A632.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Collaborative Decision Making

Collaborative Decision Making

Organizational leaders are required to make decisions every day.  Some are so routine that they are automatic.  Some are not as simple.  A leader’s decisions almost always affects the people they lead.  Many times the leader gets a sense of urgency that a decision must be made right away which is generally not the case.  Important decisions take time to get them right.  But time and time again, the leader makes the decision in a vacuum and without input.  As one might expect, many of those decisions are scrutinized, some are argued, and some are simply rejected.  Why is that?  Well, there are several possible reasons.  A decision was made that directly affected the entire organization without notice.  The decision was not well thought out and it has negative effects on a number of employees.  A decision was made that did not consider all the facts and simply cannot be implemented.  In each of these cases, a collaborative team could have prevented a negative outcome (Levine, 2009).  I will not argue that assembling teams for every decision that has to be made during the course of a week is necessary.  I do not believe it is.  There are those that come up fairly often that would benefit from the collaborative approach.  Occasionally however, a situation surfaces that demands input and collaboration.  They usually hit your desk late on Friday afternoon with the letters, bold and red, stamped for all to take notice: ASAP.  Your instinct will be to drop what you’re doing and take care of it so you do not have to worry about it over the weekend.  My advice is do not do it.  Read it, understand it, begin to put together a mental action plan, but do not do it.  Lay it neatly on your desk and make it your first order of business Monday morning.  That is exactly what I should have done.

It was September 2001, a week or two after the towers fell so everything was important and every task was due immediately.  Our wing was flying 24-hour coverage seven days a week out of three different locations.  At home coverage was the entire continental United States and additional Presidential escort/support missions.  I will spare you the math, but doing that requires quite a few aircraft continuously rotating orbits and masses of personnel to make sure there were aircraft ready to go at all times.  Our two deployed locations of course had aircraft tied up that could not return to help.  The result of that was numbers and statistics being posted daily that was once believed impossible; the numbers were staggering.  But I digress.  That is a story for another day.  What all of this meant was everyone that worked on our base was on duty for twelve hours, went home for twelve, and then returned to duty.  The traffic was a nightmare.  Getting on or off base was nearly impossible and it created traffic problems which posed a serious threat to personnel.  Twice a day, anyone with bad intentions had open access to half the workers.  We were sitting ducks if you will.  This brings me back to my task.  I did receive it late in the day on a Friday afternoon.  The task was to implement staggered arrivals and departures to reduce the volume of traffic at the gates.  But, it had to be transparent to mission accomplishment.  It seemed straightforward and simple enough, so I sat down, gave it a little thought, and completed it in less than minutes.  I split each shift in half would come in at 0600 hours and the other half of the shift would come in at 0800.  The relief was similarly staggered half of the shift in at 1600 the other half at 1800 hours without sacrificing mission.  I was pleased that it was done and I did not worry about it all weekend.  But, I probably should have.

Monday morning at roll call I briefed the new staggered arrival departure times, but instead of the smiles I expected got confused/angry looks.  I asked the section chiefs to remain with me for a short meeting and dismissed the rest of the section.  The section chiefs told me that they had heard that this change was about to happen and the people wanted to have an input.  They did not want it to be staggered as it was.  It affected a large number of people, in fact the only person it did not affect was me.  The section chiefs assured me there was a better way to meet the task.  I recognized my action as a mistake.  I got an extension on the task and told the section chiefs to go get the information they need, put together two skeleton plans, and meet back here at 4 p.m.

At 4 p.m. we were sitting at the table.  My plan affected childcare for thirteen people, school for eleven, and part time jobs for another eight.  The rest were just pissed because they were not allowed to volunteer many were already switching times.  How arrogant that I would make a decision that affected so many but did not affect me.  If I had waited and brought the stakeholders (section chief)s I would have had the information I needed, access personnel expertise, to expertise on daily operations, how to best separate shifts and remain operational, having stakeholders would keep  me from destroying morale, and I would have succeeded the first time through (Hoch, et al.,2001).  The section chiefs came, as promised, with two well thought plans.  I selected the plan that affected the least amount of people and caused the least amount of damage.  It also put my flight back on 8-hour shifts again…a far superior plan. 

Beyond the section chiefs, I do not believe anyone else could have helped me that day.  I learned that I needed to not make the decision in a rush on the way out the door.  It was rushed at best and irresponsible at worst.  Making a rash decision that will not affect me is careless and should never be repeated unless absolutely necessary.  Finally I learned that expertise is readily available in the form of stakeholders and I will not skip over them again

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Bad Decisions. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Levine, S. (2009). Gettin to Resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Edition). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.6.3.RB_BorutyAlan_The High Cost of Conflict

The High Cost of Conflict

I know what conflict can do in my life.  I am one who avoids conflict if at all possible and when not possible, I find a way to accept the blame versus engaging in conflict.  However, that is not always possible.

At one time I owned a few rental properties.  I was still new at the game when a woman contacted me and wanted to look at a house I had advertised in the paper.  We agreed to meet the following day.  She was right on time.  She was elderly and was in a wheelchair.  She appeared to be in bad health.  She was pleasant enough.  She explained she was recovering from surgery and she expected to be back on her feet in a week or two.  I let her in to look at the house.  She was crazy about it and really wanted to rent it right then.  She completed the application which looked favorable.  I normally verified a few items on the applications I received, to protect myself.  She was visibly disappointed when I told her I would let her know within the next two days.  She said I am not going to get it, am I?  Then she told me her entire story and I believed it all.  She really liked the place.  I did not see a reason not to, so I decided to get her into a rental agreement.  I could check her application at any time.  She paid the first and last month’s rent and the security deposit in cash.  We signed the lease, I gave her the key, and I went home, pleased with the deal. 

When rent came due, I called, but got no answer.  So, I left her a message to call me back.  She did call back to tell me she was in the hospital.  Her recovery had not gone as expected, but she thought she would be home in two or three days.  I wished her well and thought nothing more about it.  She did not call me back, so I called her.  Again, I got no answer, so I left another message.  I was becoming suspicious, but told myself I was overthinking the situation.  She never returned my call.  I called every day and got no answer.  I went to the house and knocked on the door.  She was not home or did not answer.  This went on for weeks.  When she was two months late and I had not heard from her, I called and left a message that I would be going in the house to do a safety and security check in two days.  I was beginning to think something bad may have happened to her.  This time she called back almost immediately.  She assured me everything was okay; she was having to stay with her sister until she was in a little better health.  At three months overdue I posted a 5-day notice on her door.  I also left a message on her voicemail.  By now the pattern was there, she owed me a lot of money, and had no intention of paying.  I tried to evict her, but had no clue what I was doing and missed something in the process which cost me another month.  I was furious.

 

Two days later I was flying to Seattle on business.  I was reading up on eviction laws and processes.  The man sitting next to me was a lawyer.  He did work for several rental property owners.  He and his partner had developed a process to get unwanted tenants out, guaranteed.  The landlord had to post the 5-day notice.  If unresolved on the sixth day, the landlord would call his office, provide the address and tenants name and they took care of the rest.  The total fees came up to $200.  He gave me his card.  His office was less than five miles from my house.

 

The next time I called my renter, she was not happy.  She said her health was not good and I would not stop harassing her and she did not have that kind of money anyway.  I stopped her, up to that point she assured me money was not the problem.  From there the conversation became angry and not productive.  She told me she had not been able to stay in the house most of the time because of her health and she wanted me to adjust what she owed accordingly.  I told her I would not do that.  She got even madder.  She was cursing me, threatening me with legal actions, and threatening me with physical harm.  At that point, I had a few responses for her but opted to tell her I would talk to her soon.  The next day I posted a 5-day notice on her door and called the lawyer I met on the way to Seattle.  He advised me not to sue her because it would be more trouble than it was worth.  I filed suit for owed rent, court costs, and lawyer fees.  I was awarded all three.  I never saw any of the money.  My lawyer was true to his guarantee.  She and her belongings were gone seven days after I posted the notice.  I did not ask how he made that happen and he did not offer to tell me.  I paid him the $200 the judge ordered her to pay.

I used that lawyer from that point forward.  I was never disappointed.

I never heard from or saw her again.

This conflict was never resolved nor was it ever a collaboration.  The financial costs were extreme.  The emotional costs were even higher.  I held myself partially responsible because I did not check any references or anything else for that matter.  She had taken me from the beginning and I let her get away with it.  And the list goes on.  If I had waited to rent until I had checked her application, it would not made any difference.  She had done this before and unfortunately would do so again.  After some time I accepted what happened as a lesson learned.  Still the mental and emotional toll was significant.

This conflict never got out of the old way of thinking for her or me.  She was intent on living in the house without paying rent.  There was no room for abundance.  She was going to get what she wanted, but I would not.  At first, I thought we had established a partnership.  I was wrong.  According to Levine “people who are working together often waste resources because they do not have a clearly articulated vision of where they are going and how they will get there.  They will waste more resources resolving the inevitable conflicts that surface” (Levine, 2009, p.53).  He is right.  I wasted time, energy, and money every day.  I never had the chance to try creative solutions but since then, I have successfully used creative ways to help tenants keep up with rent during difficult financial times.  Her primary technique for getting what she wanted was avoidance.  Her avoidance kept me focused on the problem, in constant conflict, and ready for the next fight.  Although I had a signed lease that said we were in a long term collaboration, I never saw anything but short term issues.

At first I operated with feelings and intuition as my guide.  I considered her health and her need to find a place to live and I used my intuition to sign the lease that day.  Her intentions were bad from the beginning and she used mine against me.  Then she stopped talking as soon as I put the key in her hand.  She took advantage of me.  So, I wanted to win the war after losing so many battles.  I was obsessed with winning.  It was probably because I was embarrassed that she could take advantage of me so easily.  I wanted to be able to say I won so much that I went against my lawyer’s advice.

He was right.  I won in court.  She was ordered to pay, but did not.  It was empty and another example of me wasting resources.  There was no victory celebration.  Finally I allowed a third party to resolve the problem for me.  I had been spinning my wheels for months without any real success to claim, he fixed it in two days.  Finding his skill set was the only positive thing that came out of this ordeal.  I learned more than a few lessons from it, but the whole thing still leaves a bad taste. 

I realize this conflict was unusual and probably different than this lesson requested.  It takes two to collaborate; without collaboration one tends to get stuck in the old ways of thinking.  I do not believe I could have done anything to change the outcome of this relationship.  Her intent from the beginning was to deceive.  The costs were high in all four categories.  Direct costs included lost rent and lawyer fees.  Productivity took a hit because I was spending inordinate amounts of time trying to collect and when I was not, I was frustrated about it and thinking of what to do next.  My other interests suffered as a result.  Continuity costs fortunately did not fully develop, but I did neglect my relationships with my family.  The emotional costs were the highest.  I still question my judgement about people and I still let it take me to anger sometimes.  The event still takes up space in my brain and it may for some time to come.

The primary lesson I learned was to definitely enter into collaborative relationships but do so with care, the trust required to make collaborations successful also makes you vulnerable.

A632.4.4.RB_BorutyAlan - Deception in Negotiations

Deception in Negotiations

Negotiation is not something one can expect to master if they have chosen a career in the military.  Most requests really are not requests at all, but they often sound exactly like one.  There are significant differences.  For example, consider the statement ‘please sweep and mop the floor’.  As a civilian, the response could be no, I was not hired to clean floors, I am busy; I’ll take care of it later, I do not have time for that, find someone else, or sure I will get right to it.  Then the requestor and the requestee can begin negotiating from that point if necessary.  The requestee may even win the negotiation.  In the military, a request is only a request if the requestee immediately gets up and begins doing what was requested, in this case…sweeping.  Any other response will most likely generate a ‘shut up and color’ discussion.  These discussions are one sided, louder than normal conversations, and are where the original statement is altered to more clearly represent the intended message.  By simply dropping ‘please’ from the beginning and adding ‘now’ to the end of the statement, the request becomes an order and the expected response is yes Ma’am, which is also the intelligent response.  Any other response will not generate another round of peaceful negotiation or compromise.  This summarizes negotiation in the military.

Negotiation has different meanings depending on perspective.  From a business frame negotiation is defined as a “bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2017).  Everyone negotiates whether they realize it at the time or not.  In the home, toddlers negotiate when they share toys, adolescents negotiate for more allowance, teens negotiate to get a cell phone or a car, and adults are normally the second party in a negotiation or the mediator to negotiations gone bad.  The objective of negotiation is to reach an agreement (often a compromise) allowing both parties to move forward with their day.  If negotiation does not produce an agreement, hostility can erupt from the frustration.  This could force an intervention to help put the negotiation back on track.  The issue is important to each side or negotiation would not be necessary from the start.  Therefore, the problem must be resolved.  This simplified example is true for any negotiation.  However, the stakes are much higher in business negotiations and could be the difference in an entire company’s success or failure. 

With stakes so high, negotiators employ differing strategies to get the advantage in a negotiation.  Sadly, one of the strategies is deception.  Deception or lying is common in negotiations.  In fact, lying is so common that both parties are cautioned to expect the other to lie.  Lies are separated into different categories and severity levels.  Lies of omission occur when relevant information is withheld.  Lies of commission occur when someone actively misrepresents information.  Lies of commission are judged more seriously.  Lies are further categorized by subject, object, and primary motivation (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).

Lying is my biggest pet peeve.  I am an honest person.  I am not a saint, but I will not intentionally deceive anyone for personal gain.  I trust people up front and expect that they will be honest with me.  This ideal has not always served me well.  I have been lied too and taken advantage of.  I have made major decisions based on incorrect and incomplete information which in turn caused me major problems.  I have unknowingly passed incorrect and incomplete information to my boss.  And the cycle continues.  It is organizational cancer.  If I am lied to, shame on the liar.  They will not get the opportunity to do it again.  I have no tolerance for it.  The business community should not tolerate it either, much less accept lying as a norm for negotiations. 

Negotiation is an important skill.  I think it sad and telling that instead of adding to or improving negotiating skill, this course is forced to focus on deception in negotiations and how to guard against it.  Why lie?  Using a decision-making tool like cost vs benefit analysis to tell you that lying is the optimal choice does not make it the right thing to do.  If it does, there is a much bigger problem in the business mindset.  Lessons learned from the Enron debacle should clearly illustrate the effects of deception on an organization.  Okay, enough about that.

Hoch states that “deception of some kind is an inherent part of human interaction” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 189).  Negotiators chose to lie if the benefit of lying is greater than the cost if caught, if the cost in dollars and reputation is acceptable to risk getting caught, and if they decide they can live with the guilt afterwards (Hoch, et al., 2001).  I do not believe it is possible to find a right-enough reason to do the wrong thing.  I believe the decision to lie in negotiations comes from one place, greed.  I also believe there is no good reason to lie and, if caught, the repercussions should be harsh. 

Most of us overestimate our ability to detect a lie and we do not want to think that deception would be used on us in negotiations that provide information used to make important decisions” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 189).  I know and understand the techniques used to determine deception, but unless a red flag went up I probably would not become alerted to deception.  Additionally, negotiators that will lie are not likely to blatantly commit a lie of commission and risk fraud charges (Hoch, et al., 2001).  Lies of omission are not as clear-cut to me.  Some of the examples for lies of omission were in a grey area between lie and strategy for me.  Allowing someone to draw their own conclusions does not necessarily constitute a lie.  Not revealing information that you are not compelled to provide can be a good strategy.  However, when and if the information is provided, it has to be true and accurate.  Bluffing is strategy as well.  So at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I can see how lies of omission could be difficult to categorize. 

I have been involved in many negotiations through the years.  I use to own and operate rental properties.  I negotiated the purchase of each property, built a business with them, and negotiated the sale of the business.  I know how difficult negotiation and some people can be.  No two are the same.  Buying and selling rental property could very well lead the pack in lies of omission.  I always hired my own inspector instead of simply relying on the person that does ‘all of their inspections, he’s the best’.  Out of twenty or so purchases, there was only one where the inspection reports contained serious conflicting information, it saved me $3,000 and made me another $3,000.  I still bought the house.  The seller knew about a water leak under the slab.  They cleaned it up before my appointment.  I did not see it.  When I decided to make an offer, I sent my inspector to the property.  He, of course, did not miss it.  It really infuriated me that they would intentionally hide an existing condition.  The fact that they cleaned it up told me their intent.  I took pictures when I looked at the house as did my inspector…roughly three hours after I took mine.  When the foundation was fully saturated, the water flowed into the garage from a crack in the foundation.  They normally kept the water turned off, but turned it on just before my appointment.  When I made the offer, it was contingent on the seller paying for and having repairs completed to correct water leak(s) under the slab.  I also reduced my offer by $3,000 for existing water leak damages.  The seller accepted my offer without further negotiation.  If they had told me about the leak up front, I would have offered to have my guy do the repairs and split the cost.  I never saw the seller again and quit doing business with the agency that listed the house.  The seller did not tell me what the bottom line price was and I did not consider that a lie of omission.  They most likely overstated their investment in repairs and maintenance, which, if true, would be a lie of commission.  I did not care about this either; the intent was to increase the perceived value of their property, not to harm me...strategy.  The work had been done, whether or not they paid to have it done or did it themselves and estimated their own rate did not matter.

More recently, I was looking for an old go-cart I could restore and give to my grandsons for Christmas.  I was not in a hurry because they are not big enough to drive it by themselves yet.  I saw the cart as I drove by a yard sale.  From the street, it did not look too bad, so I stopped.  On closer inspection, it was not in the shape I originally thought.  It had been recently and poorly spray painted red.  It had an engine, but it did not look good.  I was going to replace it anyway, so I actually hoped it would not start.  Looking closer four wheels and four tires none of them matched.  The two front wheels were different sizes.  One was four inches and the other was six inches, both rested on the ground perfectly…the frame was twisted and the axel that held on the left front tire was bent.  It was lightly rusted, well, everywhere.  The seat had rotted away long ago and the steering wheel was warped and one of the three center spokes was broken.  The cart had been in a hard crash at some point.  However, the frame was complete with a roll cage that looked like new.  The frame tubing was in good condition.  It was not crushed wrinkled or crimped anywhere.  And, the cart was the right size and a two seater.  It was a perfect mess.

The guy came up and told me to take it for a spin, but I doubted it would.  After spraying ether in the carburetor, he pulled the rope and the engine started.  It did not sound good at all and he could not keep it running, but it started.  The carburetor was bad, probably from old gas.  It did not matter why.  I commented, that’s not good.  He did not know what happened, he said he rode it a couple hours earlier. 

I asked him what he wanted for the cart.  He said $150, and I replied I imagine you do.  I said the engine needs work before it will move the cart.  Then, it will only go in circles because of the front wheels and by the way how did the frame get so warped?  I told him the cart probably would not bring $50.  He began to explain the warping and the bent axel.  I told him it had been wrecked hard at least twice, once from a jump and once on the left side and the left tire and wheel took a direct hit.  I also assured him adjusting the tie rods would not fix the problem.  He finally admitted that he had picked up the cart from someone’s front yard.  It was waiting to be hauled off for junk.  He painted it red and set it out to sell.  I offered him $75 because the roll cage was in good shape and the frame was complete.  He accepted the offer.  I gave him four $20 bills.  He could not make change, so I told him we’re even if you can get it loaded into my truck which he did. 

When I told him the cart would not bring $50 the truth was it was probably worth the$150 he wanted, but he did not know why it was which cost him any leverage he had.  He presented it as a functional cart.  It was far from functional.  From that view point, it would not bring $50.  If he had checked, the roll cage alone cost $135 to replace.  A used one in this condition would cost $100, if you could find one. 

Every time the guy opened his mouth, what came out was a lie.  He lied all the way up until he admitted getting it from a trash pile for free.  I probably could have taken it for $50, but it was worth more.  The $80 I paid was a fair price for me and a great deal for him. 

Going into a negotiation is not a play-date.  Not knowing what you have, can cost you dearly.  You have to be prepared to defend your position, take the offensive when you can, and make your point better than the other side.  But you do not have to lie, especially knowing the lie will hurt (add cost, work, or time) the other guy.  I still argue that you can employ strategy without lying.  Lies of omission in my mind are not always a lie, although that line gets very thin sometimes.  The intent of the lie is telling.  During negotiations there are things you can do to minimize the risk of being deceived.

The first is to be honest in your strategy starting when you shake hands and introduce yourself.  Showing yourself as trustworthy in words and actions early in negotiation will go a long way towards establishing a deception-free negotiation (Hoch, et al., 2001).

Another way to guard against deception is to ask direct questions.  Preparation is necessary here.  The deeper your understanding of both sides during the negotiation, the quicker you will notice when something is off course.  This will help you to ask direct and pertinent questions.  Try to keep questions direct but not accusatory.  When asked a direct question the other side is much less likely to lie (Hoch, et al., 2001).  Direct questioning is active communication and allows you to be more in tune with the nonverbal cues of your counterpart.

Nonverbal cues cannot be controlled and still appear natural.  When verbal and nonverbal cues are out of alignment, it could be an indication of deception.  However jumping to a conclusion in this area may not be the best strategy.  Instead, watch them closely while they answer one of your direct questions.  Do they change demeanor, do they begin to sweat, does their skin flush, do they stop or slow their gestures?  An affirmative answer is an indication of discomfort or uneasiness with the topic.  Ask more direct questions on the topic or ask for clarification on a previous answer.  Further direct questioning on the topic may help sort out mismatched verbal, visual, and nonverbal messages.

It is always important and polite to listen carefully in conversation, but negotiation is not normal conversation, it is much more focused and intense.  Listen for the whole message.  The text states listen carefully to what is and is not said (Hoch, et al., 2001).  The whole message is more yet.  Listen for changes in tonal quality, inflection, emphasis, speed, and loudness.  Can you hear frustration, anger, or aggravation?  Listening to the whole message means that you are listening for the verbal or vocal cues and watching the visual or nonverbal cues while your counterpart is answering your direct questions.  They should all align and appear natural.  But do not forget to listen to how they actually answer your question.  It will feel uncomfortable in the beginning, but the more you practice the easier it becomes.

Taking an aggressive position in a negotiation may not be the best one, but it is a strategy.  If it is a strategy and the intent was not to actually be aggressive but to make the counterpart think there may be trouble.  The real intent was to intimidate.  Is that a lie of omission?  I am a pretty honest guy and I have to say I did not have a problem lies of omission.  I honestly felt that they play a significant role in strategy.  Strategy is not deceptive, but asks you to predict the next move and counter it.  To contradict myself, one of my examples included an omission that I had a big problem with.  The intent of the omission or primary motivation in my example was malicious.  Information was purposely omitted to hide and transfer a known burden for the buyer (me) to bear and resolve.  Now that I no longer know what a lie is:  I will not intentionally or knowingly commit a lie of commission.  I will not commit a lie of omission for the purpose of causing damage to the other side.  Negotiation is a process between two or more parties seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2017).

References:  

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., &  Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

negotiation. BusinessDictionary.com (2017). Retrieved February 06, 2017, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/negotiation.htmlBu