Responsibilities and cultural influences
Having responsibilities is the hardest thing. Everybody is expecting you to find and answer and to act very toughly, to make decisions quickly (and not soft decisions, but far-reaching ones), to find an agreement and make all the situation peaceful again. Last negotiation was very difficult in the way that I had to work with two different and aggressive parts. One person was charged with robbery by three of her colleagues. First mistake I made during the entire negotiation : I was stressed and my body language betrayed me. It is hard to remain stationary and to be a neutral and calm individual. So I started the negotiation process saying to my interlocutors that we where here to discuss the robbery case. I emphasize the act that everybody will have a time to express themselves. Without waiting more, angry employees complained about the fact that I had to fire the one they suspected to be the culprit. I decided to let them talk a little bit but I quickly realized that to would not make any change in the situation. So I proposed then to let the other part defend herself.
Because the angry employees returned over and over to the attack without expressing any proposition in order to move forward, I took the lead asking them if they had any requests. Unfortunately, I took too much time in order to calm them, it was my second mistake i think. Indeed, I am not authoritarian and reactionary by nature. However, I succeed. I bring the calm back suggesting a lot of different situations and course of action we will apply as soon as we get the results of the investigation. In any ways, without proof, i could not do anything and I highlight the fact that it is unfair to do something without any basis. I reassured all the employee because they were worried about their paycheck and I told them again that it was important to move forward by taking carefully considered decisions in order to keep the company healthy on the long term. It is important not to forget that. It was difficult too to face my interlocutors insofar as they were in a rather repetitive approach: in spite of my proposals and the proposed solutions I made, they did not want to not to listen to me so I had to reformulate a lot and to insist on several points. I also ask them to be cordial to favor subscribe agreement supposed of a workplace.
No one wants to start its week by doing something hard. Especially when you've been sick during all your your week-end. But I am glad I made it because it allowed me in the end to learn it more on one hand on the negotiation in a general way (how to react according to its position? What attitude to adopt?) but also on me. It is not only a question of having voucher arguments and of "trapping" our interlocutor by making so that he/she is not capable of disputing or of refuting your argument. It is a question here of knowing how to lead a discussion and to calm a situation. So it is necessary to be capable of asserting itself and not of "fighting" like that was able to be the case during the previous negotiations.
At the end, we had like the correction and it was very impressive. It was the first time we assisted a negotiation we just made before. My colleague had the great idea to speak with each part separately (the plaintiffs and the victime) what so allowed to calm tension from the outset and to put the cards on the table by standing out as the only person able to take the decisions. She knew how to express itself in a very quiet way. The negotiation took some time but I think that it very well went out there. I wa so impressed by her attitude: she was exactly doing what she has to do. threatening Being firm without being. I am very disappointed to arrive at our last course because the practice of the negotiation made for me progressed a lot both in my capacity of expression and in my capacity of reflection. I succeed in analyzing and in isolating more simply the important elements.
About the second negotiation, which was much more easier, I had to make difficult the task for my interlocutor who wanted me to deliver something in x place. I was supposed to play the lazy character and I had to negotiate several advantages so that the work is "less painful". My interlocutor who was playing my boss, was against my taxi idea, so I negotiated the rent of a car at the expense of the company. It was hard because my interlocutor tried to complicate me the task by indicating that I could take the public transportation or even my car etc. I played on the fact that I was new in this huge town, unexperimented and lost, that I had no car etc, so much argument of bad faith which led my boss to give up and to agree to rent a car at the expense of the company. As well, she will pay me extra hours for that work I am doing for her.
About this class, I really enjoyed to practice negotiation through very different cases. I think this class should take place every week because it would allow us to make more practice exercices and to put ourselves in more complex situations. Moreover, we would be able to learn way more about negotiation and cultural habits.There is a lot of differences between negotiating whether in the behavior or in the legal technicities. In order to make a good negation, you have to take into account the individual dimension in a deal (who is deciding, who is just listening...). Interlocutors have different roles depending on there place in a company but also on the country they live in. You also have to respect some cultural rules insofar as every attitude convey a real message. This for
some people eye contact can be seen as agressive, silence is awkward, giving gift is inappropriate etc. All the cultural characteristics suitable for a society has been listed by Hofstede in his analysis of the cultural dimensions. When you are negotiating or simply talking to someone, you have to keep in mind what's the distribution of power, the tolerance of uncertainty, and if the culture emphasize the individualism or the group. So that is why you need to adjust your expectations and your behavior to the "norms" of others.
Because the angry employees returned over and over to the attack without expressing any proposition in order to move forward, I took the lead asking them if they had any requests. Unfortunately, I took too much time in order to calm them, it was my second mistake i think. Indeed, I am not authoritarian and reactionary by nature. However, I succeed. I bring the calm back suggesting a lot of different situations and course of action we will apply as soon as we get the results of the investigation. In any ways, without proof, i could not do anything and I highlight the fact that it is unfair to do something without any basis. I reassured all the employee because they were worried about their paycheck and I told them again that it was important to move forward by taking carefully considered decisions in order to keep the company healthy on the long term. It is important not to forget that. It was difficult too to face my interlocutors insofar as they were in a rather repetitive approach: in spite of my proposals and the proposed solutions I made, they did not want to not to listen to me so I had to reformulate a lot and to insist on several points. I also ask them to be cordial to favor subscribe agreement supposed of a workplace.
No one wants to start its week by doing something hard. Especially when you've been sick during all your your week-end. But I am glad I made it because it allowed me in the end to learn it more on one hand on the negotiation in a general way (how to react according to its position? What attitude to adopt?) but also on me. It is not only a question of having voucher arguments and of "trapping" our interlocutor by making so that he/she is not capable of disputing or of refuting your argument. It is a question here of knowing how to lead a discussion and to calm a situation. So it is necessary to be capable of asserting itself and not of "fighting" like that was able to be the case during the previous negotiations.
At the end, we had like the correction and it was very impressive. It was the first time we assisted a negotiation we just made before. My colleague had the great idea to speak with each part separately (the plaintiffs and the victime) what so allowed to calm tension from the outset and to put the cards on the table by standing out as the only person able to take the decisions. She knew how to express itself in a very quiet way. The negotiation took some time but I think that it very well went out there. I wa so impressed by her attitude: she was exactly doing what she has to do. threatening Being firm without being. I am very disappointed to arrive at our last course because the practice of the negotiation made for me progressed a lot both in my capacity of expression and in my capacity of reflection. I succeed in analyzing and in isolating more simply the important elements.
About the second negotiation, which was much more easier, I had to make difficult the task for my interlocutor who wanted me to deliver something in x place. I was supposed to play the lazy character and I had to negotiate several advantages so that the work is "less painful". My interlocutor who was playing my boss, was against my taxi idea, so I negotiated the rent of a car at the expense of the company. It was hard because my interlocutor tried to complicate me the task by indicating that I could take the public transportation or even my car etc. I played on the fact that I was new in this huge town, unexperimented and lost, that I had no car etc, so much argument of bad faith which led my boss to give up and to agree to rent a car at the expense of the company. As well, she will pay me extra hours for that work I am doing for her.
About this class, I really enjoyed to practice negotiation through very different cases. I think this class should take place every week because it would allow us to make more practice exercices and to put ourselves in more complex situations. Moreover, we would be able to learn way more about negotiation and cultural habits.There is a lot of differences between negotiating whether in the behavior or in the legal technicities. In order to make a good negation, you have to take into account the individual dimension in a deal (who is deciding, who is just listening...). Interlocutors have different roles depending on there place in a company but also on the country they live in. You also have to respect some cultural rules insofar as every attitude convey a real message. This for
some people eye contact can be seen as agressive, silence is awkward, giving gift is inappropriate etc. All the cultural characteristics suitable for a society has been listed by Hofstede in his analysis of the cultural dimensions. When you are negotiating or simply talking to someone, you have to keep in mind what's the distribution of power, the tolerance of uncertainty, and if the culture emphasize the individualism or the group. So that is why you need to adjust your expectations and your behavior to the "norms" of others.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire