You Can't Always Get What You Want

Cultural differences can influence negotiations; cultural tendencies influence the way people act and how they expect to do things. It is necessary to understand that these differences exist and know the other side as to not be blindsided. This text focuses on “the ways that people from different regions come to agreement or the processes involved in negotiations.” Decision-making and governance processes change from culture to culture. Map the players and the process: 1. Who are the players? Sometimes there are more players than the ones at the negotiation table. This is the case with governments and other institutions and/or organizations. Sometimes it is not obvious: example of Germany (labor has equal representation on the board), China (party officials will have their say). 2. Who decides what? It is essential to identify each player’s role and “who owns which decisions”. Example of Pirelli and Continental. In Japan, the board of directors may include represe...

This was a very intense roleplay. I was playing JT, the head of payroll for CPA Inc, an accounting firm. Paychecks had been stolen and cashed by someone in the company. The forensic team said their investigation concluded that Sandy might be the one who forged the signatures but it was inconclusive. Other employees were certain she had done and they wanted her to be fired. This wasn't so much a negotiation as much as it was an argument. The Roos and Danas were unforgiving and relentless; they didn't let anyone else speak and they were speaking in a loud manner. Sandy got angry as well due to their false accusations but she managed to control her anger a bit more. I tried to get everyone to reach an agreement and to compromise: after a while I understood I should direct my attention to the 2 least disruptive Roo and Dana, and I got them to be content with just moving Sandy to another department instead of firing her. The other two however were having none of it, they d...

Photo by  Bethany Legg  on  Unsplash Escalation According to Max Bazerman and Margaret Neale, “irrational escalation” is an error committed by otherwise level-headed businesspeople when they get into difficult and competitive negotiations. It might also be called “over-commitment” : when you don't change your mind or approach regardless of what facts and situations show you. Even a good strategy will turn out to be awful if it is escalated beyond the point where it no longer makes sens. Reasons : people's egos make them feel it is unbearable to lose, they can't stand it, so they pay more money to get what they want even if this leads them to bankruptcy; auctions and other situations that pit people against each other encourage this kind of behavior; principal/agent problem (people dealing with other people's money tend to not care as much about it). Solutions : get a firm handle on the alternatives to th...

Photo by  Marcos Luiz Photograph  on  Unsplash When it comes to dealing with an angry mob, PR representatives for companies are usually advised by lawyers to either stay silent or to not admit guilt when addressing the public (because this could lead to legal problems). However, people want to be heard and they want the company to apologize: that is the least they can do. Therefore the company should: acknowledge the other side's concerns, encourage joint fact finding, offer contingent commitments, act in a trustworthy manner at all times and focus on building long-term relationships. 

Photo by  Igor Ovsyannykov  on  Unsplash This was a successful negotiation. It was fairly calm and both parties got a good deal. I was representing the Bunyon Construction Company along with my colleagues Paloma, Mathilde and Fréderic. I was Chris Bunyon, senior VP. I was happy with the part I got because I think I'm a natural leader and according to my colleagues I was able to keep the negotiation going, trying my best to keep everyone calm so that the exchange between the company and the residents of Chestnut Drive would be productive. I have to say it wasn't easy at times when, for example, the residents complained about things we had no idea had happened (the crack in the shopkeeper's house) or when one of our VPs started making witty remarks that angered the other party. Preparation time was very helpful; time flew by when we were trying to guess what both party's positions and interests were. We managed to establish the issues we would talk a...

This game felt like a round of poker: very intense, tactical and a lot of bluffing involved. It brought out the worst in us. And to our surprise we could have gotten much more if we had all played along. Of course, I wasn’t all that surprised: when I started to understand the game after the first round I kept telling my colleagues to play Ys so that we would all win points. But of course some are greedier than others and their instinct kicked in. I could almost see the little angel on their right shoulder saying “trust your colleagues” and the devil on the other side saying “take what you can, give nothing back” (Jack Sparrow – sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow – would approve). I can see the appeal in getting 3 points; but lets face it, the chances of that happening were slim. By not trusting one another we were bound to lose. But why is it that we are inherently suspicious of others? Why is trust so difficult to build? And what to do once you have broken it? I scoured the inter...