A632.7.4.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

While my example of collaboration in resolution is not from a business aspect, I feel it comes from a much more difficult area of life, family.  Have you ever tried to get seven people in the same family to agree on a vacation?  It is not a pretty site.   For the most part, we usually end up divided into three “teams”, the rational planners, the dreamers, and the laid back, go with the flow, I have no real opinion group.  I happen to fall into the rational planners, and that I serve as the CEO and the COO.  My husband is always concerned about the cost of things, so he serves as our CFO.  My eldest son is all about information and facts so he is our CIO.  The rest of the kids are VP’s of marketing as they are all about getting their wants and needs in front of anyone who will listen.  Of the remaining four kids, two fall into the “go with the flow” category and two are dreamers who want the most extravagant vacation possible.  This makes negotiating almost impossible. 

After planning multiple vacations, we found ourselves struggling whenever we needed to come up with a new idea.  We would ask the kids what they wanted to do and each had their own answer.  Our way of dealing with this initial issue way to hold family meetings, which are similar to the first meeting in a negotiation.  This had mixed results, we could either agree on what to do on vacation in a short time or we could not agree after hours of discussion.  After reading Levine’s (2009) I have a clearer picture of what we were doing wrong and how we can change it. 

First me, as the CEO and the COO, would meet with my husband, the CFO, to discuss a budget and any logistical issues involved with the vacation.  We then have an idea of what we are working with and create parameters to tell the kids.  From there we can present the time frame for the vacation, the traveling distance, and any other restrictions there may be.  Even the younger of our children can understand the concept of money and a limited budget.  Another way to go about deciding a vacation would be for us to choose a location and have the kids decide what we do there.  This will eliminate the large issue of where to go and only focus on what to do.

Once we have decided on a place to go, I would allow my oldest, the CIO, to research some options for fun things to do that will include the entire family.  He could then present these ideas to the rest of the family at the meeting.  This is where things could get tricky as two kids really won’t care where they go and two will want to do everything imaginable.  This is where I would evoke Levine’s (2009) nine questions to clarify the vision.  Do we want a beach, an amusement park, or something completely different? This is what I would call our vision and not all parties involved will agree, but with some discussion and the telling of stories of sorts things will com around to an agreement on what type of vacation we are looking for. 

From here we can move on to determining if our vision meets the needs of all involved.  That means finding out if the vacation is in our budget, if there is something to do for all parties, and if it has the potential to be fun.  This part of the discussion will also address whether anything needs correcting or adjusting.  Once we have all agreed on the type of vacation we can move on to where. 

The next three of Levine’s (2009) questions are about making sure the agreed upon vision meet everyone’s idea of a vision.  For us as a family, this means finding a place that aligns with our mission and is within our budget.  This part of the process seems like it would be a bit easier for us.  We have already narrowed things down to what and that limits the where so the options become less leaving less room for conflict.  Our VP’s of marketing have the opportunity to respond to our CEO, COO, CFO and CIO’s presentations and address them as they see fit.  With limited options available to them I’m hoping it will be an easier decision to be made.

Once the decision of where has been finalized the exact details can be worked on.  Where are we going to eat? What time are we doing certain activities?  Are we going to stay together as a group or split up?  These are the final details to work out before it is time to reach a resolution and book the trip.  This is where each person has the opportunity to listen and become current and complete with the information, in order to reach and craft a new agreement.  These are the final steps in resolution.      

In the past, my husband and I have been the ones to make the vacation decisions but now that the kids are getting older it is time for them to have a say.  Sure we will still have a large role in directing them towards an educated decision, but hopefully, we have taught them to be able to make an informed one.  The time of year, budget and prior engagements will still dictate certain parts of the vacation, however, the kids will still be able to plan the trip and feel it is their own.                         

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

After completing my general assignment, which focused on Levine’s (2009) ten principal of new thinking (p.46), I have learned that the major component to successful conflict resolution is listening.  In addition to listening, both parties must be willing to open themselves up, share information, and look ahead to the long-term.  These are all things I wish I had done with my ex-husband when I wanted to move out of state. 

In the beginning, the dialogue with my ex-husband about the move was open and amicable but as time went on and other people became involved things got messy.  The conflict at hand went from involving the two of us, as divorced parents to our son, to encompassing our entire families, lawyers, and court members.  When this happened our cycle of revolution broke down. 

During the battle, the two of us exhibited every one of Levine’s (2009) old thinking principals.  We were not listening to each other or our son, we were not sharing information, and we were definitely fostering conflict.  Each one of us was trying to win in a way that suited ourselves, without thinking about all the others involved.  We were focused on the short-term outcomes, not the long-term consequences and this caused us to do more damage than good.  The longer this went on the more people who got involved the murkier the conflict became until we ended up in court in front of a judge.  This was the turning point for both of us, it became clear that if we continued this person who did not know us or our child was going to be making decisions for us that we would have no control over.  This was a scary prospect for both of us, which caused us to make changes.  I dropped the petition to leave the state and he stopped being hostile towards me for it. 

Once we both stopped taking advice from outside sources, mainly my mother, our lives began to even out.  We were able to set a visitation schedule that worked for both of us, agree on child support, and begin to co-parent our son again.  All of this was possible because we were once again listening to each other and our son instead of focusing on winning whatever battle we saw in front of us.  Levine (2009) tells a story (p. 105) that mirrors mine in conflict, a mother wanted to leave the state with her two boys and the father was against it.  In Levine’s story, the father listens to the boys request to move and realizes that the battle had been about things that were not the boys but his own and he agrees to let them go.  While the outcome is different that mine, my son was only three at the time of our conflict so his opinion was not an option in the court system, the underlying theme is the same, the need for listening.  

My ex-husband and I have progressed immensely since the days of our court battle.  We no longer fight over every little detail of our son’s life, instead, we talk about the options and he is now old enough to have a say in it.  We have also realized that the issues at hand are not about what is best for us but about what is best for him.  The absence of outside interference has also helped, especially when that interference is negative in nature. 

Levine’s (2009) principals have taught me to slow down, look ahead, and listen to what others have to say.  Where the immediate outcome may be first in your mind it may not be the best solution, sometimes the best answer comes over time.  The more listening that happens, the more information that is shared, the more open the parties are the better the chance of resolution becomes.  We all want to be heard, but that starts with listening.      

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.5.5.RB - Protected Values in Decision Making

While the concept of protected values as described by Irwin and Baron (2001) was clear to me, values that are protected from trade-offs as well as absolute and inviolable, my protected values were not.  I had to stop and think for a while about what things I hold dear and would not consider giving up no matter the circumstances.  At first, I was thinking general, such as honesty and integrity, but then I realized that the values they were referring to were more specific.  It took me a few days to finally list three values for me that would not be for sale at any price. Two of my protected values are philosophical, vaccinations and animal testing and one is personal, “foreign” vehicles.  Though I learned a lot about values this week, I learned more about myself.

The one value that is a personal choice is my commitment to “foreign” car companies, and I say “foreign” as they are all manufactured in the USA but the engineering is from a foreign company.  I have owned cars made by the large American companies and have always had multiple issues with reliability and quality, which lead my to me preferring two carmakers, Honda and Toyota.  Since making that decision fifteen years ago, I have not had any issues with the quality or reliability of their products, leading me to believe that even though the prices on these cars are higher that the American ones it is worth it.  The upfront price is not a trade-off I am willing to give, as in the end the amount saved ends up going to repair costs down the line. 

My second protected value is no animal testing; something I feel is cruel, unnecessary and does not eliminate the need for human testing.  As an animal person, I cannot accept the abuse that comes with animal testing, even if there is a greater good.  Especially when even after the animals are tested the need for human trials still exists, as animals do not respond to things the same way humans do and many trials that pass animal testing fail in the human ones.  I will not buy beauty products that are tested on animals, however, I cannot tell you that I do enough research to know what medications we use have been animal tested. 

I am a strong proponent of vaccines, especially with children.  I have never questioned my doctors when it comes to my kid’s routine vaccinations as I feel the benefits outweigh the risks.  That being said there are some medical decisions I do question and will not participate in, one is the flu vaccine and the other is oral fluoride.  The flu vaccine is helpful for those who are elderly or have a compromised immune system and if I had either of those situations in my house I would opt to have the vaccine, but I do not so I decline.  As for oral fluoride, many doctors are pushing this lately and it has some major risks including a possible link to cancer, but that it not my only reason for declining.   I have had multiple conversations with my children’s dentist and he believes that topical fluoride is a much better option and I agree.  Maybe this makes me hypocritical when it comes to vaccines or maybe it means my protected value isn’t so protected as it can be sold when the risks outweigh the benefits.   

This assignment was a struggle for me, not in that I did not understand the concepts but that I did not understand myself.  It was difficult for me to think of values I stand for and would not change, which made me wonder if  I actually stand for anything.  I then realized that I do stand for certain values but I don’t necessarily take them at face value or without scrutiny.  Making a blanket statement where I can say I am completely for or against one thing is not something I can do, I prefer to research all the aspects of the option and make an informed decision from there.  Does that mean that my values are not protected?  Maybe, but it is what works for me at this time.             

Irwin, J, and Baron, J. (2001). Values and Decisions. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, &

R. E. Gunther (Authors), Wharton on Making Decisions (pp. 201-221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.   

A632.4.5.RB - Deception in Negotiations

When it comes to negotiations, how do we know whom to trust? How can we tell when someone is lying to us?  Have we gotten the best deal?  These are questions many of us have faced when dealing with negotiations, and sometimes the answers favor us and sometimes they don’t.  While we cannot control others actions or personalities in negotiations, we can protect our own.  Our reputations and our predilection for lying are both tools we use to negotiate deals everyday. 

My first step in negotiations is to do my research and prepare my questions.  As Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) stated, negotiators should identify missing information and prepare to ask questions multiple times.  Today’s world of Internet makes it even easier to shop around to just about any item one would want.  I like cars and I like to trade and buy cars often, this has made me a pretty good negotiator with dealerships.  I will spend weeks looking at different dealerships for the car I want and then use the information I have to work against them.  I start as far away from my home as possible (within driving distance) and then work my way back.  This gives me the opportunity to work the dealerships that are far away to give me the best deal to make it worth my drive to them.  I then ask questions of my local dealerships to see where they stand in price and availability. 

By asking the dealerships direct and specific questions, I can assure I am making similar comparisons.  According to Hoch et al (2001), direct questions are more difficult to answer with a lie.  Vague questions give the responder the opportunity to think up an indirect way of answering.  I want to know exactly what is included in the deal, what they are going to do for me, and why I should buy from them.  These questions are not always easy for dealerships to respond to. I have found that the quicker the response a person gives the more honest it is, they don’t have time to create a lie.  I also find that the slower a person talks the more apt they are to be telling the truth.  When people talk fast I fell like they are trying to gloss over something. 

Another important part of negotiations is to get everything in writing, that way there is no question about what the deal entails.  Hoch et al (2001) stated that it is important to put things in writing, inspect records and insist on guarantees.  When details are made and agreed upon a written record should be created, and both parties should have access to it before ending negotiations.  Verbal agreements can be easily changed or reworded which may change the outcome, even a simple email can be sufficient proof.

Managing one’s reputation is just as important after the sale.  By taking a step back and reflecting on the negotiation can give good insight as to what went well and what could have gone better.  I also like to follow up with the other party a few days after the deal is closed to thank them.  Hoch et al (2001) advised to never reveal additional confidential information, such as what you would have been willing to pay, this can harm future relationships. 

My best negotiation was with buying a new van.  I had bought a van but did not like it, in fact, I hated it and within a year, I wanted a new one.  I did my research and chose the make and model I wanted.  I then went online to find all the dealers that had that model in stock and narrowed my choices down from there.  It was down to two dealerships, one not far from my house and the other that was over two hours away.  The dealer that was further away gave me a better price but it wasn’t a color I liked, so I took their price to the closer dealership, who had acquired the color I wanted from another dealership. When I arrived at the dealership, on a Saturday, I presented the cheaper price to them and they refused to match it.  My husband and I went to lunch to discuss the deal and decided that if they would not match the price we would go to the other dealership or not purchase the van at this time, as we did not need the van I simply wanted it.  We returned to the dealership and told them to match the price or we were leaving.  They still said no and we walked out.  On Monday morning, I received a phone call from the dealer saying they would match the price and they would deliver the van to my house.  I accepted and was a very happy customer.  I have bought other cars since then and I always give that dealership, and that salesman, the first opportunity.  They may have played hardball at first but in the end, they realized I was not going to give up and the amount of money they may have lost was worth keeping the sale and the opportunity for future sales as well.            

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions.

Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.