Week 4
Week 4 - November 27th
Good morning,
I will give my comments about today's course (CPA case group negotiations).
After a course about making concession and collaboration, listening and convincing techniques (I particularly liked the part about how to answer to manipulation techniques), we made a group negotiation: CPA case.
The case deals with a fight after a payroll check theft, two long-standing employees accusing a new employee to be the thief and asking for layoff in front of the head of payroll.
We were split in 3 parties: Roo Smith & Dana Petski (I was part of this group with Caroline and Assem), Sandy Brown (the accused employee, Valentin) and J.T. (the head of payroll, Joy).
Our negotiation was loud and not so much cooperative from our side (according to the case's instructions) but we managed to end up with a provisional solution: J.T.-Joy promised to transfer Sandy-Valentin to another department of the company while she (J.T.-Joy) will add cameras in the firm and lead another investigation. But it was only temporary, as the thief was impossible to find so Sandy's innocence hard to prove completly.
To improve my course review articles, I will answer to the question my teacher Madame Dutriaux asked me on this blog in the comments section of my first week article.
Which lessons did you learn?
I found the case pretty hard in general because no solution which satisfies everyone was possible.
However, my role (Roo & Dana) was the easiest one according to me: we had to snow Sandy under with accusations (motivations and opportunities Sandy had, "proofs"). Maybe the hardest thing was to keep speaking (in an agressive way as written in the case instructions) with the same arguments, whithout letting the others speak.
Sandy had a hard role: she was accused by the other party (composed of more people) and had to defend him/herself, and a defense position is harder than a attack one. The majority thought he/she is guilty so he/she had difficulties to convince the others of his/her innoncence.
J.T. had a hard role as well: a lot of pressure from both sides (especially Roo & Dana), being the mediator in this argument without a win-win solution possible was complicated: without proof to understand who is wright, he had to be impartial and keep a neutral tone in this tensed fight.
It ended up in a big argument, with sometimes everyone speaking at the same time.
I also learnt that managing persons can be really hard when the J.T. has to fix a conflict without proofs, having to stay objective to be fair. For some groups we could feel that the pressure on the manager was high.
Which techniques did you find effective?
I found the agressive technique of speaking first, agressivly and a lot whithout letting the other speak pretty effective to set the tone of the negotiation, but of course not effective to end up with a solution that satisfies everyone. So speak first can be an advantage if we use this moment to set the tone of the negotiation and seize this opportunity to take advantage thanks to this tone we prefer to negotiate with.
To answer to agressive conversation partner, I found effective the technique of staying calm and neutral, showing that we are cooperative and depersonnalize (prefer "I" than "you", prefer general formulation over personnal accusations...)
How could you make your arguments more persuasive?
Maybe I could have been less focused on Sandy and the accusations I had against her, but more on J.T. and his/her way to manage the conflict - remind her that I am a long-standing employee and try to convince her by trying to play on my loyalty to company, and by catching her interest on the company's values and reputation issue.
That's all for this week. Thanks for reading!
Good morning,
I will give my comments about today's course (CPA case group negotiations).
After a course about making concession and collaboration, listening and convincing techniques (I particularly liked the part about how to answer to manipulation techniques), we made a group negotiation: CPA case.
The case deals with a fight after a payroll check theft, two long-standing employees accusing a new employee to be the thief and asking for layoff in front of the head of payroll.
We were split in 3 parties: Roo Smith & Dana Petski (I was part of this group with Caroline and Assem), Sandy Brown (the accused employee, Valentin) and J.T. (the head of payroll, Joy).
Our negotiation was loud and not so much cooperative from our side (according to the case's instructions) but we managed to end up with a provisional solution: J.T.-Joy promised to transfer Sandy-Valentin to another department of the company while she (J.T.-Joy) will add cameras in the firm and lead another investigation. But it was only temporary, as the thief was impossible to find so Sandy's innocence hard to prove completly.
To improve my course review articles, I will answer to the question my teacher Madame Dutriaux asked me on this blog in the comments section of my first week article.
Which lessons did you learn?
I found the case pretty hard in general because no solution which satisfies everyone was possible.
However, my role (Roo & Dana) was the easiest one according to me: we had to snow Sandy under with accusations (motivations and opportunities Sandy had, "proofs"). Maybe the hardest thing was to keep speaking (in an agressive way as written in the case instructions) with the same arguments, whithout letting the others speak.
Sandy had a hard role: she was accused by the other party (composed of more people) and had to defend him/herself, and a defense position is harder than a attack one. The majority thought he/she is guilty so he/she had difficulties to convince the others of his/her innoncence.
J.T. had a hard role as well: a lot of pressure from both sides (especially Roo & Dana), being the mediator in this argument without a win-win solution possible was complicated: without proof to understand who is wright, he had to be impartial and keep a neutral tone in this tensed fight.
It ended up in a big argument, with sometimes everyone speaking at the same time.
I also learnt that managing persons can be really hard when the J.T. has to fix a conflict without proofs, having to stay objective to be fair. For some groups we could feel that the pressure on the manager was high.
Which techniques did you find effective?
I found the agressive technique of speaking first, agressivly and a lot whithout letting the other speak pretty effective to set the tone of the negotiation, but of course not effective to end up with a solution that satisfies everyone. So speak first can be an advantage if we use this moment to set the tone of the negotiation and seize this opportunity to take advantage thanks to this tone we prefer to negotiate with.
To answer to agressive conversation partner, I found effective the technique of staying calm and neutral, showing that we are cooperative and depersonnalize (prefer "I" than "you", prefer general formulation over personnal accusations...)
How could you make your arguments more persuasive?
Maybe I could have been less focused on Sandy and the accusations I had against her, but more on J.T. and his/her way to manage the conflict - remind her that I am a long-standing employee and try to convince her by trying to play on my loyalty to company, and by catching her interest on the company's values and reputation issue.
That's all for this week. Thanks for reading!
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire