 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
A now-neutralized Salesforce.com will find itself up against an awakened giant. 
Scoop.it!
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
People nearly always make irrational decisions (and use a rational justification). Knowing and dealing with this is what makes great negotiators.
I alway enjoy posts where the writer takes me on a journey to a different perspective. And I agree that their are definitely times when some people are just not worth wasting the time on. Life's too short, right?
That said, I offer an alternate, alternative view - as I strongly disagree that '99 times out of 100, your counterpart has rational underlying interests' - because a lot of the reading I've done, and world experience, says the opposite.
That the behaviour and decision making of most people is entirely irrational - based on biases, fears, false beliefs and very little logic. e.g. 40% of Americans think the world was formed less than 6,000 years ago. And only very occasionally (some functional consumer transactions) are buying decisions mostly about 'the facts'. Even in the cold, hard world of professional procurement, the stated buying criteria are often a justification for a decision biased by emotional factors.
I believe that 'you will eventually discover with patience and the right strategies' much more than the 'rational underlying interests' especially the non-rational needs as well - which this article is very helpful at reminding us about the existence of.
And that great negotiators are the masters of identifying and working with and around the irrational. Settlement is not just about the rational needs of both parties being met, mostly it is about meeting the irrational...
Scoop.it!
Negotiation tips from the 2013 California Litigation Lawyer of the Year (CLAY Award), Jon Mitchell Jackson. This is the same approach I use to negotiate multi-…
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Smart, practical, tips & reminders from a guy who has obviously learned a lot along the way.
Particularly useful for those with an overall context to put all this helpful (but somewhat random) collection of ideas into - such as the ENS International framework.
A nice read for the weekend.
Nigerian Institute of Chartered Arbitrators's curator insight,
May 9, 2017 12:31 PM
Negotiation- A Trial Lawyer's Negotiation Secrets!
Scoop.it!
Students who used longhand remembered more and had a deeper understanding of the material
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
3 x benefits of leaving your laptop behind for meetings. Handwritten notes are better than typed. Use a notebook. Even handwriting with an iPad. If you want to get the best from a meeting, lecture or negotiation - don't use your laptop. 1/ as this research suggests, your insights are deeper when you write by hand. So your questions can be more insightful. And your recall later is better. 2/ the increased interaction by focussing harder on what the other party is saying increases their sense of being listened to - this builds trust. 3/ hand writing on a notebook or iPad means the device, the tool, is less of a barrier between you and others than a laptop screen. People hide behind laptops. That's an inhibitor to good connection.
Scoop.it!
We all negotiate something at some point of time every single day.This is especially true if like me, you are working in procurement or sales.I came up with the idea for this post after I noticed (Negotiation 101: The 6 Principles
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Two interesting reminders for stakeholders in and around situations where poor negotiation practices deliver poor results. Firstly, the reminder yet again that the basic principles if negotiation fit on a single page. But the discipline to plan and execute even using these basics is not followed by most. Secondly - the reminder to keep considering and understanding the needs of the other side and checking in with them that you've correctly understood them. (Note the distinction between understanding not having to be agreeing with) But being seen to listen can be a powerful relationship builder and influencing approach. Imagine being a sales person negotiating with the procurement person who write the article referred to in this post. How would it feel to know in advance even just these basic steps and practices being their idea of how the negotiation could or should be run? Quite different I suspect. The best negotiations work to a consistent set of practices - normally richer and deeper than these - but good discipline and some basics are a great place to start
Scoop.it!
A single honest conversation is better than a hundred trust falls.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
How might Arthur Arons 1997 study on vulnerability & closeness apply in commercial negotiation?
In the study cited, deeper personal questions (loss, fears) asked and answered created deeper bonds than more trivial, shallower questions (TV shows)
Over 35 years of research and experience in the ENS International negotiation & influence framework & tools has repeatedly highlighted better relationships lead to better negotiations.
Meeting early & often; discovering 'under the iceberg' issues & needs; establishing common ground, particularly extending the scope out to be thought of as a longer term exercise (vs one-off transactional) and powerful use of questioning to draw the other party forward.
To what extent do other experienced negotiators feel being vulnerable (personally and/or professionally) can 'help' in commercial negotiations?
My fear, or vulnerability around this idea is that I might have any such vulnerability exploited by the other party - that I'd be manipulated or mislead by a false or contrived intimacy.
I suspect this says more about me than the study or the ideal process. What do others think or feel?
Scoop.it!
Note: This is most applicable to marketers when your immediate boss does not come from a marketing background. One of the major pains an in-house marketer has to go through – call it an occupational hazard – is the process of getting our ideas over the line. You know what I’m talking about: explaining your meticulous market research and your inspired creative process to your boss who doesn’t come from a marketing background. Knowing that even with 10,000 hours of professional experience and a record for success, you still have to jump through these hoops. Phillip Kotler opened his keynote…
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
I like this guy. Rarely do I come across a marketer who I so strongly agree with.
So when Ken Murray says "your sole purpose as a marketer is to create value" he has my attention. WoW! Results for the company, not 'brand' for awards. Great philosophy - backed up with some good old common sense stakeholder engagement on selling your ideas (because it's your duty to sell your ideas) Very readable
Scoop.it!
The California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued a proposed opinion attempting to draw the line between unethical misrepresentations during negotiations, and permissible "puffing." Using this distinction, false statements about, as examples, the existence of favorable witnesses, or about the amount of a party's earnings, or about policy limits, would all fall on the unethical side of the line, and would subject an attorney making them to potential discipline. On the other hand, false statements about a party's "bottom line" of settlement authority, or about a party's willingness to litigate or its plans to file bankruptcy, would be considered mere "puffing," basically the kinds of lies that parties expect the other side to tell during negotiations, and that they should not rely on.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
What do you think of the California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct proposed opinion defining the difference for attorneys, between misrepresentation and 'puffing' - the sorts of parties expect the other side to tell each other during negotiations?
Practical? Realistic? Where do you sit on the topic ?
Scoop.it!
New research shows that the best business minds make decisions very differently than we thought.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
So, we are NOT as logical as we think. Who is surprised by this news?
No one over 18 I suspect. But to have hard science to back up our suspicions is good. We see friends, colleagues, customers, partners, family members - all make decisions that to us make no sense.
Thats because 'sense' is only used in the emotional context, not the common sense context. We decide with our emotions, the next best we can do is defend or justify with logic.
Which is why much negotiation goes off track. If you miss the deeper, more emotional reasons for peoples behaviour, and decisions - especially stressed executives - then planning and managing to your desired outcomes gets much riskier.
And why leadership by telling people what to do is a dying approach. "The best leaders, it seems, are good at motivating people with things like encouragement, praise and rewards—thereby creating a strong emotional bond and sense of purpose among employees."
And what sort of triggers/drivers are these? Emotional of course. This is a very different culture to 'do it because we say so'
The facts are critical, but beliefs move mountains.
Scoop.it!
Conventional wisdom holds that making the first offer is a mistake in a negotiation. But what if it's to your advantage to do so?
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Who knows what's better than BATNA? Imagine saving the hours, days & dollars wasted on BATNA ? (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Offer)
Huh? But everyone talks about BATNA.
Sure. If all you ever sell is the transactional. Or have no interest in a relationship after the transaction.
In this brief post on flipping conventional wisdom about opening the bidding based upon the principle of 'anchoring' Prof. Leigh Thompson points out the common view is not what actually is best.
Then proceeds to finish the post with another misconception - at least for those in more sophisticated engagement & influence situations - that bidding at or near the other party's BATNA is a good thing.
Top negotiators do not plan, or run their teams to just get quick agreements - at or near someone else's BATNA. Top negotiators are constantly trading off their needs with two other factors.
The first is time - especially around the intended length of the relationship with the other party. One-off transaction? No desire to get a reference or two from the other party or do business again? Go BATNA. Have a longer term view?
Then the second key principle cuts in, hard. Sometimes described as the 4th dimension of negotiation, or the 'outside the box' approach - really understanding the other party's needs, both obvious and the mis or understated needs, is where greatness lies.
Often the solution or way forward is NOT anyones BATNA at all.
What if the best way forward needed deep insights, and insightful questioning to create genuine insight and awareness of needs not front of mind? Aspects of 'less bad/more good' not in the current thinking. The resolution of which makes the old BATNA actually the wrong answer.
And your value, and result much higher.
The idea of old school 'negotiation starts at the sit-down' can be a simplistic trap. A quick start tip for the inexperienced. But maybe not so helpful for big thinkers, planners & influencers
Scoop.it!
Refresh prepares you with the intelligent insights about the people you meet every day, giving you the shot to spark what's possible. Connect LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, calendar, and contacts - search people and get the insight that gives you the inside track.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
A new, cool, tactical tool for meetings. Why tactical?
Because long term, strategic influence, negotiation & sales needs this approach at the deepest levels possible.
But as a quick, super convenient, portable App (is anything of value NOT mobile now? ), this is smart thinking.
The other trap - being seen as too clever with the background & insights, and still not having anything of value to say once the pleasantries are over!
Scoop.it!
Language is only the most obvious part of the global communication gap. Different cultures also have distinct approaches to communication during meetings a
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Most teams fail to plan properly for negotiations. So I am not sure how much real value adding this level of generic cultural detail to your planning database would add.
Still, it is a masterly analysis, good models for comparisons and clearly written. But for most, of academic or little practical interest in negotiation. Too much to take in, too hard to apply easily.
Unless you were in a team with a full set of negotiation & influencing frameworks and tools - including the leadership team understanding that planning months out is the key to great negotiated outcomes.
Then, in a big enough team, this could be gold. As part of your mapping of your own and the other party team members negotiation styles and tactics, this extra level of detail might be very helpful.
On it's own a distraction. As part of a professional process, potentially very useful.
Scoop.it!
Headlines & Global News Obama: Russia a 'regional power' losing influence because of Crimea Los Angeles Times 1 geopolitical foe, dismissing Moscow as a “regional power” and arguing that the invasion of Crimea “indicates less influence, not more.”...
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Jostling on the world stage is defined by your behind the scenes domestic stakeholder 'negotiations' Obama is defecting domestic criticism by reframing perceptions of what Putin is doing in Crimea. Smart... And Putin doesn't actually care what Obama says anyway
|
Scoop.it!
All leadership comes down to this: changing people's behavior. Why is that so damn hard? Science offers some surprising new answers -- and ways to do...
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Title should be 'Die Rather Than Change' - because that's how most people live their lives.
I was shocked at the conclusions of what HAS worked - because they are counterintuitive.
Reframing. With 'Joy is a more powerful motivator than fear'
Radical Change. Delivers bigger results, faster, easier
Supporting Change. Early, and all the way from the top.
Rejuvenate. Try the 5th day strategy
Scoop.it!
DigiNews Influence money's revolving door: Eric Cantor 'might become a lobbyist' DigiNews WASHINGTON, June 17, 2014 — After his recent unexpected defeat to an unknown, Tea Party-supported economics professor, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor,...
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Influence is a tool. And like all tools a hammer can build a home or hurt someone. And lobbying can get a school built or have laws to protect the public changed to suit a big industry. I work with people in and on Negotiation & Influence. But while we don't teach Ethics - it needs to be a factor in the ethical use of these tools. When the Ethical Compass gets left behind a journey armed with just power and influence and tools that can impact stakeholders is a risky trip
Scoop.it!
While walking through a crowd, you suddenly hear a specific word and it prompts you to turn your head. You listen to a speech and realize you are counting the "um"s and "uh"s. You are told of a new
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Why Safety (and other Influence) initiatives fail.
And 3 x retraining steps that help make change stick. Especially Step 3 - Reinforcement (and why this step is the killer fail)
This is an important article if your role or company involve the safety of processes and the teams working in them.
I believe it is also an important article for anyone seeking to influence of change the behaviour of others. Because for me it highlights the crucial role that leadership has in any change.
To expect changed behaviour is more than telling. Telling people what to do is incredibly ineffective. And yet telling is the base management style for most. And is also true for most 'trainers'.
Knowing the right thing to do, and just telling people the right thing to do is s dangerous, lazy trap. Yes, you could say it's the first step suggested here 'focus, focus, focus' but not the only or last step.
So defining rules, principles and guidelines is a good start. Think quality systems, Capability Maturity Models, Six Sigma etc Best Practice consulting is everywhere.
But understanding the 3 x practices suggested here are more complex, require great individual & organisational self awareness, and (scary music crescendo) leadership and discipline.
Getting buy-in, and adaptive teaching styles to match different learning styles is rare. I've been truing and facilitating for decades and still feel I've a long way to go in Instructional Design & Delivery. My version of Step 2 is around a mix of exercises across multiple learning styles, and my own energy and focus to keep engagement high.
But Step 3... This one is the killer. Because as the article author Shawn Galloway reminds us 'Training is only as effective as the reinforcement that follows it' and most training initiatives fail to integrate new ideas into habit and culture. Poor peer, leadership and systems reinforcement of desired behaviours is a killer. Literally, sometimes, with safety - and commercially, with other programs.
So sending people off to be 'trained' is just leadership laziness - unless leaders also understand their role in ensuring systems & process reinforcement of the intended behaviours plus (not instead of) personal reinforcement by them and their teams - and peer reinforcement by experienced staff.
This failure is why you often hear of wasted investments in sales training programs (80% of material forgotten or not applied within 3 x days) and why stakeholder engagement is so difficult.
Teams not doing what you think they should? Start in the mirror.
Scoop.it!
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Negotiation is everywhere, not just the boardroom or tender process.
I love this article. Because it is such a great reminder that negotiation is all around us, everyday, in all areas of human activity.
And, as this very real piece highlights, most of the guidelines are the same irrespective of the size & scale of the deal.
Why? Because people buy from people. The risks feel greater (both parties) with bigger deals, but all these guidelines are about curiosity, self-belief and good manners. (Good for life in general!)
At ENS International we have dozens of frameworks & tools. But they all rely on these 3 x basic human behaviours to make the institutional processes for Negotiation & Influence work well.
Scoop.it!
How do you persuade your customers that your brand will actually keep its promise? It’s a common challenge.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Biggest issue for B2B companies is the idea that their marketing is 'early stage negotiation'. Too often people get into the nitty gritty of a deal to discover there are perceptions of them and their products/services that would have been best dealt with much much earlier. Counter arguments, the reframing of the perceptions of the other party, is best begun early. The early bird get the negotiation worm
Scoop.it!
Stakeholder engagement is a hot issue that has generated much discussion in sustainability. Companies try or claim they try to engage in dialogue: “we value your feedback” abounds in reports and on websites. Our survey of CSR professionals, sustainability experts and stakeholders clearly shows that email is one of the preferred engagement channels (up there with industry events, stakeholder panels, online surveys and LinkedIn). For this reason, as part of the Lundquist CSR Online Awards research, we recently tested the real effectiveness of email engagement on Europe’s top 100 listed companies (based on contact information available on corporate websites). The result was rather worrying: 60% of top European companies didn’t respond to a simple email* in which we asked how they managed incoming messages, requests and complaints. Those that did respond, however, gave us valuable insights and tips about how they manage these relationships (see below). The exercise also provided some interesting findings in regards to encouraging better stakeholder feedback. (*Some companies acknowledged our email with an automatic reply saying that we could expect a response in so many hours or days; but we never received anything afterwards. In our books, that didn’t count as an answer. The 60% figure excludes companies that don’t provide contact information.) More responses when there is personal contact We found that 14% of companies provided personal contact details for CSR/sustainability enquiries (i.e. firstname.lastname@company.com) while 53% published generic contact information specifically for CSR (i.e. csr@company.com or dedicated form). A further 24% had no dedicated CSR contact information but generic corporate channels. We emailed all those with contact information: astonishingly, we just couldn’t work out how to get in touch 9% of companies. We received more responses from companies with personal contact details (54% of the responses) than those who had an impersonal contact channel (35%) and those who didn’t have a CSR-specific channel (33%). This alone gives us a clear picture as to which companies are really paying attention to stakeholder engagement. By transparently showing whom to contact, they understand that stakeholders value person-to-person interaction and that are being held accountable in the eyes of stakeholders. How are companies actually managing the correspondence they receive? The sustainability managers who responded provided more or less the same answer about their email management procedures. Most said the number of emails received was manageable, except for a few that reported high numbers of emails (one cited more than 3,500 emails a year). The standard procedure relied on internal collaboration in which there were one or two dedicated people in charge of checking the emails arriving and then forwarding to the right person. When asked about dealing with complaints, almost all had a separate department for this. Interestingly, although personal contact details ensured a better and faster response rate, the most complete answers came from companies with generic contact details. So, stakeholders, don’t get discouraged when there is no personal email address and don’t fear your email will end up in a dusty inbox! Better a complete answer after a week than a cut-and-pasted half response after a couple of hours. Best practice 1: Collaborate internally with dedicated team and training The best companies have dedicated teams to handle requests in order to centralise them, forward them to the appropriate person and, importantly, to follow up. In some cases, the sustainability team is trained to deal with complaints and even to recognise reports of ethical breaches and how to deal with them. To ensure that employees were prepared to answer CSR-related questions, one company said that its CSR team put together over 300 Frequently Asked Questions to help its sales teams answer customer requests. Best practice 2: Keep your enquirer up to date about the response process Since the sometimes lengthy process of getting an answer remains invisible to the enquirer, we were pleased to know that some companies make sure the user is kept updated throughout the process. Best practice 3: Take care about the quality of information you provide Some answers caught our attention due to the quality of the content. It was clear when our interlocutor took the time to personalise the response to answer our five questions as opposed to copying and pasting a response from somewhere else. In one case, a company said that there was a system that monitored the email response quality of the corporate website. Best practice 4: Measure your responsiveness We asked sustainability teams how long it takes to reply to a standard enquiry. But actions speak louder than words and we were positively surprised to note that 65% of responses came within 24 hours, 12% replied within 48 hours and 23% responded after, but within less than a week. In terms of organisation, one company said the sustainability team receives a monthly report about incoming emails and another one stated that a file with all the contacts was kept in order to be able to get statistics. Best practice 5: Think about social media – if you’ve already nailed email Some companies touched upon social media as a channel for engagement. While this is a good indication they are aware of the potential for dialogue on social media and have started to focus on that, the relatively low rate of responses we received via email makes me question how companies will deal with engaging with stakeholders on social media platforms. If the amount of emails companies receive is for the most part manageable yet 60% of companies didn’t respond to us (and 9% of companies seemingly don’t want to be contacted), how can we expect them to deal with a potentially higher amount of exchange undertaken on social media, where response times may need to be shorter? Photo credit: Robert Higgins
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
What negative consequences for stakeholder management are self inflicted?
Influencing or even negotiating with large numbers of stakeholders is rarely easy.
Being seen as open to interaction, especially online, is the defacto minimum standard expected of organisations by their stakeholders.
Yet an amazing 9% of European organisations surveyed had no clear contact details for stakeholders.
How easy do you make it for your stakeholder to find you, and reach the people they might need to communicate with?
Scoop.it!
Chris Voss was the head of international hostage negotiation for the FBI. His convincing tips on bargaining can help you get what you want.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
In many of the Business Development (BD) or 'must-win-deal' workshops I run, we do an exercise on customer focus - basically having customers feel listened to. Why? Because you miss this first step and most BD falls over. And here's a guy who negotiates to save lives (not dollars) saying exactly the same thing. Active listening rules the civilised (and effective) world! Is it just me, or is this just a key aspect of the good manners our grandparents used to live by?
Scoop.it!
With three daughters beginning to make their way in the world I've a particular interest in the advice Riley Bowles gave Whitney. Because at the heart of effective negotiation is always context. And as young women I'm trying to encourage my daughters to read the room, and adapt (with good boundaries). Handling a trucking labour negotiation will need to be handled differently to a fashion licensing agreement - and both dependant on your gender, professional background, and credibility (Power) - so the advice on confidence, assertion, building your personal sense of power is very important and useful.
Clear "Intention" avoids confusion & misunderstandings.
"Both sides of the table' can also be about strengthening your understanding of the obvious and (un)understated needs of the other party - this is powerful data for good negotiators.
"Power Up" can also be more than just posing - reading the behaviours of the other party, and knowingly adjusting your style for maximum benefit is vital. Do you match anger with similar, or pull back?
The comments on "Updates" to me are about good stakeholder engagement - which can often be more work internally than with the other party. Common sense & confidence helps.
"Excise Emotion" is another way of saying to remember this is a process. It is not, and should never become personal. Spiritual development and great influence & negotiation are all about detachment. Pull back. Observe, but avoid entanglement. Philosopher Krishna Murti said that to 'observe without judgement is the highest form of intelligence' - and aside from wrangling 3 year olds or teenagers, nowhere is this more try than in a high-stakes negotiation.
"Look to the horizon" for me should have been the first point made. Why? Because time is one of your most useful levers to work with. The intention of a negation only has context with time in the picture. All your planning, and negotiation strategy must have the time aspect clear early to ever be effective. Is this a one-off negotiation (we will never transit again) or part of an ongoing, perhaps enduring relationship? This aspect, and these answers form the basis of much to follow. Make sure this is something you consider early, not at the end.
Scoop.it!
Nearly ten years old but still a great articleThis three-step approach to managing process issues in negotiations will reap significant rewards at the bargaining table.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Still relevant after nearly ten years, this summary of "Have You Negotiated How You'll Negotiate" by Bordone & Todd is a great reminder that the best outcomes occur where the best planning takes place.
I'm still learning, but an early lesson from Michael Hudson, co-founder ENS International (who I work with) is that great negotiation is a process, with some clear steps & frameworks. Follow them constantly, and get constantly better results.
Michael found most negotiations are decided well before the formal sit-down, and usually as a result of better pre-work. These three steps are sound examples of about 30 x Critical Success Factors around smart pre-work.
Scoop.it!
In the 1989 movie Dead Poet’s Society, Robin Williams, playing the iconoclastic English teacher John Keating, dismisses the notion that you can judge the perfection of a poem mathematically by plotting how artfully it employs meter, rhyme, and...
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Great, quick video featuring author Kurt Vonnegut - with some strong ideas for corporate storytellers needing structure to engage audiences where the raw data is complex
Scoop.it!
It's time to rethink the department only known for 'buying stuff.'
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
Why does procurement struggle to get to the 'big table'?
Innovation, speed, and yes, costs - all benefit when organisations interlink their value chains. You do things for your customers better they they can, your suppliers can do the same for you.
But it requires new, more mature perspectives and processes.
Product development, marketing & sales MUST be better aligned with the real needs of customers. More open, less defensive and inward focussed.
Upstream procurement must do the same. In this useful overview the strategic opportunities are highlighted for organisations working smarter with their own procurement teams, and their suppliers.
The ENS International frameworks for achieving better outcomes start with perspective - how far out do you want to treat a relationship (not just a 'negotiation over price') - make this sort of shift in thinking and behaviour possible.
Scoop.it!
Genes May Influence Parenting Style The Epoch Times "One of the most consistent and striking findings to emerge from this study was the important role that children's characteristics play in shaping all aspects of parenting," the authors write.
Jeremy Pollard's insight:
What might this study mean for negotiators? Up to half of our parenting behaviours could be genetic - not simply a replay of what we experienced and learned growing up. Adding to the interest is also the idea that the behaviours of the other party (eg child) also have a measurable impact on parenting. This second aspect is already understood and acted on by experienced negotiators, but how aware are most that they need high awareness of their own (genetic?) negotiation style to to be as effective as possible?
|
At last, a chess player running Microsoft. Nadella is obviously someone who likes to keep his friends close, and his enemies closer.
There are some untested assumptions in this article, but if Gene Marks is correct, Microsoft's recent manoeuvres are part of a very clever longer term play to re-insert themselves into the application heart of every business on the planet.
Bill Gates once said to me his goals were modest, that he 'just wanted a dollar from everyone on the planet" - and I now suspect his legacy lives on with the playing field a level up from operating systems and office apps.
Own the #customermachines that connect & bind - and you own the account - again. Nice move Nadella.