Module 04, Closure
Avoidance. Avoiding a conflict is often best, if the matter is small or will take care of itself. Avoidance is only a problem if larger matters are not dealt with.
Appearing weak. It is true that in some cultures, and with some people in our culture, it is dangerous to appear weak, and admitting a mistake can seem a weakness. The alternative, not admitting a mistake, is dishonest and can lead to worse problems. The trick is to admit the mistake, but do it in a way that that does not come from weakness but from strength and confidence. This is not easy to do.
Personal abuse. Never stand for personal abuse. From a comment: Q. Separate
the people from the problem- You must ID the problem and ignore the personal
attacks being made by the parties in conflict.
A. Careful with this. If I get a personal attack, or "abuse," it is
dangerous to ignore it. "Perkins you're stupid." is abuse. Never stand
for abuse. An attack might be, "Perkins, you failed to realize the importance
of my deadlines." This is not quite abuse, except that another person cannot
know what, if anything, I "realize."
Q. Point one of principled negotiations says to keep the people separate from
the problem. I am not sure if this means physically separating the people, or
only allowing the people to discuss the problem (focusing). I do know that focusing
people with personality conflicts is sometimes impossible.
A. OK, I, we, all of us have a problem with this in practice, because we are
creatures of emotion. "Reason is flimsy birch bark canoe awash in a stormy
sea of emotion." (Will Durant.) But when conflicts arise and I want to
attack "that stupid SOB for calling me 'inept,'" the key is not to
focus on the insult or the SOBness of my adversary. Somehow we must bring the
discussion back to the problem we were discussing. The "problem" is
not our parenthood or technical prowess, but the failure to order the titanium
widgets, how we might get them, and what we may do in the meanwhile.
Q. The idea of principled negotiations has me slightly befuddled. It talks of
trying to satisfy both parties and the parent company. If an argument takes
place between the PM and another manager, wouldn't the PM's view be taken as
the view of the company (Assuming the PM is the more senior member)? Even during
labor negotiations, it is the company versus the union and those arguing the
behalf of the company represent the company. I don't see how the split is made
into three parties.
A. You can have three-way and more-way negotiations. These are common. The hardest
negotiations are within own department or company. After these, we negotiate
with someone outside.
Win-win says that we are not looking to "beat" the other guy, but
for the best deal for both of us. There have been books and books written about
this. It is counter to the intuitive, win-loose: if I get more money (win) the
other guy must pay more money (loose). The win-win: I need more money in order
to make a high quality product (win), the other guy gets the benefit of the
high quality product (also win). No, I'm not from la la land.
The four concepts of principled negotiations work for any situation. They are
all sound. It's not a bad idea to write them out and review them when planning
a negotiation.
Q. The "muddiest" item in this module was charters for partnerships.
The charter itself is not muddy; my question is are they really used. They seem
like a great idea and definitely something every partnership would benefit from,
but in reality to companies actually sit down and make these for individual
projects. Is it a legal issue to have one in place?
A. If the parties are within the same economic entity, company, the charter
is not a "contract," you can't contract with yourself. If it is between
different entities, the lawyers will be sure the charter is written in such
a way it is not a "contract." Typically when the PM is begging for
commitment for resources, she asks a Functional Manager, "Will you give
me use of the garage next winter to set up our prototype?" The FM will
say something like, "Sure, if we are not using it for something else."
But that is better then "No!" Perhaps. If you have a "No"
you know to start looking for something else. With a "Maybe," you're
not sure.
Q. I understand this chapter pretty well, so my question is rather trivial.
In the last paragraph of section 6.1, the author refers to some initial meetings
and perceived expectations as a type of negotiation. This is no way is a negotiation
in my mind- it is simply a matter of being honest and forthright. It is a matter
of presenting your position in an ethical manner.
A. Here the author is talking about a negotiation between parties of very unequal
power or knowledge about an important matter. He is trying to distinguish that
situation, where you have an "obligation to inform," from the more
common situation of two parties of approximately equal power and knowledge where
the obligation is "not to misinform." An architect negotiating a remodel
contract with the University of Montana Facilities Construction department has
an obligation not to misinform; the same architect negotiating with church elders
about a church renovation has an obligation to inform. In negotiations, it's
not unethical to take advantage of the foolishness the former, but not the later.
At least in my opinion. However, it is usually bad business to take advantage
of anyone.
Q.The muddiest thing in the chapter was the discussion on project changes.
Since I'm also taking the ESM Law class right now, I've heard a lot of talk
recently about changes. This book seems to imply that there are only three major
types of changes: errors in initial estimates/bidding, increased understanding
of technology, and the mandate. However, I thought this left out a major source
of change and one that can cause major conflict, as well as numerous lawsuits-namely,
the changes ordered by the project owner or senior management simply due to
their fickle nature and changing desires. One could presumably argue that these
fall under the mandate. Yet, a PM has no control over a mandate; "demands"
from a finicky owner, however, can cause a situation when the contractor/PM
must utilize all his negotiation skills. Did I just miss something in the text,
or did the author gloss over this topic?
A. For a "change" to be a legal issue, there must be a contract between
different parties. One party wants a change, but doesn't want to pay for it,
or one party says there has been a change and wants to be paid and the other
party say there is no change. Your author is not looking at the contract issues
or money, but rather as the reason for the change. You would add a fourth category,
terminal fickleness or psychosis of the owner. Most PMs would agree with you.
However St. Francis says, "It is better to understand than to be understood."
Often there are good reasons for the change, but we don't know them, and sometimes
the owner's representative does not know them either, only that this change
must be made. That puts us in the difficult position of going over the owner's
representative's head in order to find out more information about the change.
Q. What is my biggest criticism regarding this chapter? Great that the authors
acknowledged the role in negotiation and conflict resolution in their chapter,
but unfortunately their chapter is not a useful tool to learn these skills.
The main deficiency is a generic one. It's like skiing. You cannot learn skiing
from a book. To my knowledge the only way of learning these skills is by practicing
them. Seminars can be a very good modus for this. In the past I was always keen
in attending these small group (max five people) seminars because they were
extremely helpful. Add to it didactic, presentation, and rhetoric seminars with
video assessment, etc. and you have a valuable package of skills that no book
can ever convey.
A. Yes, the ESM Advisory Committee recommended that we offer some 1-credit professional
development courses and negotiating was one of them.
Q. The least clear item was the pareto-optimal solution and the role of mathematics
in solving human relations.
A. I was half-joking with the math, but the pareto-optimal is an important principle,
which defines the best each party can do in a situation. We are seldom really
there, and often can get a better deal for us AND our opponent, if we work at
it.