Negotiation and Leadership Master Class

17/10/2024

"Do not look for luxury in watches or bracelets, do not look for it in villas or sailboats! Luxury is laughing and having friends, luxury is rain on your face, luxury is hugs and kisses. Do not look for luxury in shops, do not look for it in gifts, do not look for it in parties, do not look for it in events! Luxury is being loved by people, luxury is being respected, luxury is having your parents still alive, luxury is being able to play with your grandchildren. Luxury is what money cannot buy."

26/09/2017

08/03/2017

Why negative emotions can spark creativity

16 Feb 2017

Michael Parke and Rob Morris

Dr Michael Parke explores how feeling worried or frustrated can push people to achieve better results

Unleashing creativity_482x271A happy workforce can do wonders for your organisation’s productivity and creativity. But the idea that employees must always feel great to produce their best work is debateable, according to Michael Parke, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School.

In their research paper ‘The Role of Affect Climate in Organizational Effectiveness’, Dr Parke and Myeong-Gu Seo, Associate Professor of Management and Organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, explore why both positive and negative emotions can drive creativity. They also look at the link between a company’s emotional climate and the levels of innovation and productivity.

“There’s been a lot of research into emotions and how they influence or affect someone’s creativity,” Dr Parke says. “Positive feelings such as enthusiasm and excitement can encourage people to be more creative because they expand cognitive flexibility and enhance motivation. Negative emotions such as worry, anxiety and frustration can also increase creativity, but through different means as they focus the mind and make you more critical, which may result in a better outcome.”

Dr Parke says the way feelings influence team creativity depends on which of the two emotional climates your business has. The first is the “positive experiential climate”, in which employees are encouraged to share their feelings in order to establish a more productive, innovative and creative environment. The idea is that people harbouring negative emotions can share and work through them with their colleagues, turning a negative situation into a positive one. Leaders in these environments work hard to ensure employees are genuinely happy, as they believe a contented workforce spurs people to achieve better results.

“In these environments, leaders pay careful attention to people’s emotions and make sure that the disruptive effects of anger and frustration don’t take hold,” Dr Parke says. “They address issues and focus on bringing employees back to a more positive state.”

Channelling emotions to achieve better results
The second environment is the “authentic experiential climate”, where leaders have no preference when it comes to positive or negative emotions. Their aim is to help channel someone’s feelings – whether good or bad – into their work in order to achieve the best results. Some bosses working in this climate will curb enthusiasm and make people feel slightly dissatisfied by giving constructive feedback. “If someone clearly thinks they’ve done a good job, the leader may say, ‘Now, how can we get better?’ They do it to make sure people don’t get too satisfied or content with the current results,” Dr Parke explains.

Based on his research, Dr Parke believes an authentic experiential climate is highly conducive for sparking creativity. His study – which involved assessing several businesses from a range of sectors and interviewing managers at a leading technology company – suggests that tempering people’s sense of satisfaction after they complete a project successfully can spark their creativity and motivate them to do better next time.

The research also shows that negative emotions such as frustration and anxiety can focus the mind, making someone more attentive. “Let’s say you’re reviewing a paper or article you’ve written; to make it better, being in a more negative mood means you’re more likely to spot errors or ways in which to improve the work,” he says. “But they also have to keep an eye on any employees with negative feelings, as they don’t want them withdrawing or becoming too heated in a conflict.”

Managing emotions in an authentic experiential climate is a balancing act. Be too negative and you risk demotivating the workforce, as a New York Times article showed in 2015. The piece looked at Amazon’s mandate to push its white-collar workers as hard as possible to achieve the company’s ever-expanding ambitions.

Employees who struggled with the relentless pace were told to work faster. Bosses encouraged them to tear apart each other’s ideas in meetings, answer emails long into the night and meet what one staff member described as “unreasonably high” demands. Bo Olson, another critic and a former Amazon employee who left his marketing role after two years, said nearly every person he worked with had, at one time or other, cried at their desk.

Satisfaction can lead to complacency
In contrast, too much positivity can lead to complacency and an environment where people lack the drive to improve. Research carried out by psychological scientists Chak Fu Lam from University of Suffolk, University of Michigan’s Gretchen Spreitzer and Charlotte Fritz of Portland State University found that positive behaviour in the workplace can decline when feelings of happiness and satisfaction go beyond a certain point.

Generally speaking, unhappy workers are expected to feel demotivated or complacent. But upbeat employees may stop trying to improve when, in their mind, work is going really well. “Positive affect can reach a level such that employees perceive that they are doing well and it is not necessary for them to take initiatives, thereby reducing their proactive behaviours,” the academics wrote in an article for the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Their research involved asking 236 employees at a software development firm to rate positive statements such as ‘I feel alive and vital at work’, or ‘I have energy and spirit at work’. Then, their supervisors rated each worker and their level of proactive behaviour in the office, such as encouraging colleagues or speaking up about certain issues.

The results show that proactive behaviour generates positivity up to a certain level. Employees who classed their mood as moderately positive were the most proactive. The most upbeat and least happy workers exhibited fewer positive behaviours.

Getting the balance right is tricky. But leaders who can judge when to give positive feedback or constructive criticism in an authentic experiential climate are more likely to see more creativity and productivity from their staff.

08/03/2017

How to convince people you have a good idea
23 Jan 2017

Costas Markides

Your big idea isn’t going to sell itself. Here’s how to persuade everyone else that it’s great


how-to-convince-people-you-have-a-good-idea
So you have a good idea. Now what? Don’t make the mistake of thinking that everybody else will instantly recognise its brilliance, that they’ll share your enthusiasm or accept and adopt your new product or service. That’s unlikely to happen: even the best ideas require people to be convinced.

Two examples of highly successful products illustrate this nicely. One is Nespresso. Nestlé sells 10 billion Nespresso capsules every year. But in 1992, Nestlé had made the corporate decision to shut down Nespresso. Nestlé’s management decided it would never succeed and also feared cannibalising the company’s existing instant-coffee business. The fact that Nespresso survived is because somebody within that organisation did a good job of convincing the rest to stick with it. (You’ll find out who further down this article.)

The second example is Barbie. Mattel’s Ruth Handler got the idea for a new kind of doll for girls when she was on holiday in Switzerland in 1957. She saw a very unusual doll there, named Lilli. Unlike American dolls at the time, which were flat-chested, Lilli had breasts and she was dressed in provocative clothes. She wasn’t bought for children, she was bought by Swiss men. It took Handler two years to convince her own organisation to make Barbie and even then no distributor wanted to sell it. Everybody said, “Are you crazy? No respectable mother is going to buy these for her children. These aren’t dolls, they’re s*x toys.” Yet, 60 years later, two Barbies are sold around the world every second.

These examples show that even the best ideas need selling. There are five important variables that determine how likely it is that your efforts to convince people to back your idea will succeed. All five have to be right but the good news is you can influence them if you think strategically about each one in turn.

1. Who’s the seller?

Some people at better at selling their ideas than others. Consider, for example, former US President Kennedy. In 1962, he told the American people, “Let’s put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.” It was an extraordinary suggestion. But when Kennedy visited NASA and asked a janitor, who was cleaning the toilets, “What do you do here?” the guy said, “I’m helping to put a man on the moon, sir.” Now that’s having a powerful influence.

How did President Kennedy succeed in convincing people to pursue his vision? Effective sellers of ideas are credible, passionate about what they are selling and homophilous with the buyer (homophilous means the buyer looks at you and thinks, ‘I can relate to this person; he is one of us.’) The question for anybody trying to convince others of their idea is simple: “Do you display these characteristics?” If not, can you use somebody else to act as the seller of the idea?

2. How are you selling?

Some selling tactics are better than others. For example, if you’re not the president of the US, create some evidence to back up your idea. To do this, try it out, experiment with the idea. Collect some data and then go and show it to people. Similarly, if the idea is disruptive to people, can you frame it in a way that makes it appear less threatening? Can you use allies to help you sell the idea? Think creatively how to sell your idea and how to overcome resistance.

3. What are you selling?

Some ideas are quite simply better than others so it’s worth taking a long, hard look at what you’re offering. If my idea is to sell alcohol to the Muslim community, I could be the best seller in the universe, with fantastic selling tactics, but it’s highly unlikely that I will succeed. If an idea is disruptive to the norms and values of people, they are unlikely to buy it.

4. What’s the context?

What else is going on right now that might make your idea resonate – is the timing right? You might be selling it in the most effective way but people won’t buy it if the context isn’t supportive. Nouvelle cuisine took off in France between 1970 and 1997 because people were revolting against the status quo. It was a protest against traditional French cuisine, with its many rules, such as how to pair food with wine or how properly to cook certain types of food. In 1970 only 3% of restaurants in Paris served nouvelle cuisine. By 1997 it had been adopted by 37%. So look at your idea and consider: Is the timing right for it? Is there an urgent need for the idea?

5. Who’s buying?

Who are you selling the idea to? Supposing it’s about changing the world. You’re more likely to sell that idea to young people than to an older generation. Go to young people and say, “Join me, we’re going to change the world,” and some of them will. Go to my father, who is 85-year old, watching golf on television, and he’ll tell you to leave him alone – however charismatic you are and however persuasive in your arguments.

All five of these factors are important and the key point is that you can influence all five in your favour. For example, if you are not the right person to sell an idea, you could look for others to do the selling for you. If the timing is not right for your idea, you can help by creating a sense of urgency for the idea. If buyers are resisting your idea, you can look for allies to help. And you can certainly use a variety of tactics to sell your idea.

Unfortunately, most people look only at the “How” variable to influence rather than at all five. And when it comes to the “How” variable, the biggest myth out there is that the best tactic to influence people is to use rational arguments and reason. Rational arguments are important but they are not enough. An academic study at Harvard Medical School called Change or Die found that within six months of a heart operation, 90% of patients reverted to the behaviours that caused their poor health – smoking, eating fatty foods and so on – even though their doctor had told them, “You have to stop or you will die.” Rational arguments were not enough to convince these people.

If rational arguments are not enough, what can we do to convince people? The answer lies in the 10% who did change their ways after their heart operation. It all boiled down to how the doctor framed the need for change to them. What the doctor said to this 10% was, “Do you want to be able to play with your grandchildren without pain? Do you want to be able to go on long walks with your spouse, without having to carry an oxygen cylinder with you? Do you want to live a high-quality life? Then stop smoking.” This shows that if we want people to change, we have to give them something personal, positive and emotional to aim for.

Psychologists often use the analogy of the rider and the elephant to highlight the importance of making our message emotional. The rider is the rational side of a human being and the elephant is the emotional side. When you say to yourself, “I should go to the gym”, that’s the rider talking. The elephant says, “Yes, but right now I'm going to finish this beer.” You might imagine the rider is in control but actually it’s the elephant that determines what we do: nothing happens until the elephant decides to move.

Thus, to convince people, you need to win over the elephant – their emotional side. There are several ways to do this but my personal favourites are the following two: First, help people visualise what you're trying to sell to them in the most impactful way you can. If you have a medical innovation, for example, take along a patient whom your innovation has helped and ask them to talk about their experiences with your innovation. That’s going to be so much more memorable than a PowerPoint presentation.

Second, help your people appreciate what you are telling them by using stories. Storytelling is a key leadership skill. Human beings have been telling each other stories since the days when we lived in caves, when we’d sit around the fire after a day out hunting.

The key message is that good ideas don’t sell themselves. Until someone pushes for them, they're likely to fail. So don’t just hope for the best. Systematically work through the five variables, thinking carefully and strategically about each of them and making sure you have all five covered. Figure out how you’re going to establish an emotional connection with the people you want to convince. Then you have a chance of seeing your good idea become something people can’t get enough of.

27/01/2017

Seven Steps for Effective Problem Solving in the Workplace

by Tim Hicks
Previously published in The Business Journal of Sonoma/Marin.

Tim Hicks
Problem solving and decision making. Ask anyone in the workplace if these activities are part of their day and they'd certainly answer "Yes!" But how many of us have had training in problem solving? We know it's a critical element of our work but do we know how to do it effectively?

People tend to do three things when faced with a problem: they get afraid or uncomfortable and wish it would go away; they feel that they have to come up with an answer and it has to be the right answer; and they look for someone to blame. Being faced with a problem becomes a problem. And that's a problem because, in fact, there are always going to be problems!

There are two reasons why we tend to see a problem as a problem: it has to be solved and we're not sure how to find the best solution, and there will probably be conflicts about what the best solution is. Most of us tend to be "conflict-averse". We don't feel comfortable dealing with conflict and we tend to have the feeling that something bad is going to happen. The goal of a good problem-solving process is to make us and our organization more "conflict-friendly" and "conflict-competent".

There are two important things to remember about problems and conflicts: they happen all the time and they are opportunities to improve the system and the relationships. They are actually providing us with information that we can use to fix what needs fixing and do a better job. Looked at in this way, we can almost begin to welcome problems! (Well, almost.)

Because people are born problem solvers, the biggest challenge is to overcome the tendency to immediately come up with a solution. Let me say that again. The most common mistake in problem solving is trying to find a solution right away. That's a mistake because it tries to put the solution at the beginning of the process, when what we need is a solution at the end of the process.

Here are seven-steps for an effective problem-solving process.

1. Identify the issues.

Be clear about what the problem is.
Remember that different people might have different views of what the issues are.
Separate the listing of issues from the identification of interests (that's the next step!).
2. Understand everyone's interests.

This is a critical step that is usually missing.
Interests are the needs that you want satisfied by any given solution. We often ignore our true interests as we become attached to one particular solution.
The best solution is the one that satisfies everyone's interests.
This is the time for active listening. Put down your differences for awhile and listen to each other with the intention to understand.
Separate the naming of interests from the listing of solutions.
3. List the possible solutions (options)

This is the time to do some brainstorming. There may be lots of room for creativity.
Separate the listing of options from the evaluation of the options.
4. Evaluate the options.

What are the pluses and minuses? Honestly!
Separate the evaluation of options from the selection of options.
5. Select an option or options.

What's the best option, in the balance?
Is there a way to "bundle" a number of options together for a more satisfactory solution?
6. Document the agreement(s).

Don't rely on memory.
Writing it down will help you think through all the details and implications.
7. Agree on contingencies, monitoring, and evaluation.

Conditions may change. Make contingency agreements about foreseeable future circumstances (If-then!).
How will you monitor compliance and follow-through?
Create opportunities to evaluate the agreements and their implementation. ("Let's try it this way for three months and then look at it.")
Effective problem solving does take some time and attention more of the latter than the former. But less time and attention than is required by a problem not well solved. What it really takes is a willingness to slow down. A problem is like a curve in the road. Take it right and you'll find yourself in good shape for the straightaway that follows. Take it too fast and you may not be in as good shape.

Working through this process is not always a strictly linear exercise. You may have to cycle back to an earlier step. For example, if you're having trouble selecting an option, you may have to go back to thinking about the interests.

This process can be used in a large group, between two people, or by one person who is faced with a difficult decision. The more difficult and important the problem, the more helpful and necessary it is to use a disciplined process. If you're just trying to decide where to go out for lunch, you probably don't need to go through these seven steps!

Don't worry if it feels a bit unfamiliar and uncomfortable at first. You'll have lots of opportunities to practice!

27/01/2017

Applying Cynefin Complexity Theory to Mediation

by Greg Rooney
October 2016
Greg Rooney
Cynefin is a Welsh word that means we are influenced by multiple factors in our environment that we can never fully understand. It is a good way to describe the complex world we are experiencing in this early part of the 21st century.

The digital age is now a practical day-to-day reality for everyone. The illusion that the world is ordered and therefore can be easily reordered is challenged by the complexity of modern living. Conflict and disputes are also becoming far more complex. Today’s leaders in politics, industry and dispute resolution will have to manage this complexity in a way that allows the emergence of new ways of coexisting and innovative practices.

The Cynefin framework (Snowden and Boone 2007) is a practice-based management system that seeks to modulate this complexity rather than trying to constrain it. It is an insightful way of thinking that has direct application to conflict resolution and peace building practices.

It is an experiential mode of management which requires leaders to step back and allow patterns to emerge. It is through this emergence that opportunities arise for innovation and creativity. It is a process that opens the door for luck and serendipity. The focus is on managing the present and seeking out its evolutionary potential.

It requires leaders to have a deeper understanding of the broader context in which they operate and the ability to not shy away from complexity and paradox. Because it is an evolutionary process it gives managers the time and space to assimilate complex concepts. The approach is to probe first then sense and respond. It is managing for emergence rather than outcome.

Guiding Principles

Complexity theory is built on three guiding principles.

The first is that in a complex environment outcomes cannot be predicted. This is because each aspect of a complex environment is interconnected and so all parts constantly co-constrain each other. They co-evolve by constantly modifying behaviours in random, never in the same way twice. This constant change means it is impossible to forecast or predict what will happen.

As a result our understanding of why things happen the way they did can only be done in retrospect. Because no two contexts are the same in a complex environment the concept of joining the dots in advance is an illusion. Best practice is, by definition, past practice and hindsight does not lead to foresight after a shift in context (Snowden and Boone 2007, p 3).

The second principle is that in a complex environment there is no one way or right way of doing things. There is no universal solution. In fact choosing a single hypothesis limits the evolutionary potential inherent in the myriad alternative approaches. A multi-hypothesis approach leads to emergent practices and breakthrough innovations.

The third principle is that in a complex system you cannot go back or forward in time. We co-evolve so once patterns have formed we have to work from that point. Therefore we have to understand and manage from the present and nudge forward. This is the opposite approach to designing a desired end state and then working backwards to close the gap.

Using Brexit as an example the UK cannot reverse engineer back to 1973 and start again nor can it arbitrarily select a desired future state and try to close the gap. It can only nudge forward from the present.

The Process of Implementation

There is a three-step process in dealing with complex situations.

The first is to create a boundary within the system that irritates emergent behaviour into life. Managers can then observe that behaviour and amplify things that work and dampen things that do not.

Two examples from practice are the contractual requirements built into Project Alliances that preclude parties suing each other for negligence or fault and that all decisions are required to be unanimous with no abstentions (Rooney 2011). These boundaries irritate emergent behaviour amongst the contracting parties.

Other examples of boundaries include setting time limits, requiring outcomes where all parties either win together or lose together and mandating a no blame fully open book culture.

The second step involves creating a number of early ‘safe to fail’ trials or experiments that run independently in parallel. This stimulates lateral thinking and multiple perspectives. The aim is to avoid premature convergence or group thinking by keeping multiple possibilities open. It also recognises the value of ‘obliquity’ which is the practice of achieving objectives indirectly (Kay 2010).

The third step involves creating real time feedback systems so managers have the tools to monitor and manage in the present. This can involve the use of digital technology and apps to provide real-time feedback loops using narrative stories as a way of conveying raw data. These source stories help counter the cognitive distortion that occurs with interpretations and reinterpretations by consultants.

Allowing for Mavericks, Dissent and Disruption

One of the Cynefin mottoes is early detection and fast recovery. The aim is to trigger mistakes early through multiple safe to fail trials. Embracing risk and possible failure is an essential element of experiential understanding. It challenges groupthink by encouraging, minority views, mavericks and dissent. In other words diversity.

It is the opposite approach to the command and control model which seeks fail safe predictable outcomes. This is based on the cult of the alpha leader and is often driven by the desire to make the complex simple and ordered. This tends to focus on facts rather than allowing patterns to emerge. This leads to a structured rules approach which constrains the freedom of movement and diversity within organisations. It leads to organisational groupthink.

The over emphasis on efficiency and outcomes drives out variation. This is because diversity includes things that are not currently efficient. Allowing a place for mistakes, inefficiency, conflict and disruption to occur allows new learning which can be the springboard for innovation. They create a tension in the system which allows for evolutionary breakthroughs. If managers do not allow this type of internal disruption to occur then their competitors will disrupt externally.

Applying the Cynefin principles to Mediation

There are five models of thinking in the Cynefin framework. Simple/ordered, complicated/ ordered, complex, chaotic and the ‘I am not sure which model I am in’ thinking. The two main variations are the two versions of ordered and complex.

ADR theorists and academics point to at least five models of mediation. They are facilitative, evaluative, settlement, transformative and narrative.

However from a practice perspective there are only two models. The model that involves the parties working together in a joint session and the model that does not (caucused or shuttle mediation).

The application of complexity theory to mediation starts with the principle that any interaction between human beings (and markets) falls within the complexity quadrant. This is because we are communal in our culture and we co-evolve within groups and through our relationships. We are by our very nature complex.

From a mathematical perspective there are far more relationship connections in the joint session approach. In a simple mediation with one mediator, two parties and their lawyers there are 20 connections there and back between each of the participants, 48 pathways in which messages can be carried to and from the mediator and 120 pathways in total including through the mediator. However in caucused mediation there are no connections between the parties, four connections there and back between the lawyers and the mediator and therefore four pathways to and from the mediator.

The caucused mediation approach sits firmly in the ordered quadrant. It seeks to fashion order by hypothesising an end state solution and then applying pressure on the parties to close the gap. It is often conducted by alpha mediators (retired judges and senior lawyers) using a command and control approach.

A problem arises for managers and mediators when they apply ordered thinking to complex situations. Caucused mediation can be effective in simple ordered disputes but counter-productive in complex ones. Unfortunately it is often used as a one size fits all approach. This ignores the fact that apparently simple factual conflicts can disguise far deeper complex issues. It can inhibit emerging solutions, diversity, variety, innovation and the positive and creative aspects of disruption and conflict.

The Joint Session Model verses the Caucused Model

The value of the joint session approach in mediation is that it allows a fresh interaction between the parties in real time. It is a way of moving the focus away from the past and the future and on to the immediacy of the present. This is in harmony with complexity theory and the Cynefin approach of understanding and managing from the present rather than drawing from the past or hypothesising a future goal and trying to close the gap.

The joint session mediator has no option but to mediate the moment to moment interaction between the decision-makers. This draws the mediator away from mediating the problem to mediating the moment (Rooney and Ross 2012).

One of the core principles of the Cynefin approach is the concept of disintermediation. Its aim is to eliminate all secondary interpretations that occur when intermediaries analyse raw data before presenting it to the decision maker in summary form. It is by decision-makers having direct access to raw data presented in the form of multiple individual narratives that allows them to detect emergent patterns first-hand.

Caucusing, by its very nature, is an informational game that involves the ritual use of deception by the parties, their lawyers and by the mediator in some form or other. “Consensual deception is the essence of caucus mediation.” (Cooley 2003). Arm’s length game playing further alienates the parties who are the eventual decision makers. It leads to secondary interpretations by the lawyers and the mediators through relaying messages. The can result in a premature convergence of thinking and moving too quickly to a conclusion. It lacks the humanity present in the act of human interaction.

The power of the joint session approach is that the parties, the mediator and the lawyers can all observe first-hand the real-time interaction between the participants. The parties’ opening statements are a description of their interests and positions in narrative form. Although this does not eliminate game playing per se the parties can give it an immediate and direct visual and auditory context. It removes the element of secondary interpretation inherent in the caucused mediation approach.

The Cynefin approach of paralleling early ‘safe to fail’ experiments is replicated in the facilitative approach through face-to-face option generation, brainstorming and the many other mediation techniques such as ‘what if’ and ‘parking issues’. It can generate multiple perspectives which can be tested in real time by continuous back and forth movement between joint session and private caucus over the course of the session. Maintaining this dynamic interaction allows diversity of thinking, creating novel and unexpected outcomes.

The Importance of Developing Fluid Management and Mediation Skills

The Cynefin approach challenges the command and control style of management particularly in a complex environment. It requires leaders who can manage the flow of networks between people in a way that allows for a safe space for minority views, diverging opinions, conflict and internal disruption. It requires a higher state of alertness and the ability to provide a real-time response to emerging patterns and behaviours. This is the best pathway to creating strategic surprises and opportunities.

As with mediators working in the joint session model the Cynefin approach requires the development of fluid (soft) skills. These include the ability to remain totally present in the moment by maintaining an evenly suspended attention (Freud), acting without memory, desire and the need to understand everything that is happening (Bion), the use of time and space (Temporality, ‘The Third’, ‘The Field’) and intuition that goes beyond just pattern recognition (Rooney and Ross 2012).