storyboard 8

Intro screen

Refresher training

Select play to watch the video

(When the video has finished, the following instruction appears:

Select next to continue.

Back Next

Adam Johnson,Procurement manager

Goal: reduce suppliercosts by 10%.

Current status:3 suppliers passing pre-qualification

Deadline: due forrenewal next month

Select play to watch the videoSelect next to continue

Back Next

Jeff Madison,Operations manager,on site

Goal: re-sign current vendor - ECS

Current status:heard rumour ECS have had to re-tender

Deadline: due forrenewal next month


Back Next

Adam JohnsonProcurement Manager

Jeff MadisonOperations Manager

Be the process observer


Back Next

Outcome?

Content / Process?

Needs of both parties?

Styles used?

Climate?

Tactics?

Phases?


Back Next

Back Next

Work your way around the ENS Process Framework, thinking of Jeff and Adam’s comments or behaviours that reflect the model dynamics.

Type your thoughts into the notebook opposite.

When you have completed your reflection, select submit.

Preparation

Input box for notes

Submit

Back Next

Looking at needs only, we have identified six issues that might be affecting the course of Adam and Jeff’s interaction.

Roll your mouse over each of the needs identified for more information.

Select next to continue

Get it done

Revenge

Career

Relationship

Disruption

Cost savings

Reputation

Back Next

Some needs are stated and some are hidden.

Identify which are Adam’s stated and hidden needs by dragging them into the appropriate area under his image.

Then do the same for Jeff.

Select submit when you have completed the task.

Get it done

Revenge

Career

Relationship

Disruption

Cost savings

Submit

Adam Drop zone –

Drop zone -

Jeff Drop zone –

Drop zone -

Reputation

Back Next

Identify which are Adam’s needs and which are Jeff’s needs by dragging them into the space below their names. Select submit when you have completed the task.

Submit

FeedbackAdam

Get it done: Drives Adam above the waterline. All task and no change management or perception of Jeff’s needs.

Cost savings: Drives Adam above the waterline. He engages the legitimate commercial benefits, however this emerges as lop-sided with the absence of his awareness of risk, which is the disruption. Ironically, this is common ground between Adam and Jeff, who are protecting their needs for productivity in different ways.

Career: Drives Adam below the waterline. His comment about “senior people watching”… suggests desire for success, and to be seen in a favourable light by his bosses. Whilst not talked about, it fuels his determination to complete the agreement, cutting short his willingness to understand all the issues. Ironically, a desire for protection and advancement of reputation is common ground between Adam and Jeff – Adam with his bosses and Jeff with those onsite.

x

Adam Drop zone -

Jeff Drop zone -

Get it done

Revenge

Career

Relationship

DisruptionCost savings

Reputation

JeffDisruption: Drives Jeff above the waterline. The fear of disruption through change is a threat to efficiency and team cohesion and morale at the site – something that Adam has not considered.

Relationship: Drives Jeff above the waterline. He explicitly details the damage a change of this nature might bring.

Revenge: Drives Jeff above and below the waterline. He talks about this directly in terms of having to educate the previous Managers, and his frustration (behaviour) shows it is deeply personal. He is determined to win one of these discussions.

Reputation: Drives Jeff below the waterline. He is not looking for promotion (like Adam), but its a pragmatic value of Jeff to make decisions that benefit all parties – onsite and head office.

Back Next

Style indicatorsAdam (thumnail)Words: redwe’re making a move on itWell its your job to maintain standardsIf you spent more time thinking about finances, your efficiencies wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.Behaviours: redLooking awaySmirkingHead shake

ens Process Framework

Roll your mouse over each of the items in the ens Process Framework, to see our interpretation of Adam and Jeff’s interaction.

When you have investigated the model, select next.

Jeff (thumbnail)Words: redWe have this little chat every year, and IO tell you the same thingWho for?… you – not for us. I’m telling you - its not even worth thinking about idiot, its not going to happen!Behaviours: red Finger pointingEye contactLeaning forward

Back Next

Climate observations:Time• At short notice• Rushed meeting durationens Process Framework



Place• Off-site at head office• In neutral meeting room

111

Mood• Rapport underused and

undervalued.• Informing rather than

consulting• Words/behaviour quickly

escalate

Back Next

Adam onlyPreparatory – Adam has prepared time (when), place (where), who (Adam/Jeff), mode (face to face meeting). He has failed to prepare the ‘what’ (agenda) beyond a headline or a ‘how’ with a view to the process that may follow.Opening – OP go first; remain silent; suggest what OP might want; set a pre-condition; make first demand high; make major demand at beginning; lock yourself in - chose option 6 – make major demands at the beginning.

Tactical options:Fait accompli - tactic no. 43 - take unilateral action and wait to see if OP reacts. Adam’s approach of telling, not consulting, assumes his decision is a foregone conclusion, making Jeff scramble to claw back power.Make negative comments - tactic no. 22 – Adam responds to Jeff’s position by putting him on the defensive, through questioning his competence, and position.Appeal to authority – tactic no. 16 -Adam’s reference to ‘senior people’ who support what he is doing is intended to build a sense of corporate consensus with Adam, and isolate Jeff.




Back Next

How far through the 4 phases were Adam and Jeff able to

progress??Introduction: This first step was underused and undervalued. No attempt was made to develop common ground.Discovery - The information exchange about the dynamics and cost savings, and of the change of contractor disruption represent a very clear differentiation of position – but not much discovery.Solving - The meeting ended at a test of wills – “Its not going to happen”. Adam and Jeff were unable to commence Solving, as the Discovery phase was incomplete. Awareness of phases provides a guide to working out what to do next.Settlement - Negotiation has not reached settlement phase.With phases, you can move through them, regress back through them, but you can’t skip them. Stuck at Discovery, mutual Settlement is not possible.




Back Next




Content

Short Long

Quick go ahead

Maximise profitability

Process

Quick meeting to announce.

Not on his agenda

Content

Short Long

Stop the change

Maximise efficiency

Process

Argue the case, however long it takes

Business as usual

Back Next

You have a choice about what to do:

Select Prevention to explore the Systematic Preparation path.

Select Cure to consider options for moving forward from this red/red impasse.

.

What can we learn from this situation?

Cure

Review Adam and Jeff’s meeting.

Prevention

Listen to Michael Hudson.

Back Next

Process changes offer us unlimited strategic choices.

From the list of actions opposite, which choice would you make?

Cure

Mini-survey

Stop, reconvene later, on-site. (place/climate)

Use RQ/OQ questions. (mood, needs)

Use lower red (R3?) to assertively stay engaged, and avoid looking weak. (style shift)

Apologise for the lack of consultation, but stick with decision. (style shift)

Look for common ground, lighten the mood. (needs, phases)

Back Next

One of many process options is to ask more questions.

One tool to use in the face of resistance is the RQ/OQ combination.

Here you can see four versions.

Select each option to see what happens.

When you have watched each one, select the one you would prefer to use.


Cure

RQ/OQ No. 2

RQ/OQ No. 3

RQ/OQ No. 4

Screen populates with diff video clips as they are selected

Review the RQ/OQ process

SOLVING --->

HQ

RQ to redirect

OQ

RQ

OQ

RQ

OQ

RQ

DISCOVERY

Sounds good… but it will cost a lot of moneySounds good…… but it will cost a lot of money

Back Next

Conclusion to Cure.There are an unlimited number of process options to help make a shift.


Cure

Back Next




What can we learn from this situation?

Prevention

Cure

Review the video segment

Conclusion

Manage the 3 key time zones.

Adam:•prepared the content•was short-sighted on the process•failed to understand Jeff’s mindset

Back Next

Prevention


Three Key Time ZonesThree Key Time Zones

Back Next

At each step, systematically prepare the viewpoints of both sides.

Roll the mouse over each step to see a brief definition.

Click here to see where this model connects with the 3 timezones

.

Text box

Prevention

Three Key Time ZonesThree Key Time Zones

Back Next

The outcomes of Adam’s preparation.

Roll your mouse over the black pieces to see Adam’s preparation.

Click here, to get Adam to tell you how he prepared process.

Prevention


Back Next

Video_2.flvVideo_2.flv

Adam’s ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s

Adam and Jeff try again

Back Next

Adam’s ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s

Adam and Jeff try again

Back Next




When you have completed both sections, select Conclusion.

What have we learned from this situation?

Prevention

Cure

Review the video segment

Conclusion

Back Next

Your ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s

List three things you can do right now to prepare better for your next negotiation.

Type your thoughts into the notebook opposite. When you have completed your reflection, select submit.

Do well• .• • Do differently• • •

Submit

Preparation/Pre-Negotiation

Back Next

Our ‘do well’s and ‘do differently’s

You can print the notes you made against the various activities by selecting the ‘Print report’ below.

Print report