Home  Clients  How We Work  Services  Case Studies   About Us

Archive for the 'Team Building' Category



Three steps to make negotiations a winning proposition
Wednesday, June 27th, 2007

The other day, some friends were talking about negotiation.  One of the people said that it just wasn’t worth negotiating because he never won the concessions he was seeking.  As the discussion continued, he said that he was negotiating to achieve his business objectives and that meant the other party had to agree to the concessions that he was seeking. 

The friend asked for three simple steps that he could take today, and for me to explain those steps.  Here is what I said…

Step 1.  What, Why, and Parameters

When people go into a negotiation focusing on their position (what they need), it can be very difficult for the parties to reach an agreement.  Often, they have selected a solution based on what they need.  Other solutions and approaches have often been excluded or overlooked.

A better approach is to understand what is to be accomplished, why it matters, and the parameters to be satisfied (time, resource, cost, availability, size, color, compatibility, etc.).  This makes it possible for people to look at other solutions that meet requirements.  Often, this allows better options to be identified. 

Step 2.  Be Reasonable  

In many relationships, one party or another may forget an important piece of information.  Sometimes, the item will not work as intended or key pieces of information will be overlooked.  In other cases, one party wants something to work “just so.” 

Think about what is really necessary to meet business objectives.  If a particular solution or approach works for one party and not for the other, find out why.  Then, see if solutions exist that may work for both parties. 

Step 3. Team Up

Many negotiators compete against each other.  Rather than competing with each other, work together to find options that address everyone’s concerns.  If the people involved understand what is to be accomplished and are working together to solve an issue, they are more likely to solve the issue.  And, by the way, negotiations becomes a dialogue. 

At the end of a negotiation, the parties often have to work together.  Is it difficult to conclude that, if the parties are working together during the negotiation, it is going to be easier for them to work together in moving forward when the negotiations are completed? 

Technorati Tags:        
 
Posted in Achieving Goals, Business Acumen, Negotiations, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »



Uncertainty allows people to listen
Friday, June 15th, 2007

If a person knows something, it is difficult for the person to listen to other opinions.  Often, the best solutions come from listening to people who disagree with us, rather than limiting our thinking to those who agree with us.

If a person is uncertain about the situation, it allows the person keep an open mind, to hear, and to think.

Often, there is not one “right” or “wrong” answer, but many different choices.  The right course depends on the person’s goals.

During several recent business discussions, these thoughts came to mind.  So too, Mr. Justice Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 at 630 (1919), came to mind.  It reads includes the following passage (paragraphs added to make it easier for readers), as follows:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical.

If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.

To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.

It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.

Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge.

While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

How do you keep an open mind?  A few tips for doing so include:

Expose yourself to people who see the world from a different perspective and assume that they are sincere in their beliefs. 

Genuinely caring about each person’s success.  Require every person to be successful as a precondition to your success.

Remember, life is filled with risks.  The biggest risk of all may be having too much certainty about what is right.

Pay attention to what the other person is saying, rather than trying to compose your response.

Look for situations in which you might feel differently. 

Be curious and try to understand other perspectives. 

Remember that all things are subject to change. 

Ask questions.   

Technorati Tags:                    
 
Posted in Achieving Goals, Negotiations, Solving Problems, Team Building, Tips for Students | No Comments »



Negotiation Scenarios: Dealing with Team Conflict
Thursday, June 7th, 2007

Joe and Sally are supposed to be working together on a project.  There is only one problem.  They disagree about the results that are to be achieved, the parameters that the solution should satisfy, and the decision criteria.  In a situation like this, if Joe and Sally push forward, they are likely to end up ready to kill each other.  (Hopefully, that is just a figure of speech.  Sometimes though, a person might wonder…)

When faced with a situation like this, what can Joe, Sally, or other members of the team do?  In other words, how can Joe, Sally, or another member of the team help the team stay on track and avoid implosion?

What I encourage teams to do when facing issues like this is to take a step back.  Look at the big picture.  Ask questions like:

Why is this project important? 

What are we trying to accomplish?

What constraints need to be satisfied?

How will we decide if the project has been successful?

When will we decide if the project has been successful?

What does success look like?  What conditions will exist?  What conditions will not exist?  Who will be evaluating our success and what results are they expecting?

Ideally, these questions should be answered at the beginning of the project and refined as the project proceeds.  When this is done, each time the project starts to get off track, Joe, Sally, or some other team member can bring the discussion back on track by bringing the team back to the vision, constraints, goals, and definitions of success.

At the end of the day, keeping the team on track and moving forward is the responsibility of each team member, not merely the team leader.

Technorati Tags:          
 
Posted in Business Acumen, Business Tips, Negotiations, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »



Power in the information age
Wednesday, June 6th, 2007

One of the points that was repeated in Soft Power by Joseph Nye was  “power in the global information age will come not just from strong defenses, but from strong sharing.” (p. 134)

What does this mean?  What does it require? 

Strong defenses

Strong defenses allow people to protect their property.  This would seem to mean that people benefit from the effort spent in creating property.  This would lead to the creation of other property and the investment in acquiring other property.

Strong defenses might involve the creation of boundaries and silos.  Boundaries and silos can serve a very legitimate purpose of preventing one person - whether internal or external - from having access to too much information.  When a person has access to too much information, it could be inadvertently disclosed or misused.  So, in this context, boundaries and silos might be a form of risk management.

Strong sharing

Strong sharing is important in an information age.  If each person is an island, each person is starting from some point and creating new property.  The new property is limited by that person’s knowledge, skills, perspective, and ideas. 

If people are able to share their ideas and work together, they can identify and develop better ideas.  In addition, they are able to build on each other’s ideas. 

Strong sharing requires people to be able to build teams.  Trust is important.  People have to be able to set aside short-term personal gain for long-term benefit.  Fair compensation and respect for each other is critical to such cooperation and an outcome.  So too, leadership is important.

Steps

Think about your organization.  What does this mean for your organization?  Is it an issue for your firm?  Also, consider the steps that would be required to protect your firm’s information, while improving the cooperation among key team members.  

t_tags: team building, power, information, security, compensation, business, cooperation, sharing]

Posted in Business Acumen, Business Tips, Planning Tips, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »



The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: A case study on the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River in Oregon - Part 1
Saturday, May 19th, 2007

by Coleen Rutledge Davis
April 27, 1990

For Public Lands Law

Preface - May 2007

As this paper was written in 1990 when I was a third year law student, parts of it are out of date and will be updated in the future. Many of the historical documents would be difficult for others to locate so, for that reason, the paper is being posted in this blog.

The postings will be made in sections. This posting is the first of six that will make up the body of the paper.

Introduction

This paper is concerned with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. section 1271 - 1287 (1988). This statute establishes a complex and highly variable management scheme. As a consequence, this paper will rely heavily on the paplication of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) to the Rogue River. In this way, the paper will be better able to provide a general understanding of the Act.

The author selected the Rogue River for this case study for four reasons. First, the author is familiar with the Rogue River and its administration under the Act. Second, the Rogue River has been administered under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act since the Act was passed. Third, most of the administrative materials to which the author has access relate to the Rogue River. Finally, the lobbying efforts of visitors to and residents of the Rogue River area played a large part in the passage of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the history of a river is very important in determining how the river wil be administered. For that reasn, this paper will begin by introducing the Rogue River. It will then discuss the origins of the Act, the legislative history of the Act, and important provisions of the Act. From there, the paperw ill discuss management under the Act in both general and specific terms. Finally, the paper will consider issues that arise when a river is considered for designation under the Act.

The Rogue River

The Rogue River is a rapidly flowing stream that cuts a path through southwestern Oregon as it carries waters from Crater Lake to the Pacific Ocean. Along the way, the Rogue River passes through wide, open valleys, and deep narrow canyons. The River’s banks are lined with tree-covered slopes, granite cliffs, and sandy beaches. Along the Rogue River, wildlife is abundant and includes deer, black bear, beavers, otters, and Roosevelt elk. In the water, salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and eels are found. Soaring above the River, pair of bald eagle, many blue herons, egrets, and buzzards are among the common sites.

Today, thousands of people visit the Rogue River annually. These visitors come from every state and many foreign countries. The Rogue River’s fame comes from its quality as a fishing stream, its natural scenic beauty, and its white-water boat trips.1Visitors enjoy the River in up to three ways. Some enjoy the stillness of its deep canyons followed by the rushing of water over rapids as they float down the river in rafts, kayaks, and the like. Others walk in the paths of the pioneers and Indians on trails built more than 1o0 years ago. On parts of the Rogue River, powerboats provide access for visitors who cannot otherwise see the river (and for residents lacking road access).

Commercial boating on the Rogue River has a long history. As a small child, the author heard many stories about freight being poled upstream from Gold Beach to Agness about 1900. Beginning around 1930, motors began to be used on these boats. Today, motor boats are still used to haul groceries to lodges in the Wild Section.

Motorboats have been used in guiding and tours on the Rogue River for many years. These activities began before the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968. Today, these uses continue and the public demand for these services has increased dramatically since the Rogue River was designated under the Act.

Commercial boating also involves the use of drift boats and rafts. The rafting is relatively new, but drift boats have long been used for fishing trips through the Rogue River Canyon.

The newest use of boats on the River involves the use of rafts for private purposes. The private recreational party is a development that has occurred since the 1960s. Private recreational parties are the result of increased publicity for the Rogue River, increased interest in outdoor recreation, and improvements in the quality and durability of materials used to construct the rafts.

Visitors to the Rogue Rvier see several residences from the water. Within the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, a few small communities and several scattered lodges are located. The Agness Recreational Area provides a good example of this. The Agness Recreational Area includes the communities of both Agness and Illahe. The Area is eleven river-miles long on the Rogue River and three river-miles long on the Illinois River.

Most of the people residing in the confines of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River are of Indian heritage. The Rogue River has a long history of Indian population. It may have been named by French fur trappers for the hostile Indians who lived along its banks.2Numerous artifacts ahve been found along the Rogue River.

In 1851, gold was discovered near the mouth of the Applegate River.3 With this discovery, minors came to the Rogue River. Although most of the river had placer mining for gold, very little evidence of that activity remains. The remaining signs consist primarily of extensive water trenches, some rusted mining equipment, and a few mining scars on the canyon walls.

Eighty-four miles of the Rogue River has been designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (the System). The Rogue River is also impacted by the Wild and Scenic River designation of the Illinois River, one of its major tributaries. Other federal land management schemes are extremely important in understanding the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River. Since the Rogue River flows through Siskiyou National Forest, the management plan applicable to the forest is very important. In addition, part of the Wild Section of the Rogue River is included in the Wild Rogue Wilderness.4Aside from the management schemes developed for these resources, several species of both plants and animals are protected under the Endangered Species Act.5

Origins of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

In 1966, there was a strong possibility that the Rogue River would cease to exist in its then-existing condition. A proposal had been made to build a hydroelectric power plant and a dam at Copper Canyon. The proposal would have converted much of the Rogue River into a lake and raised water levels approximately 600 feet over eleven miles upstream from the project. In fact, the project would have given Grants Pass pool frontage and almost all the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River would have been covered with water. 6

People who relied on the River for their livelihood and recreation held a meeting at The Illahe Lodge, a fishing lodge owned by the author’s family. This meeting resulted in The Wild Rivers Committee of Oregon (of which the author’s grandfather was the first chairman).7 The Organization hoped to prevent the hydroelectric project by means of state legislation. When this was unsuccessful, the Organization and the Sierra Club joined forces to advocate federal legislation protecting the Rogue River. There were many amendments during the course of congressional debate, but the eventual result was the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

—–

Footnotes  for Part 1

1.  H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in 1968 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN NEWS 3801, 3805.

2.  Preliminary Draft, Development and Management Plan for Implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Bureau of Land Management 9 (1969).

3. See, Rogue National Wild and Scenic River - Revised Management Plan, 37 Fed. Reg. 13,408 (1972) [hereinafter Joint Management Plan].

4. Wilderness Act 16 U.S.C. sections 1131-1136 (1988).

5. Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. sections 1531-1544 (1988).

6. Telephone interview with Ernest R. Rutledge, Owner of the Illahe Lodge (Agness, Oregon) (Feb. 25, 1990).

7. OREGON GUIDES & PACKERS, INC., HUNTING AND FISHING IN OREGON, 1969 - 1970, at inside front cover (1969).

Technorati Tags:            
 
Posted in About Coleen Davis, Cultural Issues, Resources, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »



What should be done before ending a business relationship?
Thursday, May 10th, 2007

If Connie Customer and Sam Supplier are having difficulties working together, it may be necessary for them to end their business relationship.  When one party is engaging in unethical, illegal, or questionable conduct, ending the business relationship is often a good idea.  In other cases, the situation may not be so clear cut. 

Frustration over little issues, hassles associated with the contract, and results that fall just short of expectations may leave Connie and Sam feeling frustrated and annoyed.  When a person is too close to the situation, the molehill can seem like a mountain.  Similarly, if one party knows the frustration that it causes the other, both parties may be able to find solutions that allow them to work together.

If the issues that are leading the relationship to miss expectations are unethical or illegal, ending the relationship may be the only option.  When the issues relate to less serious situations, there may be other steps that can be taken.  The steps that Connie and Sam may take include: 

Having someone who is removed from the situation look at the issue.  Perhaps, that person is within Connie or Sam’s company.  In other cases, it may be helpful to have a third party look at the situation and make a recommendation.

Reassigning the relationship to someone else in their respective organizations.  This can diffuse the situation.  In some cases, the new representatives may be able to identify solutions that reduce the parties’ respective frustrations.

Taking time to look at other options may be helpful to both parties.  Often, when people look at other choices which are on the market, they will decide that they are better off working together, than trying to replace each other.

Havins someone filter the interaction of the parties can be helpful.  Often, one party may say something that he or she regrets if the frustration is high.  By having a filter who deals with the frustration, the parties may be able to continue working together, minus the frustration.

Talking with each other about the frustration can help people understand each other’s perspectives.  In many cases, the people discover that there are legitimate goals that both are trying to accomplish.  Sometimes, the differences in perspectives allows the people to see different ways of dealing with the problem. 

When faced with a business conflict, walking away may be necessary.  Before doing so, ask yourself a few questions.  Some questions to consider are:

What happens after you walk away? 

Do you have a replacement customer or supplier? 

What have you learned from the relationship you are leaving?

Should you talk with the other party to see if the relationship can be saved?

How will you use those lessons in building a better relationship with the replacement customer or supplier?

Is it appropriate and necessary to walk away, or are you hoping that the other party will continue the dialogue?

Would bringing in a third party, escalating the issue, or taking a timeout from the relationship, help you and the other party develop a better perspective? 

Think about the questions and approach you would like the other parties to your relationships to take in the event of a conflict.  Have you taken those steps?  Are there other steps that you would like to see taken?  If so, have you asked the other party to do so? 

With as busy as everyone is in today’s environment, people can get bogged down in the details and lose sight of the big picture.  They may not realize your feelings or perspective on the situation.  If it matters, it is up to you to communicate this.  After all, the other party’s crystal ball may be in the shop.

Technorati Tags:                      
 
Posted in Business Acumen, Customers, Negotiations, Planning Tips, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »



Negotiation Scenario: Managing Competition in Organizations
Wednesday, May 9th, 2007

Within larger organizations, there can be a lot of competition.  In a firm like AT&T, there might be 30,000 managers and most of them are likely to be first lines.  Most of them want to advance, especially the younger ones.  As a result, there is a lot of jockeying for position within the organization. 

What options exist for dealing with this competition?  What does this mean for smaller firms?

Recognize, encourage, and reward loyalty.  People talk about the lack of loyalty from employers towards employees today, and vice versa.  Loyalty is one of the factors that has to flow both ways.  It is also an attribute that allows people to look at the situation from a longer time horizon and from a bigger perspective. 

If employees believe that they are going to be treated negatively over the short and the long-term, why would they be loyal?  Why wouldn’t they try to get “what they deserve?”  They are entitled to it, right?  Seriously, that is how the individuals may see the situation, no matter how much we may disagree. 

Suppose that employees are asked to make sacrifices, work long hours, and help each other even when no one is watching and that the organization will be committed to them, treat them fairly, share in the successes, and help them when they need it.  How would this environment be different? 

Explain the vision.  By understanding what the organization is trying to accomplish, loyal employees are able to act in a manner that is consistent with the vision.  If they are uncertain what the organization is trying to accomplish, people are likely to do what they believe is best for the organization.  Rather than leaving people guessing or “taking two steps forward and three back,” why not tell them what is to be accomplished?

Show people the light.  In times of adversity, it is important to give people a light at the end of the tunnel.  Often, in their desire to avoid setting unrealistic expectations, organizations paint such a picture of doom and gloom that people feel they are walking through a tunnel approaching a light.  Then they realize that the light is on the front of a train that is coming towards them.  And firms wonder why loyal employees leave the business?  Imagine sitting in your first meeting with a new member of leadership and the person telling you that the situation is very bad, the company’s future is uncertain, and the issues are only going to get worse.  If  that is the best picture that the so-called leader can paint, why would anyone stay?

Talk about issues.  Surprises are bad for business.  On several occasions, postings have said this in the context of customers and suppliers.  The same is true when dealing with employees.  If an organization surprises its employees, it destroys loyalty.  They may disagree with the direction of the organization.  That is fine, even if it means that the employees leave the business.  The problem arises though if the organization decides to treat employees like mushrooms…  keep them in the dark and feed them BS.  Worse still, some organizations give employee groups different information, mixed messages, and don’t tell them how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. 

Find an enemy.  When an enemy exists, people within an organization are able to unite to fight that enemy.  This allows the destructive power of competition to be harnessed and channeled to fighting that enemy.  The enemy may be a competitor, but it can also be an idea.  For example, the enemy might be waste, mismanagement, or inefficiency.

Compartmentalize the organization.  Silos can minimize the negative impact of competition at an individual level because people face less conflict with others.  Be careful with this idea though.  Silos can also create a lot of frustration and conflict within an organization.

What other approaches have you seen organizations use to manage competition within organizations?  Which of these approaches are you using?  Are they meeting your needs?

Technorati Tags:                    
 
Posted in Business Acumen, Business Tips, Cultural Issues, Leadership, Planning Tips, Solving Problems, Team Building | No Comments »