options, I will ship the deluxe model unless I hear from you within ten days." The Default Gambit preys on busy or lazy people; it assumes that rather than take action the other side will take the easy way out and let you get away with it. Once you have failed to respond, the law of precedent comes into play. When you finally do object the perpetrator is able to say, "But you've never had a problem with it in the past." As with all unethical gambits, call the other side on it and gently explain that you expect to see a higher level of ethics from them in the future Escalation A man who became very wealthy after he sold his real estate franchise to a large corporation. He had been one of the original purchasers of a territory when real estate franchising was new, and the founder of the company was running around the country trying to sign up anyone who believed in his concept. Many years later a huge New York corporation had bought the master franchise and was starting to buy back the territorial franchises. After attending one of the Secrets of Power Negotiating seminars, he asked to join for a drink and asked the author, "Roger, have you ever heard voices speak to you when you're negotiating?" Not wanting to admit it if he had, the author asked him what he was talking about. He told the author that after he had agreed to sell his territorial franchise to the new corporate owners for what he first thought was a huge amount of money, he started to have second thoughts. Because his was the first franchise the corporation was buying back they flew him to New York for a signing ceremony to be followed by a press conference at which they would announce the corporation's plans to buy back all the franchises. "The night before the ceremony I had trouble sleeping," he told the author. "I lay on my bed wondering whether I was doing the right thing. Suddenly I heard a voice talking to me." "What was it saying," the author asked him, half expecting a humorous punch line. "It said, 'Joey, you're not getting enough money.' So the next morning he went down and asked for another half million dollars and got it." What Joey was describing was a classic case of escalation-raising demands after both sides have reached agreement. Of course it's outrageous and unethical, but just as Joey thought he heard voices telling him to do it rather than accept responsibility for his actions, the perpetrators often don't see any harm in cutting the best deal by any means possible. So, why is anyone ever allowed to get away with such outrageous behaviour? All too often, the other side swallows its pride and concedes just as easily as that corporation conceded the extra half million. In that case, the corporation paid rather than faces the humiliation of having to call off the press conference. In other cases, the other side has simply become too emotionally involved in the purchase to back out. Planted Information A salesman is making an impressive presentation to a board of directors. Flip charts and audio visual aids surround him. He is fervently making a plea that they go with his company because it offers the best value in the marketplace. He believes that no competitor can undercut his prices and feels confident that he can close the sale at his asking price of $820,000-until he sees one of the directors pass a note to another director who nods and lays the note on the table in front of him. Curiosity gets the better of the salesman. He has to see what's on that note. He finishes his presentation, then approaches the table, and dramatically leans toward them. "Gentlemen, do you have any questions?" Out of the corner of his eye, he can now see the note. Even reading upside down, he can see that it says, "Universal's price is $762,000. Let's not go with them.“ The chairman of the board says, "I do have one question. Your price seems high. We're obligated to go with the lowest price that meets our specifications. Is $820,000 the best you can do?" Within minutes, the salesman has lowered his price by $58,000. Was the note real or was it Planted Information? Although it was just an unsubstantiated note scrawled on a piece of paper, the salesperson believed it because he obtained the information surreptitiously. Even if they had planted it, could the salesperson cry foul later? No, because they didn't tell him that the competition's bid was $762,000. He obtained the information surreptitiously, and he must accept responsibility for his assumptions. Simply knowing about planted information will help you to diffuse this unethical tactic. Any time that you are negotiating only based on information that the other side has chosen to tell you, you are extremely vulnerable to manipulation. When the other side may have planted the information for you to discover, you should be even more vigilant. Lock-in Tactics Communication strategies which force the other party to make concessions. Example: A foreign national publicly announces that it will not withdraw its troops. Because the statement is public, the other side gives in. Counter Tactic: Recognise the ploy for what it is and publicly acknowledge t as a tactic. Proactively, state that such tactics will not be tolerated. This tactic is illustrated by Thomas Schelling's well-known example of two dynamite trucks barreling toward each other on a single-lane road. The question becomes which truck goes off the road to avoid an accident. As the trucks near each other, one driver in full view of the other pulls off his steering wheel and throws it out the window. Seeing this, the other driver has a choice between an explosive crash or driving his truck off the road into a ditch. This is an example of an extreme commitment tactic designed to make it impossible to yield. Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation. In labor-management and international negotiations this tactic is common. A union president makes a rousing speech to his constituency pledging that he will never accept less than a 15 percent salary increase. Since he stands to lose face and credibility if he does agree to anything less, he can more convincingly persuade management the union must have 15 percent. But lock-in tactics are gambles. You may call the other side's bluff and force them to make a concession which they will then have to explain to their constituency. Like threats, lock-in tactics depend on communication. If the other truck driver does not see the steering wheel fly out the window, or if he thinks the truck has an emergency steering mechanism, the act of throwing the steering wheel out the window will not have its intended effect. The pressure to avoid a collision will be felt equally by both drivers. In response to a commitment tactic, therefore, you may be able to interrupt the communication. You can so interpret the commitment as to weaken it. "Oh I see. You told the papers your goal was to settle for $200,000. Well, we all have our aspirations, I guess. Do you want to know what mine are?" Alternatively, you can crack a joke and not take the lock-in seriously. You can also resist lock-ins on principle: "Fine, Bob, I understand you made that statement publicly. But my practice is never to yield to pressure, only to reason. Now let's talk about the merits of the problem." Whatever you do, avoid making the commitment a central question. Deemphasize it so that the other side can more gracefully back down.
- #86 A is for Aristotle’s Appeals If you want to boost your powers of persuasion, you can’t do better than to use the 3 appeals which Aristotle defined as the secret of Ancient Greece’s greatest minds. He called them ethos, logos and pathos. 1.Ethos appeals are based on ethics and reputation. Quite simply, this is anything that makes your arguments sound more credible, such as an endorsement from a key person or citing expert testimony. 2.Logos appeals are based on logic and include statistics, facts and evidence. 3.Pathos appeals are based on emotion and means any argument which either creates a fear of not doing the deal on the one hand or a desire to enjoy the benefits of the offer on the other. Work these three types of arguments into your negotiating presentations, and you’ll be practically unstoppable. B is for BATNA A BATNA is your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement and is the only certain way to be successful in negotiations. By preparing for negotiations with one party by sounding out an alternative deal with someone else gives you walkaway power. It means that, even if the alternative isn't quite what you want, you are still prepared to go there, if need be. One of the best examples of a BATNA took place during negotiations between the Malta government and the British over the use of Maltese harbors for British naval ships. During the negotiations, the Malta government courted the Soviet Union who was more than interested in a deal. This alternative gave Malta both leverage and walkaway power. C is for the Coquette Principle You can increase the power you have over others by raising the value of what you have in their eyes but then making them wait before they can enjoy it. This whets their appetite more and is salaciously known as "the coquette principle". Other coquette techniques include... emphasizing the scarcity and rarity of what you have • underplaying the value of what you have to make them want it even more • being reluctant to part with what you have as unworthy of their interest. D is for Dumb Is Smart The competitive nature of conflict that underlies power negotiations often results in both sides trying to prove they're more intelligent than each other. One side will use arguments that are clever in the belief that this will win them points. However, there are disadvantages in appearing too clever: • you risk turning cleverness into a competition so that, even if you get a bad deal, you can still say you were cleverer • being smart pre-supposes that you have to win the argument. Most successful negotiations are not won on the arguments alone but on a range of other factors. • being clever prevents you asking "dumb" questions in case you appear stupid. This makes you vulnerable to deals which must be carefully checked out. Remember, dumb is smart and smart is dumb. E is for Emotional Ambush There are five emotional ploys that your opponents may try to use on you to soften you up: 1. personal attacks: "You're not up to it!" 2. accusations, e.g. of amateurism, awkwardness, intransigence, unfairness "Come off it...! You can't really mean that...!" 3. flattery: appealing to your ego, e.g. "I’m sure you have the authority to sanction this deal..." 4. warnings, e.g. of what might happen if no deal is struck. "Just think how disappointed you'll feel..." 5. emotional ambush: Emotional ambush is when an atmosphere is created in the negotiation room which makes you reluctant to displease or upset your opponent. You begin to feel that it would be rude to refuse them. F is for Fait Accompli Fait Accompli is a cheeky but powerful tactic if you can get away with it. You simply go ahead with what you want to do without the agreement of the other side. When they catch you out, you respond with a look of surprise and say something like, “Who me? Oh, I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to do that. I am sorry. I won’t do it again.” G is for Gallipoli When talks are entrenched and leading nowhere, it can be useful to open up a new "front" or new avenue. This is sometimes called the Gallipoli ploy, after the Turkish town used to open up a second Eastern front in the First World War. For example, you may be discussing with an employee the importance of coming to work on time. In the middle of the discussion, the employee protests, “Other employees come into work late and you don’t say anything to them.” This is an attempt by the employee to deflect you from their issue and open up a diversionary discussion. One of the best responses you can make to Gallipoli is not to fall for the diversion but to ask a question, such as, “What makes you believe I do not give other employees who come in late the courtesy of dealing with them one-on-one, just as I am doing with you?” H is for Hot Potato In power negotiations, the "hot potato" is the problem that is too hot for you to handle so you deftly throw it back like a hot potato for the other side to handle. "We realize that you would like 5% from us, but in view of what we've said, we can only offer 3. So, we’ll leave it with you.” The story is told of the husband who lay awake all night worrying about what he was going to say to the bank manager in the morning about his overdraft. Finally in exasperation and in need of some sleep, his wife turned on the light, picked up the phone and dialed the bank manager at home: "Hello, this is Mrs. Jones. I thought you should know that my husband is coming to see you tomorrow to find out what you're going to do about reducing his overdraft. Goodnight." "There", she said, "it's his problem now. So let's get some sleep!" I is for the Iroquois Preparation Method High-level negotiations affecting the lives and livelihoods of others require stamina and resourcefulness. One way to prepare for such endurance tests is to copy the Iroquois before going into battle. They fasted; they got themselves into a peak of fitness; they practiced with their weapons until they could use them without thinking; and they trained like hungry prize-fighters before a fight. While your negotiation preparations may not go to such lengths, the Iroquois Method illustrates the need to focus so that we are physically, mentally and psychologically ready. J is for Just See If I Don’t… Just See If I Don’t is an on-the-brink negotiating tactic and only advisable when negotiations have reached a crunch point. It’s really a warning to the other side that, if they don’t see sense, you’ll carry out your threat of walking away from the deal and taking some form of unpleasant action. Lee Iacocca, former chairman of the Chrysler Corporation, used this tactic when he was in pay negotiations with the automobile unions in the late 1970s. The union wanted $20 an hour and Iacocca would not budge from $17 per hour. One bitter night, Iacocca addressed the committee. "It was one of the shortest speeches I have ever given," he later recalled. He told the committee, "You've got until morning to make a decision. If you don't help me out, I'll declare bankruptcy in the morning and you'll be out of work. You've got eight hours to make up your minds.” The unions eventually agreed, and, despite the brinksmanship of the tactic, it turned out to be a turning point in the fortunes of the company. K is for Knowing Your Opponents The background research you need to carry out in preparation for negotiations is vital for getting to know your opponents. It can include: • a preliminary get-together to clarify initial claims, offers and positions • desk research, for example the outcome of previous deals • investigation of alternative courses including getting a BATNA (the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) • foot-slogging for on-the-spot information • getting advice from your own experts. Once you have information about the other side's position it can be compared to your own to find out how far apart you are. L is for Later, or, I’ll Think About It And Get Back To You Later Using a delaying tactic of “I’ll think about it and get back to you later” is a good way to put off a decision while leaving the door open. It leaves enough doubt in the other side’s mind for them to consider changing their offer. This tactic works best after a lengthy period of discussion in which both sides have invested a lot of time and energy. If the other side use “I’ll Think About It” on you, respond with a question that ties them down to a date for getting back to you or clarifies what they need to think about. A more aggressive response would be to ask, “Rather than go away and probably miss this deal, why not tell me what bothers you? I’m sure we can help you come to a decision today.”
- #87 M is for Modest Diffidence When you sound absolutely certain of a position, you take on an air of superiority which can antagonise others. If you introduce a touch of modest diffidence, you sound more open to negotiation. This is how Benjamin Franklin used this tactic: "I develop the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence, never using, when I advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words "certainly", "undoubtedly" or any other that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say "I conceive..." or "I apprehend a thing to be so and so..." "for such and such reasons", or "I imagine it to be so...", or "it is so, if I am not mistaken." This habit I believe has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinion and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting." N is for Needs Not Positions Throughout the first half of a power negotiation, your aim is to take a position and defend it. In the second half, when you are trying to reach agreement, your aim is to uncover the real needs of the other side behind their public position. It is meeting both sides’ needs that ensures a settlement, not battling against respective positions which only leads to stalemate. Notice the difference between Position, Interests, and Needs in this situation. Position: I demand that you stop your children playing football near my garden otherwise I'll have to call the police. Interests: I have dahlias growing in my garden which I don't want damaged. Needs: The dahlias are ready to bloom for next week's show. After that it doesn't matter. O is for Obligation One of the oldest of power tactics in trade is "obligation". This is the technique of putting people in your debt with generous acts. One businessman visiting China for the first time fell victim to obligation. For the first four days of his visit he was wined and dined, chauffeured to all the tourist spots, given anything he wanted. His hosts even put a fax at his disposal when the fax machine in the hotel failed to work. At last on the morning of departure, and with time running out, they got down to business. The Chinese negotiators, with subtle reminders of what gracious hosts they had been, extracted everything they wanted from the hapless businessman. P is for Power Ploys Power ploys are attempts by the other side to wrong-foot you by exerting some kind of Svengali-like power over you. You can resist these attempts by seeing through their power ploys. If you are clever, you can even turn their power ploys to your advantage using these tactics: -simply ignore them. -name them. This is like the naming of mythological beasts of old in order to scare them away. "Oh, I see you've placed me facing the sun. I might not be able to see too well from there. I'll just move nearer." -suggest you discuss them. "Ah, I see you're playing "Hard to get". Shall we discuss tactics?" -counter them and call their bluff. "I see you're playing "Higher authority". Well, as a matter of fact, I think we would be happy to hear from your boss." Q is for Questions The side that controls the questions in a negotiation is the side that is always in control. Questions do a number of things: they allow you to sit back and listen; they help you gather information; and they stop you from giving anything away. There are no-go questions and go questions in negotiations: No-go questions are those that... -reprimand and accuse (Why didn't you...?) -entrap (Are you still peddling the Union line, then?) -threaten and pre-judge. Go questions are those that... -open (What do you think...?) -seek permission (Why don't we look at things differently?) -are barometric (How would you feel if...?) R is for Reluctant Player Reluctant Player is a gambit that you can play at the start of negotiations. Whatever the other side’s opening offer or demand, you simply counter with a reluctance to come anywhere near it. Here are 5 timeless phrases that will make the other side think again: 1.“That sounds way too low/high.” 2.“To make it worth my while, I would need…” 3.“Considering the amount of time/money/work this needs, I don’t think we can make any kind of progress…” 4.“You’ll have to do better than that…” 5.“Can we work on that…?” S is for Salami Matyas Rakosis, one-time head of the Hungarian Communist party is credited with this definition of the "salami" technique at the end of power negotiations. "When you want to get hold of a salami sausage which your opponents are strenuously defending, you must not grab at it. You must start by carving yourself a very thin slice. The owner of the salami will hardly notice or, if he does, not mind very much. The next day you will carve another slice, then still another. And so, little by little, the salami will pass into your possession." T is for Tentative Overtures You can make tentative overtures to the other side to inch your way forward out of deadlocked negotiating positions. Here are three ways to do it: -Yes, yes, yes. The more you use the word "yes", the more you encourage positive and constructive thinking. "Yes, you have a point...;Yes, I can see that... Yes, what you're saying is right..." -"yes... and" instead of "yes...but" Not: "Yes, we like your ideas, but you're asking too much." But: "Yes we like your ideas and if we could agree a price, we would be interested." -"I" instead of "You" Avoid the finger-pointing of direct "You" statements. Not: "You're wrong" but: "I think you're wrong." U is for Uncertainty Natural negotiators are comfortable with uncertainty, while those who fear the process aren’t. Samfrits Le Poole in his book “Never Take No For An Answer” recalls a deal he made to buy a small plane. He got it for the ridiculously low price of $14,500. After the negotiations, he asked the seller why he had sold for such a low price. The man admitted that he found the whole negotiating process uncomfortable because of the uncertainty. He was wracked with questions such as “What if I don’t get another buyer?” and “What if nobody else comes forward?” As a result, he settled at the first offer simply because he couldn’t stand the uncertainty involved. V is for Variables Playing around with the variables in a negotiation is often the only way that you can reach a deal. The more variables you have in terms of price, terms, and deliverables, the more room you have for maneuver. So, when you get stuck on the main issues, change the package. If you’re deadlocked on the price of the house, throw in the furniture and fittings, agree to a garden makeover, or pay for their removal costs. W is for Writing the Agreement When you have edged your way to a solution in negotiations, you should write down exactly how you understand it. You should do this even if the other side also writes down their understanding of the agreement. Always beware of "one-truck deals". There is a big difference between: "One truck for sale: £10,000" and "One 1998 model Bedford for sale: 120,000 miles certified on the clock, serviced at 111,500 miles. Delivered to your home. Price excludes tax, insurance, but includes MOT, dated November last..." X is for Xchanging Concessions Exchanging concessions is not a strategy you should use lightly in negotiations, particularly if the other side starts by offering you a concession and then expects one in return. This is because making concessions is a sign of weakness and betrays a need to please the other side. Almost certainly, an experienced negotiator will interpret any concession you make as weakness and push you into making more. If you do decide to make a concession, do so reluctantly and optimize the value of what you give away. In the same vein, if the other side gives you a concession in the expectation that you will do the same, take it reluctantly and let them know that its worth is not that great to you. Y is for Yikes, You’ve Got To Be Kidding Yikes, You’ve Got To Be Kidding is a shock tactic used in the opening exchanges of a power negotiation to make your opponents sit up and think and maybe re-assess their offer or demand. As one seasoned diplomat put it: "Be unreasonable; appear reasonable." You owe it to both your side and your opponents to reject a first offer - even if it is within your acceptable settlement range. Why? Because if you accept their first demand, they'll be left thinking they could have done better and if they accept your first offer, you’ll be left wondering if you couldn’t have done better. In power negotiations, both sides need to experience at least the ritual of winning something from the other side. Z is for Zipped, or Keeping Your Mouth Zipped Keeping your mouth shut, or zipped, is one way to keep the other side guessing. No matter how much they try to get you involved, if you can stay quiet and give nothing away, then you are in control of the negotiations. In "The Ransom of the Red Chief", O. Henry tells the story of the spoilt little rich boy who is kidnapped and held for a large ransom. Instead of giving in, the parents don't react at all to the ransom demands. As time goes by, they even feign a loss of interest in the boy's fate. The kidnappers meanwhile become so exasperated with the boys' antics and their unexpectedly long baby-sitting stint that they finally pay the parents to take the boy back!