by Marcia Xenitelis
I am often asked about the role of the CEO or leader of any organization in employee communication. My opinion is that no matter what the issue is, even if it is just business as usual, having a good communicator as a CEO is critical to impact the culture of an organization in a positive way.
Lets start with looking at some scenarios. These can include a merger or acquisition, an organizational crisis, announcement of annual financial results, corporate social responsibility or even trying to create a culture of innovation.
My contention is that no matter what the issue, there are 5 ways that your CEO can communicate with employees and achieve positive outcomes each time. Most of the methods listed below involve face to face dialogue to ensure the greatest engagement.
1. Staff Forums
Otherwise known as “Town Halls” these are opportunities for the CEO and Senior Management team to visit employees in all locations and address the real issues and concerns of staff as well as communicating the big picture. Employee communication tips include handing out cards to attendees so that the questions can be addressed after a break in proceedings, tailoring the presentation in part to the unique situation in the particular region the CEO is visiting and following up any issues that cannot be answered at the time.
2. Site Visits
These are an excellent employee communication tool for the CEO to find out specifically from the frontline exactly what the issues and concerns are of a particular region or department. The key is not only to spend time with the leadership team but also to sit with employees and find out what they are working on and inviting them to suggest innovative ways of doing things differently. CEOs' rarely spend time communicating with employees and this is one way to break down perceptions and encourage two way communication.
3. Employee Achievement
Another way the CEO can communicate change is to support and encourage employees personally for their achievements. These maybe directly related to the issue at hand and by taking time out to recognize high achievers or change agents it sends a strong message to all employees that the CEO will reward those who support and are engaged in the change agenda.
4. Leaderships Forums
One of the smartest things an CEO can do during times of change is to communicate with his / her leadership team. I have always found that employee communication strategies need to be pitched at different levels and with different strategies to suit the role and expectations of the employees. When we think of change it is the leadership team that will drive it, from regional managers, state managers to frontline supervisors it is important that the CEO communicates face to face with the leadership team to be very clear about his or her expectation of them during times of change. One employee communication tip here is that face to face one on one meetings be held with the direct reports to the CEO and the next level down; it is a very powerful tool and has maximum impact.
5. CEO Blog
Finally where would we be if we did not mention some form of technology driven communication tool. A CEO blog is very effective if it is used to support and report on the transformation process whilst the employee engagement strategy is underway. For example the CEO has one on one meetings with the leadership team, he / she then reports in the Blog on the key messages and expectations. The CEO begins visits to each region and reports back on the Blog the key observations and achievements of employees and so on. Employee communication tools to inform are always a back up and support to the real communication taking place, the employee communication engagement strategies as listed in points 1 – 4 above.
The methods suggested above also achieve another goal often neglected in employee communication. As this is the opportunity for the CEO to find out what people at all levels of the organization really think about a particular issue, it will cause the CEO to think differently next time about the importance of employee communication and will ensure that change communication is addressed at the planning phase of any major organizational change.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Top 10 Ways to Succeed at Succession Planning
Gordon Neufeld
For succession planning to be successful, companies need to establish a culture in which the process is consistently viewed as a bottom-up activity. Managers, technical gurus, sales stars, and even key executive assistants all play vital and valuable roles. Without this type of culture and a process in place to ensure a seamless transfer of knowledge and relationships, the equivalent of corporate dead air may result: performance lags, productivity loss, not to mention the financial costs associated with not having someone in a key position. Smart companies put a protocol in place for high-value individuals to ensure a succession-ready environment.
A top 10 list for succeeding at succession requires that talent managers:
10. Pick a timeline. Orienting an individual into a successor’s role takes time. At minimum, a 12-month window gives both parties the opportunity to transfer knowledge and manage relationships.
9. Choose possible successors. Starting with a short list, select who works well with the organization and who the emerging stars are. Is there a likely candidate or an unlikely candidate missing from the list?
8. Narrow the list. Everyone on the list should be interviewed to discern their interest and eligibility. Some may gracefully decline, while others will feel honored to be asked. Everyone needs to know there are other candidates so that no one is considered a sure thing.
7. Get buy-in. Discussions in both directions will help with the decision making. What is HR’s responsibility? What do managers higher up in the organization think?
6. Plan. What are the development needs of the potential successor? Is there technical training that needs to take place? Perhaps an executive MBA that needs to be conquered? Don’t forget the soft skills, as well. For instance, a Gen Y employee might need coaching to learn how to deal inoffensively with older colleagues who have boomer-type values and ways of doing business.
5. Facilitate succession via formal and informal shadowing. Let employees learn from the master. They should go on the sales calls, take minutes at the board of directors meetings and be part of the vice president’s budget sessions. Having the successor shadow his or her successee can be the most valuable way to impart knowledge.
4. Capture learning. Do this on paper, on tape, on video. Often, what is most important are the stories. Those leaving an organization must have their corporate histories captured. Generation Y and the millennials may ingest these stories best if delivered via social
networking or another Web 2.0 device. But, however they are shared, listening to or reading about a successor’s business war stories will transfer valuable knowledge to help those less experienced build the future.
3. Do a test drive. Assuming things have gone well (if not, see No. 9) it is time for a role reversal and some on-the-job experience. While a successee is completing a part of his or her new success plan, the successor needs to step in and fly solo.
2. Handoff. Whenever the formal switch takes place, the handoff should be smooth, with roles functioning as prescribed.
1. Evaluate. Don’t forget to lead a session on the process. What worked? What improvements need to be implemented? Most importantly, who is your successor?
The key to a consistent, successful succession plan starts with HR dialogue that might begin five to 10 years from an expected retirement day. With average retirement ages dropping like stones in a lake, the day when successors will be needed may arrive a lot sooner than many companies think. Adopting a systemic process and succession culture will pay off in many ways for forward-thinking companies. The most important payoff is ensuring valuable employees remain with the company, allowing them to evolve and reinvent while doing what they do best — creating value for their employers.
For succession planning to be successful, companies need to establish a culture in which the process is consistently viewed as a bottom-up activity. Managers, technical gurus, sales stars, and even key executive assistants all play vital and valuable roles. Without this type of culture and a process in place to ensure a seamless transfer of knowledge and relationships, the equivalent of corporate dead air may result: performance lags, productivity loss, not to mention the financial costs associated with not having someone in a key position. Smart companies put a protocol in place for high-value individuals to ensure a succession-ready environment.
A top 10 list for succeeding at succession requires that talent managers:
10. Pick a timeline. Orienting an individual into a successor’s role takes time. At minimum, a 12-month window gives both parties the opportunity to transfer knowledge and manage relationships.
9. Choose possible successors. Starting with a short list, select who works well with the organization and who the emerging stars are. Is there a likely candidate or an unlikely candidate missing from the list?
8. Narrow the list. Everyone on the list should be interviewed to discern their interest and eligibility. Some may gracefully decline, while others will feel honored to be asked. Everyone needs to know there are other candidates so that no one is considered a sure thing.
7. Get buy-in. Discussions in both directions will help with the decision making. What is HR’s responsibility? What do managers higher up in the organization think?
6. Plan. What are the development needs of the potential successor? Is there technical training that needs to take place? Perhaps an executive MBA that needs to be conquered? Don’t forget the soft skills, as well. For instance, a Gen Y employee might need coaching to learn how to deal inoffensively with older colleagues who have boomer-type values and ways of doing business.
5. Facilitate succession via formal and informal shadowing. Let employees learn from the master. They should go on the sales calls, take minutes at the board of directors meetings and be part of the vice president’s budget sessions. Having the successor shadow his or her successee can be the most valuable way to impart knowledge.
4. Capture learning. Do this on paper, on tape, on video. Often, what is most important are the stories. Those leaving an organization must have their corporate histories captured. Generation Y and the millennials may ingest these stories best if delivered via social
networking or another Web 2.0 device. But, however they are shared, listening to or reading about a successor’s business war stories will transfer valuable knowledge to help those less experienced build the future.
3. Do a test drive. Assuming things have gone well (if not, see No. 9) it is time for a role reversal and some on-the-job experience. While a successee is completing a part of his or her new success plan, the successor needs to step in and fly solo.
2. Handoff. Whenever the formal switch takes place, the handoff should be smooth, with roles functioning as prescribed.
1. Evaluate. Don’t forget to lead a session on the process. What worked? What improvements need to be implemented? Most importantly, who is your successor?
The key to a consistent, successful succession plan starts with HR dialogue that might begin five to 10 years from an expected retirement day. With average retirement ages dropping like stones in a lake, the day when successors will be needed may arrive a lot sooner than many companies think. Adopting a systemic process and succession culture will pay off in many ways for forward-thinking companies. The most important payoff is ensuring valuable employees remain with the company, allowing them to evolve and reinvent while doing what they do best — creating value for their employers.
Why Don’t We Ask?
Marshall Goldsmith
Why is asking so important? In the Information Age, leaders must manage knowledge workers. Peter Drucker has defined knowledge workers as people who know more about what they are doing than their boss does. It is hard to tell people what to do and how to do it when they already know more than we do. In today’s rapidly changing world, we need to ask, listen and learn from everyone around us.
Research shows that asking works. Howard Morgan and I recently published a study involving more than 11,000 leaders and 86,000 of their co-workers from eight major corporations. Our findings were clear: Leaders who ask, listen, learn and consistently follow up are seen as becoming more effective. Leaders who don’t ask don’t get much better. A few years ago, Alyssa Freas joined us in a similar study with customers and discovered nearly identical results. External customer satisfaction goes up when customer service representatives ask, listen, learn and follow up.
In addition to being supported by research, asking is just common sense. When people ask us for our input, listen to us, try to learn from us and follow up to see if they are getting better, our relationship with them improves.
This seems simple and obvious—so why don’t we do it?
Reviews of summary 360-degree feedback involving thousands of leaders from more than 50 organizations have shown that when the item “Asks people what he or she can do to improve” is included in the company’s leadership inventory, it almost always falls near the bottom (if not in last place) in terms of employee satisfaction. As a rule, leaders don’t ask.
I recently asked the vice president of customer satisfaction in a major organization if his employees should be asking their key customers for feedback—listening, learning and following up to ensure service keeps getting better. “Of course,” he replied.
“How important it this to your company?” I asked. “It’s damn important!” he exclaimed.
I then lowered my voice and asked, “Have you ever asked your wife for feedback on how you can become a better husband?” He stopped, thought for a second, and sighed, “No.”
“Who is more important—your company’s customers or your wife?” I asked. “My wife, of course,” he replied.
“If you believe in asking so much, why don’t you do it at home?” I inquired. He ruefully admitted, “Because I am afraid of the answer.” Why don’t most of us ask—even though we know we should? We don’t ask, because we are afraid of the answers.
Let me give you a personal example. I am 55 years old, and at my age, one type of input that I should be asking for every year is a physical exam. I managed to avoid this exam, for not one or two years, but seven years. How did I successfully avoid a physical exam for seven years? What did I keep telling myself? I will do it when I quit traveling so much. I’ll go after I begin my “healthy foods” diet. I will get that exam after I get in shape.
Have you ever told yourself the same thing? Who are we kidding? The doctor? Our families? No, we are only kidding ourselves.
My suggestions are very simple:
* As a leader: Get in the habit of asking key co-workers for their ideas on what needs to be done. Thank them for their input, listen to them, learn as much as you can, incorporate the ideas that make the most sense and follow up to ensure that real, positive change is occurring.
* As a coach: Encourage the people you are coaching to ask questions, listen to the answers and learn from everyone around them. Be a great role model for learning, then ask the people you are coaching to learn in the same way that you are. As an executive coach, I find that my clients can learn a lot more from their key stakeholders than they ever learn from me.
* As a friend and family member: Ask your loved ones how you can be a better partner, friend, parent or child. Listen to their ideas. Don’t get so busy with work that you forget that they are the most important people in your life. Improving interpersonal relationships doesn’t have to take a lot of our time. It does require having the courage to ask for important people’s opinions and the discipline to follow up and do something about what we learn.
Why is asking so important? In the Information Age, leaders must manage knowledge workers. Peter Drucker has defined knowledge workers as people who know more about what they are doing than their boss does. It is hard to tell people what to do and how to do it when they already know more than we do. In today’s rapidly changing world, we need to ask, listen and learn from everyone around us.
Research shows that asking works. Howard Morgan and I recently published a study involving more than 11,000 leaders and 86,000 of their co-workers from eight major corporations. Our findings were clear: Leaders who ask, listen, learn and consistently follow up are seen as becoming more effective. Leaders who don’t ask don’t get much better. A few years ago, Alyssa Freas joined us in a similar study with customers and discovered nearly identical results. External customer satisfaction goes up when customer service representatives ask, listen, learn and follow up.
In addition to being supported by research, asking is just common sense. When people ask us for our input, listen to us, try to learn from us and follow up to see if they are getting better, our relationship with them improves.
This seems simple and obvious—so why don’t we do it?
Reviews of summary 360-degree feedback involving thousands of leaders from more than 50 organizations have shown that when the item “Asks people what he or she can do to improve” is included in the company’s leadership inventory, it almost always falls near the bottom (if not in last place) in terms of employee satisfaction. As a rule, leaders don’t ask.
I recently asked the vice president of customer satisfaction in a major organization if his employees should be asking their key customers for feedback—listening, learning and following up to ensure service keeps getting better. “Of course,” he replied.
“How important it this to your company?” I asked. “It’s damn important!” he exclaimed.
I then lowered my voice and asked, “Have you ever asked your wife for feedback on how you can become a better husband?” He stopped, thought for a second, and sighed, “No.”
“Who is more important—your company’s customers or your wife?” I asked. “My wife, of course,” he replied.
“If you believe in asking so much, why don’t you do it at home?” I inquired. He ruefully admitted, “Because I am afraid of the answer.” Why don’t most of us ask—even though we know we should? We don’t ask, because we are afraid of the answers.
Let me give you a personal example. I am 55 years old, and at my age, one type of input that I should be asking for every year is a physical exam. I managed to avoid this exam, for not one or two years, but seven years. How did I successfully avoid a physical exam for seven years? What did I keep telling myself? I will do it when I quit traveling so much. I’ll go after I begin my “healthy foods” diet. I will get that exam after I get in shape.
Have you ever told yourself the same thing? Who are we kidding? The doctor? Our families? No, we are only kidding ourselves.
My suggestions are very simple:
* As a leader: Get in the habit of asking key co-workers for their ideas on what needs to be done. Thank them for their input, listen to them, learn as much as you can, incorporate the ideas that make the most sense and follow up to ensure that real, positive change is occurring.
* As a coach: Encourage the people you are coaching to ask questions, listen to the answers and learn from everyone around them. Be a great role model for learning, then ask the people you are coaching to learn in the same way that you are. As an executive coach, I find that my clients can learn a lot more from their key stakeholders than they ever learn from me.
* As a friend and family member: Ask your loved ones how you can be a better partner, friend, parent or child. Listen to their ideas. Don’t get so busy with work that you forget that they are the most important people in your life. Improving interpersonal relationships doesn’t have to take a lot of our time. It does require having the courage to ask for important people’s opinions and the discipline to follow up and do something about what we learn.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Five Steps to Better Family Negotiations
Author: John A Davis & Dipak Malhotra
Negotiations between family members who own a business are different—different from negotiations between non-family members and also different from negotiations between family members who don't have a business. This is because family relationships are distinctive kinds of relationships, and having a family business raises the stakes of—and often complicates—a family negotiation.
Consider first what sets family relationships apart. Relatives (especially in nuclear families) typically have long-standing relationships that are based on strong emotional ties and lifelong feelings of dependency. These characteristics lead to stronger loyalty and sensitivity to one another but also greater reactivity in their interactions. Family relationships also have deeply ingrained patterns that have developed over years of interacting. Relatives develop and play certain roles in their families, which tend to become fixed and limit the ways family members interact. Some of these patterns and roles can aid communication and negotiation, and some can derail communication and dispute resolution. In addition, communication between family members is notoriously complicated. Because of the sensitivity of their relationships, relatives struggle between openness and caution in their statements to one another. Family members also tend to have difficulty listening to one another without judging what they hear in the context of countless prior experiences that may have little to do with the current topic they are discussing.
In addition to these factors that apply to all family relationships, family members who are in business together have a lot at stake and feel pressured to consider what's good not only for the family but also for the business and its owners. There is generally a lot more for family members to manage—and negotiate over—in a family business system. Issues such as dividends and reinvestment, nepotism and professionalism, loyalty to stakeholders, and organizational change are ever present; they can be tripwires that spark intense feelings and have wide-ranging implications for the business, family, and owners. In many cases, family members have multiple roles in the system, like father-owner-manager, daughter-employee, or aunt-owner. These multiple roles and ties can create more shared objectives and as a consequence, more potential for value creation. However, these multiple roles and ties can be confusing to coordinate. Relatives can experience role confusion (should I act as a father or boss, a daughter or vice president?) and struggle over the appropriate role to play in a particular negotiation (e.g., is this a father-daughter negotiation or a boss-employee negotiation?). In vaguely defined situations, there is increased opportunity for misunderstanding and conflict.
But given the distinctive nature of negotiations for families in business, 5 basic principles of negotiation that have proven relevant in a wide variety of deal-making and dispute-resolution cases can help family negotiations to be productive while protecting family relationships. Some of the 5 principles of effective negotiation are easier for family members in family business systems to apply, and others are more difficult. But all 5 principles of effective negotiation can be successfully leveraged in negotiations between family members in family business systems. We will review the principles and their applicability to family negotiations below.
1. Analyze the negotiation space
The negotiation space consists of all parties that are affected by the negotiation, or that can affect the negotiation. Before you negotiate, it is critical that you consider the interests, the power, and the constraints facing each party. In the case of family businesses, many of the parties affected by a negotiation, or able to affect it, will be around for a long time. It is dangerous to negotiate only considering the interests of those at the bargaining table when those who are not at the table will be affected by what is negotiated and can assert their rights or power in the future.
A typical strength of family negotiations is that family members generally prefer to reach mutually acceptable outcomes in their negotiations.
The negotiation space in a family business system is often extensive and typically complex, involving family members, employees, and owners of the business, and also may involve key stakeholders of the family business system (e.g., customers and suppliers of the business, members of the community in which the family lives, etc.). Because family members in a family business system have highly interrelated lives, even if a relative is not directly involved in a negotiation, he or she might have a keen interest in its outcome and be able to affect the outcome. For example, if a father and his son are negotiating over the son's employee compensation, the negotiation space is likely to include (among others) the son's immediate boss, the son's coworkers, his sister (who is considering joining the business next year), and his mother. The wife-mother may not be a manager, board member, or owner, and have no official say in this matter, but she may still have a strong influence on both the father and the son, and her support may be critical for reaching a negotiated outcome that everyone finds acceptable and fair.
2. Don't try to beat the other side
Winning in a negotiation doesn't necessarily mean that the other party needs to lose. On the contrary, most successful negotiations entail the possibility of mutual value creation, compatible if not aligned interests, and cooperation. In fact, trying to beat the other side often results in negative results for both sides. The person inflicting injury will almost always end up losing—psychologically, socially, and/or financially—as well. This is obvious in a negotiation between family members who want or need to keep a mutually supportive family relationship.
A typical strength of family negotiations is that family members generally prefer to reach mutually acceptable outcomes in their negotiations. This constructive attitude is due in no small part to the strength of family ties: Typically, family members are genuinely interested in one another's welfare and prefer to avoid conflict because of its effect on future interactions. But some family relationships are weakened to the point where beating the other side is consciously or unconsciously desired by at least 1 party in the negotiation. So it is worth thinking through whether you wish to work together with the other side to negotiate and resolve conflicts—or whether you wish to "win." If it's the latter, hopefully you will have a friend or advisor discourage you from this path.
3. Understand the other party's interests, constraints, and perspective
Many people see negotiation as an opportunity to persuade and influence the other side to give them what they want. As a result, most people do not go into negotiation with the goal of listening to and learning about the other party. This is unfortunate, because to get what you want in negotiation, you often need to understand the other side's needs and interests so that you can "give a little to get a little (or a lot)." Even if the other side is entirely willing to help and is ready to give you what you want, it may be critical that you understand the constraints that he or she faces in meeting your demands. In other words, effective negotiation requires that you understand the other side's interests and constraints, and that the other party understands your interests and constraints.
Most family members are typically well intentioned when they negotiate, and one would think that such an orientation would make it easy for family members to listen to each other's perspective and to learn about each other's interests and constraints. But this isn't the norm for several reasons. First, relatives tend to be less curious and inquiring about their relatives than they are of others they know less well. This stems partly from an assumption—common among family members—that they already know what the other party wants, likes, and needs. Second, the long history of a family can also institutionalize roles for family members that are rather intractable, making it difficult, for example, for parents, children, and siblings to see each other as they are currently rather than as they were when they were younger. Third, because families generally fear conflict, they avoid certain conversations (that may be useful or necessary in a negotiation) for fear it will touch on a sensitive issue or encourage personal criticism that they won't know how to manage. While this might alleviate tension in the short run, it also perpetuates the status quo. The consequence: negotiations that involve listening, learning, and the exchange of authentic views between peers do not become the norm in most families.
Ironically, it turns out, people in close relationships (such as spouses) often negotiate worse outcomes than do people who care less about their counterparts!
Negotiations between family members who own a business are different—different from negotiations between non-family members and also different from negotiations between family members who don't have a business. This is because family relationships are distinctive kinds of relationships, and having a family business raises the stakes of—and often complicates—a family negotiation.
Consider first what sets family relationships apart. Relatives (especially in nuclear families) typically have long-standing relationships that are based on strong emotional ties and lifelong feelings of dependency. These characteristics lead to stronger loyalty and sensitivity to one another but also greater reactivity in their interactions. Family relationships also have deeply ingrained patterns that have developed over years of interacting. Relatives develop and play certain roles in their families, which tend to become fixed and limit the ways family members interact. Some of these patterns and roles can aid communication and negotiation, and some can derail communication and dispute resolution. In addition, communication between family members is notoriously complicated. Because of the sensitivity of their relationships, relatives struggle between openness and caution in their statements to one another. Family members also tend to have difficulty listening to one another without judging what they hear in the context of countless prior experiences that may have little to do with the current topic they are discussing.
In addition to these factors that apply to all family relationships, family members who are in business together have a lot at stake and feel pressured to consider what's good not only for the family but also for the business and its owners. There is generally a lot more for family members to manage—and negotiate over—in a family business system. Issues such as dividends and reinvestment, nepotism and professionalism, loyalty to stakeholders, and organizational change are ever present; they can be tripwires that spark intense feelings and have wide-ranging implications for the business, family, and owners. In many cases, family members have multiple roles in the system, like father-owner-manager, daughter-employee, or aunt-owner. These multiple roles and ties can create more shared objectives and as a consequence, more potential for value creation. However, these multiple roles and ties can be confusing to coordinate. Relatives can experience role confusion (should I act as a father or boss, a daughter or vice president?) and struggle over the appropriate role to play in a particular negotiation (e.g., is this a father-daughter negotiation or a boss-employee negotiation?). In vaguely defined situations, there is increased opportunity for misunderstanding and conflict.
But given the distinctive nature of negotiations for families in business, 5 basic principles of negotiation that have proven relevant in a wide variety of deal-making and dispute-resolution cases can help family negotiations to be productive while protecting family relationships. Some of the 5 principles of effective negotiation are easier for family members in family business systems to apply, and others are more difficult. But all 5 principles of effective negotiation can be successfully leveraged in negotiations between family members in family business systems. We will review the principles and their applicability to family negotiations below.
1. Analyze the negotiation space
The negotiation space consists of all parties that are affected by the negotiation, or that can affect the negotiation. Before you negotiate, it is critical that you consider the interests, the power, and the constraints facing each party. In the case of family businesses, many of the parties affected by a negotiation, or able to affect it, will be around for a long time. It is dangerous to negotiate only considering the interests of those at the bargaining table when those who are not at the table will be affected by what is negotiated and can assert their rights or power in the future.
A typical strength of family negotiations is that family members generally prefer to reach mutually acceptable outcomes in their negotiations.
The negotiation space in a family business system is often extensive and typically complex, involving family members, employees, and owners of the business, and also may involve key stakeholders of the family business system (e.g., customers and suppliers of the business, members of the community in which the family lives, etc.). Because family members in a family business system have highly interrelated lives, even if a relative is not directly involved in a negotiation, he or she might have a keen interest in its outcome and be able to affect the outcome. For example, if a father and his son are negotiating over the son's employee compensation, the negotiation space is likely to include (among others) the son's immediate boss, the son's coworkers, his sister (who is considering joining the business next year), and his mother. The wife-mother may not be a manager, board member, or owner, and have no official say in this matter, but she may still have a strong influence on both the father and the son, and her support may be critical for reaching a negotiated outcome that everyone finds acceptable and fair.
2. Don't try to beat the other side
Winning in a negotiation doesn't necessarily mean that the other party needs to lose. On the contrary, most successful negotiations entail the possibility of mutual value creation, compatible if not aligned interests, and cooperation. In fact, trying to beat the other side often results in negative results for both sides. The person inflicting injury will almost always end up losing—psychologically, socially, and/or financially—as well. This is obvious in a negotiation between family members who want or need to keep a mutually supportive family relationship.
A typical strength of family negotiations is that family members generally prefer to reach mutually acceptable outcomes in their negotiations. This constructive attitude is due in no small part to the strength of family ties: Typically, family members are genuinely interested in one another's welfare and prefer to avoid conflict because of its effect on future interactions. But some family relationships are weakened to the point where beating the other side is consciously or unconsciously desired by at least 1 party in the negotiation. So it is worth thinking through whether you wish to work together with the other side to negotiate and resolve conflicts—or whether you wish to "win." If it's the latter, hopefully you will have a friend or advisor discourage you from this path.
3. Understand the other party's interests, constraints, and perspective
Many people see negotiation as an opportunity to persuade and influence the other side to give them what they want. As a result, most people do not go into negotiation with the goal of listening to and learning about the other party. This is unfortunate, because to get what you want in negotiation, you often need to understand the other side's needs and interests so that you can "give a little to get a little (or a lot)." Even if the other side is entirely willing to help and is ready to give you what you want, it may be critical that you understand the constraints that he or she faces in meeting your demands. In other words, effective negotiation requires that you understand the other side's interests and constraints, and that the other party understands your interests and constraints.
Most family members are typically well intentioned when they negotiate, and one would think that such an orientation would make it easy for family members to listen to each other's perspective and to learn about each other's interests and constraints. But this isn't the norm for several reasons. First, relatives tend to be less curious and inquiring about their relatives than they are of others they know less well. This stems partly from an assumption—common among family members—that they already know what the other party wants, likes, and needs. Second, the long history of a family can also institutionalize roles for family members that are rather intractable, making it difficult, for example, for parents, children, and siblings to see each other as they are currently rather than as they were when they were younger. Third, because families generally fear conflict, they avoid certain conversations (that may be useful or necessary in a negotiation) for fear it will touch on a sensitive issue or encourage personal criticism that they won't know how to manage. While this might alleviate tension in the short run, it also perpetuates the status quo. The consequence: negotiations that involve listening, learning, and the exchange of authentic views between peers do not become the norm in most families.
Ironically, it turns out, people in close relationships (such as spouses) often negotiate worse outcomes than do people who care less about their counterparts!
What Customers Want from Your Products
Author Clyton M. Christensen, Scott, and Taddy Hall
With few exceptions, every job people need or want to do has a social, a functional, and an emotional dimension. If marketers understand each of these dimensions, then they can design a product that's precisely targeted to the job. In other words, the job, not the customer, is the fundamental unit of analysis for a marketer who hopes to develop products that customers will buy.
To see why, consider one fast-food restaurant's effort to improve sales of its milk shakes. (In this example, both the company and the product have been disguised.) Its marketers first defined the market segment by product—milk shakes—and then segmented it further by profiling the demographic and personality characteristics of those customers who frequently bought milk shakes. Next, they invited people who fit this profile to evaluate whether making the shakes thicker, more chocolaty, cheaper, or chunkier would satisfy them better. The panelists gave clear feedback, but the consequent improvements to the product had no impact on sales.
A new researcher then spent a long day in a restaurant seeking to understand the jobs that customers were trying to get done when they hired a milk shake. He chronicled when each milk shake was bought, what other products the customers purchased, whether these consumers were alone or with a group, whether they consumed the shake on the premises or drove off with it, and so on. He was surprised to find that 40 percent of all milk shakes were purchased in the early morning. Most often, these early-morning customers were alone; they did not buy anything else; and they consumed their shakes in their cars.
The researcher then returned to interview the morning customers as they left the restaurant, shake in hand, in an effort to understand what caused them to hire a milk shake. Most bought it to do a similar job: They faced a long, boring commute and needed something to make the drive more interesting. They weren't yet hungry but knew that they would be by 10 a.m.; they wanted to consume something now that would stave off hunger until noon. And they faced constraints: They were in a hurry, they were wearing work clothes, and they had (at most) one free hand.
The researcher inquired further: "Tell me about a time when you were in the same situation but you didn't buy a milk shake. What did you buy instead?" Sometimes, he learned, they bought a bagel. But bagels were too dry. Bagels with cream cheese or jam resulted in sticky fingers and gooey steering wheels. Sometimes these commuters bought a banana, but it didn't last long enough to solve the boring-commute problem. Doughnuts didn't carry people past the 10 a.m. hunger attack. The milk shake, it turned out, did the job better than any of these competitors. It took people twenty minutes to suck the viscous milk shake through the thin straw, addressing the boring-commute problem. They could consume it cleanly with one hand. By 10:00, they felt less hungry than when they tried the alternatives. It didn't matter much that it wasn't a healthy food, because becoming healthy wasn't essential to the job they were hiring the milk shake to do.
The job, not the customer, is the fundamental unit of analysis.
The researcher observed that at other times of the day parents often bought milk shakes, in addition to complete meals, for their children. What job were the parents trying to do? They were exhausted from repeatedly having to say "no" to their kids. They hired milk shakes as an innocuous way to placate their children and feel like loving parents. The researcher observed that the milk shakes didn't do this job very well, though. He saw parents waiting impatiently after they had finished their own meals while their children struggled to suck the thick shakes up through the thin straws.
Customers were hiring milk shakes for two very different jobs. But when marketers had originally asked individual customers who hired a milk shake for either or both jobs which of its attributes they should improve—and when these responses were averaged with those of other customers in the targeted demographic segment—it led to a one-size-fits-none product.
Once they understood the jobs the customers were trying to do, however, it became very clear which improvements to the milk shake would get those jobs done even better and which were irrelevant. How could they tackle the boring-commute job? Make the milk shake even thicker, so it would last longer. And swirl in tiny chunks of fruit, adding a dimension of unpredictability and anticipation to the monotonous morning routine. Just as important, the restaurant chain could deliver the product more effectively by moving the dispensing machine in front of the counter and selling customers a prepaid swipe card so they could dash in, "gas up," and go without getting stuck in the drive-through lane. Addressing the midday and evening job to be done would entail a very different product, of course.
By understanding the job and improving the product's social, functional, and emotional dimensions so that it did the job better, the company's milk shakes would gain share against the real competition—not just competing chains' milk shakes but bananas, boredom, and bagels. This would grow the category, which brings us to an important point: Job-defined markets are generally much larger than product category-defined markets. Marketers who are stuck in the mental trap that equates market size with product categories don't understand whom they are competing against from the customer's point of view.
Notice that knowing how to improve the product did not come from understanding the "typical" customer. It came from understanding the job. Need more evidence?
Pierre Omidyar did not design eBay for the "auction psychographic." He founded it to help people sell personal items. Google was designed for the job of finding information, not for a "search demographic." The unit of analysis in the work that led to Procter & Gamble's stunningly successful Swiffer was the job of cleaning floors, not a demographic or psychographic study of people who mop.
Why do so many marketers try to understand the consumer rather than the job? One reason may be purely historical: In some of the markets in which the tools of modern market research were formulated and tested, such as feminine hygiene or baby care, the job was so closely aligned with the customer demographic that if you understood the customer, you would also understand the job. This coincidence is rare, however. All too frequently, marketers' focus on the customer causes them to target phantom needs
With few exceptions, every job people need or want to do has a social, a functional, and an emotional dimension. If marketers understand each of these dimensions, then they can design a product that's precisely targeted to the job. In other words, the job, not the customer, is the fundamental unit of analysis for a marketer who hopes to develop products that customers will buy.
To see why, consider one fast-food restaurant's effort to improve sales of its milk shakes. (In this example, both the company and the product have been disguised.) Its marketers first defined the market segment by product—milk shakes—and then segmented it further by profiling the demographic and personality characteristics of those customers who frequently bought milk shakes. Next, they invited people who fit this profile to evaluate whether making the shakes thicker, more chocolaty, cheaper, or chunkier would satisfy them better. The panelists gave clear feedback, but the consequent improvements to the product had no impact on sales.
A new researcher then spent a long day in a restaurant seeking to understand the jobs that customers were trying to get done when they hired a milk shake. He chronicled when each milk shake was bought, what other products the customers purchased, whether these consumers were alone or with a group, whether they consumed the shake on the premises or drove off with it, and so on. He was surprised to find that 40 percent of all milk shakes were purchased in the early morning. Most often, these early-morning customers were alone; they did not buy anything else; and they consumed their shakes in their cars.
The researcher then returned to interview the morning customers as they left the restaurant, shake in hand, in an effort to understand what caused them to hire a milk shake. Most bought it to do a similar job: They faced a long, boring commute and needed something to make the drive more interesting. They weren't yet hungry but knew that they would be by 10 a.m.; they wanted to consume something now that would stave off hunger until noon. And they faced constraints: They were in a hurry, they were wearing work clothes, and they had (at most) one free hand.
The researcher inquired further: "Tell me about a time when you were in the same situation but you didn't buy a milk shake. What did you buy instead?" Sometimes, he learned, they bought a bagel. But bagels were too dry. Bagels with cream cheese or jam resulted in sticky fingers and gooey steering wheels. Sometimes these commuters bought a banana, but it didn't last long enough to solve the boring-commute problem. Doughnuts didn't carry people past the 10 a.m. hunger attack. The milk shake, it turned out, did the job better than any of these competitors. It took people twenty minutes to suck the viscous milk shake through the thin straw, addressing the boring-commute problem. They could consume it cleanly with one hand. By 10:00, they felt less hungry than when they tried the alternatives. It didn't matter much that it wasn't a healthy food, because becoming healthy wasn't essential to the job they were hiring the milk shake to do.
The job, not the customer, is the fundamental unit of analysis.
The researcher observed that at other times of the day parents often bought milk shakes, in addition to complete meals, for their children. What job were the parents trying to do? They were exhausted from repeatedly having to say "no" to their kids. They hired milk shakes as an innocuous way to placate their children and feel like loving parents. The researcher observed that the milk shakes didn't do this job very well, though. He saw parents waiting impatiently after they had finished their own meals while their children struggled to suck the thick shakes up through the thin straws.
Customers were hiring milk shakes for two very different jobs. But when marketers had originally asked individual customers who hired a milk shake for either or both jobs which of its attributes they should improve—and when these responses were averaged with those of other customers in the targeted demographic segment—it led to a one-size-fits-none product.
Once they understood the jobs the customers were trying to do, however, it became very clear which improvements to the milk shake would get those jobs done even better and which were irrelevant. How could they tackle the boring-commute job? Make the milk shake even thicker, so it would last longer. And swirl in tiny chunks of fruit, adding a dimension of unpredictability and anticipation to the monotonous morning routine. Just as important, the restaurant chain could deliver the product more effectively by moving the dispensing machine in front of the counter and selling customers a prepaid swipe card so they could dash in, "gas up," and go without getting stuck in the drive-through lane. Addressing the midday and evening job to be done would entail a very different product, of course.
By understanding the job and improving the product's social, functional, and emotional dimensions so that it did the job better, the company's milk shakes would gain share against the real competition—not just competing chains' milk shakes but bananas, boredom, and bagels. This would grow the category, which brings us to an important point: Job-defined markets are generally much larger than product category-defined markets. Marketers who are stuck in the mental trap that equates market size with product categories don't understand whom they are competing against from the customer's point of view.
Notice that knowing how to improve the product did not come from understanding the "typical" customer. It came from understanding the job. Need more evidence?
Pierre Omidyar did not design eBay for the "auction psychographic." He founded it to help people sell personal items. Google was designed for the job of finding information, not for a "search demographic." The unit of analysis in the work that led to Procter & Gamble's stunningly successful Swiffer was the job of cleaning floors, not a demographic or psychographic study of people who mop.
Why do so many marketers try to understand the consumer rather than the job? One reason may be purely historical: In some of the markets in which the tools of modern market research were formulated and tested, such as feminine hygiene or baby care, the job was so closely aligned with the customer demographic that if you understood the customer, you would also understand the job. This coincidence is rare, however. All too frequently, marketers' focus on the customer causes them to target phantom needs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)