PR 605 Lecture Notes - Lecture 78: Negotiation

22 views3 pages

periwinklemammoth360

15 Jan 2021

School

Ball State University

Department

Public Relations

Course

PR 605

Professor

Ingrid Cummings

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

In organizations, there are a lot of open-ended and public negotiations. When you are trying to figure out who should do a tedious task in a work group, negotiating with your boss to potentially travel oversees or asking for financial resources for a project brings a social component to negotiation. You"re most likely negotiating with a person you know and will work with again, so the negotiation and outcomes of that discussion are topics other individuals will talk about. To understand the practice of negotiation, we have to consider the social factors of reputation and relationships. Your reputation is the way other individuals think and talk about you. Trust in a negotiation process opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that benefit everyone involved in the negotiation. The most effective way to build and create trust is acting in an honest way repeatedly throughout various interactions.

Related Questions

Case : Multi Projects Inc (Page 452 -454) Successful Project Management 6th Edition (Clements & Gido)

Case Study 1 Multi Projects

Multi Projects, Inc., is a well established consulting firm with 400 employees. It has many projects going on at the same time for various clients. Multi Projects has a good reputation , and nearly 30 percent of its business is from previous clients. It targets growing companies for future business and has been successful in this, too. Because of the growth, things have been quite hectic, with employees trying to keep up with the work, keep old clients satisfied, and bend over backward to accommodate new clients. Multi Projects has been hiring new employees-in fact, it has grown from 300 to 400 employees over the past two years.

Multi Projects has a matrix organizational structure. As new projects come in, a project manager is assigned. One project manager may be assigned to several projects at a time, depending on the sizes of the projects. Projects range in value from $20,000 to $1 million and can be from one month to two years in duration. Most projects are about six months in duration and worth about $60,000 to $80,000. The firm performs a range of consulting services, including market research, manufacturing system design, and executive recruiting. Its clients are medium to large corporations and include banks, manufacturers, and government agencies.

Multi Projects just got a call from Growin Corporation, which wants to go forward with a project that Multi Projects proposed nearly six months ago. Partners at Multi Projects are surprised by the good news. They had thought the project was dead. They are also very interested in carrying out a first project for Growin Corporation because it is a rapidly growing company. Multi Projects sees an opportunity to do several projects with Growin Corporation in the future.

Jeff Armstrong has been assigned as project manager for the Growin Corporation project. He has been with Multi projects far about a year and has been anxious to get a challenging project to manage. He worked on the proposal for the Growin project.

Tyler Bonilla is a senior systems engineer. He has been with Multi Projects eight years. He has an excellent reputation, and previous clients with whom he has worked usually request that he be assigned to their projects. He enjoys his work, even though he is extremely busy. He is currently working full time on a project for Goodold Company, a previous client. Goodold said that one of the reasons it does business with Multi Projects, rather than with another consulting firm, is the great work Tyler does on their projects.

Jennifer Fernandez is the manager of systems engineering. She has been with Multi Projects about 15 years. Tylet reports to Jennifer, but because of his heavy workload and associated travel, he does not get to see Jennifer very often, other than at her monthly staff meetings.

Julie Capriolo is the project manager for the Goodold Company project. She has been with Multi Projects for about two years. Tyler is assigned to her project full time. The project has a tight schedule, and everyone is putting in extra hours . Julie feels a lot of pressure, but she has a good project team--she relies heavily on Tyler. She had heard from a friend who used to work with Jeff that Jeff is very ambitious and will do whatever it takes to make himself look good. This had not been of concern to Julie because she and Jeff have separate projects and do not run into each other very often.

The day Jeff is assigned to be project manager on the Growin Corporation project, he runs into Tyler in the hallway. "We got the Growin project," he tells Tyler.

"Great," responds Tyler.

Jeff continues, "You know, one of the big reasons they gave the project to us rather than another consulting firm is because we promised you'd be the lead systems engineer on the project, Tyler. They were impressed with you when we met with them to present our proposal. When do you think you can start work on the project:"

"Unfortunately, I can't. I'm tied up on the Goodold project, and things are really hectic. I'll be on the project for another four months," says Tyler.

"No way!" exclaims Jeff. "This Growin project is too important to me--I mean, to us. I'll take care of it."

"You'd better talk to Jennifer," Tyler tells him.

Jeff stops by Jennifer's office. She's busy, but he interrupts her. "I gotta have Tyler Bonilla on my Growin project. He wants to work on it, but he said I should talk to you."

"Thats impossible," says Jennifer. "He's assigned to Julie Capriolo's Goodold project for the next four months."

"Julie? Who's she? Never mind. I'll find her and work it out. You probably have somebody else you can assign to her project." replies Jeff, as he quickly bolts out of her office in search of Julie.

"Thats my decision , not yours or Julie's!" shouts Jennifer. But by that time Jeff is gone and does not hear what she says.

Julie is meeting with her project team in the conference room. Jeff knocks on the door and opens it. "Is there a Julie in here?" he asks.

"I am Julie," she responds.

"I need to talk to you ASAP. It's important. Oh, by the way, sorry for interrupting." Looking forward Tyler, who's in the meeting, Jeff says, "Hey, Tyler, catch you later, buddy, after I talk with Julie." Jeff then shuts the door and goes back to his office. Julie is noticeably disturbed at the interruption.

After her meetin, Julie calls Jeff. "This is Julie. What did you want to talk to me about that was so urgent?'

"About reassigning Tyler to my project. He's interested, and I've already talked to Jennifer about it," answers Jeff.

"Thats impossible," declares Julie. "He's critical to the Goodold project."

"Sorry," says Jeff, "but if the Growin project is successful, we'll get more business from them than we ever got form the Goodold Company."

"It's already after 6 o'clock and I have to be out of town for a week, but I'll discuss this with Jennifer as soon as I get back," snaps Julie

"Yeah, sure, whatever," responds Jeff.

The next day Jeff calls a meeting with Jennifer and Tyler. He starts by telling them, "I called this meeting to figure how soon Tyler can begin working on the Growin project and how you [looking at Jennifer] can get somebody to take his palce on what's-her-name's project."

"I think Julie should be here for this discussion," says Jennifer.

"She couldn't make it. Apparently she's out of town for a week, and we need to get going on the Growin project." Jeff tells her. "We need to prepare for a meeting with them next week. Besides, Tyler is the one we're talking about, and he'd rather work on the Growin project. Right, Tyler?'

"Ah, well, now that you have asked, I am getting tired of working on the Goodold projects," replies Tyler. "I'm not learning anything new. I mean, it's okay, but I'd like a change.

Jennifer is astonished. "You never mentioned that to me, Tyler."

Jeff breaks in, "Well, I guess it's settled. Jennifer, you assign somebody else to the Goodold project who'll feel a little more challenged and tell Julie when she gets back. In the meantime, me and my buddy Tyler have got a lot of work to do to look good for our meeting with the Growin people next week."

Evaluate the case and propose a solution. Prioritise the steps to be taken in your approach, be systematic and motivate your assertions.

Total: [100]

scarletgnu53

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified âcertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.â This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an âunalienableâ right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on âHappiness and Public Policy.â Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: âHow satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?â The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: âThe very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.â 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to oneâs relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, âRating Countries for the Happiness Factor,â Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, âIncome, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,â Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and âWhere Money Seems to Talk,â Economist, 12 July 200

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read âscrapâ or âre-engineerâ) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to âweed outâ the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the âpotentialâ rating, which tries to capture an individualâs potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that â we cant totally trust managersâ so weâre going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but itâs often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically âjudgeâ an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback â and the âappraisalâ process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the âdevelopment planningâ conversation â what can one do to improve performance and engagement â and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (donât we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employeeâs profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, Iâve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a âfeedback-richâ culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses â give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they arenât performing well itâs not necessarily their fault â the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well â when you move to customer service, engineering, and other âbuilderâ roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent âproductionâ not talent âhoarding.â If you pay your managers to âproduce output,â they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills â so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

Iâve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In todayâs globalized,talent constrained workplace itâs clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

PR 605 Lecture Notes - Lecture 78: Negotiation

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PR 605 Lecture 77: Moods and Emotions in Negotiations

PR 605 Lecture Notes - Lecture 72: Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement, The Negotiation

PR 605 Lecture Notes - Lecture 37: Agreeableness, Trait Theory

Related Questions