- When the impetus toward agreement already exists and a long session can help guarantee that outside influences will not raise new questions or otherwise deflect a settlement.
- When the parties have repeated the same arguments to the point that they are themselves tired and ready for compromise.
- When the negotiators respect each other.
- Both parties have the stamina to handle the stress of long sessions without suffering physically or mentally.
- When the discussions have progressed to the point where divergent issues and positions have a reasonable likelihood of being moved toward agreement.
Tag archive: stereotypes-at-work
Marathon Sessions
Marathon sessions lead to agreement. All night meetings between labor and management are common in industrial bargaining history. Many of the great mergers and billion dollar deals we read about result from close-quarter talks that go on uninterrupted for days. Marathon negotiations have always played a critical role in diplomacy and international trade talks.
When people spend long hours together-when they sweat and strive, play and laugh, drink and relax together-there is a good chance they will get to know each other. By working together and sharing a common emotional experience, they become partners in a sense. They may reveal to each other the constraints they face at home and risks they are subjected to. What a marathon session can do is reduce the abstractions and stereotypes of conflict and turn the talks into a person-to-person give and take.
There is a hidden ingredient in every negotiation-how people feel toward each other as individuals. This is the “attitudinal” dimension of negotiation. An agreement is hard to reach if the chemistry between the parties is not right. What is required is a commitment to mutual satisfaction, a feeling of trust that they will do as they say and if trouble arises help each other over the rough spots.
The marathon works for another reason. When two parties negotiate they are isolated, at least to an extent, from those they represent. It becomes “us” (those in the conference room) against “them” (those in both organizations outside the room). A long uninterrupted session increases the likelihood that such feelings of solidarity against outside forces will develop. Both parties have a chance to talk off the record.
I am in favor of all night uninterrupted sessions under these conditions:
Read more »
How Stereotypes Create Work Barriers
This stereotyping at work applies to many occupations. Medical doctors fail to listen to nurses and technicians whose proximity to the patient provides insights that the doctor, skilled as he or she may be, may not have. I have attended meetings where the words of salespeople, closer than anyone to the marketplace, were dismissed because they were only “low-level salespersons.” This casual dismissal of potentially important information would have been more difficult to do if they had been sales directors or vice presidents. In that case they would have been heard. Nobody at the meeting could afterward remember that they have been told by the salesperson that the customer had warned that the product line was in jeopardy because a competitor would soon be offering a superior product. Had we in charge listened better to that salesperson and acted quickly, the big account and product line might have been saved.
In today’s global economy those closer to the frontier of change may know much more about what is going on than the chief executive officer. They have the information we need to know to survive, whatever their position in the organization or job title.
Few people take the time to learn about the actual work those alongside us do. We make assumptions based on their job titles that never tell the real story. This is especially difficult in the digital age where so much of what we do cannot be observed. Output is invisible. Work done by a team member today may not be recognized as successful until the project ends years from now. No job description or title can tell the story. Dig deeper to gain a more full understanding of what your co-workers really do.
Job titles and the stereotypes they create inhibit communication unless we dig deeper. The more we know about the work associates actually do and the more they know of ours the easier it will be to settle difference and make sound decisions. It will also help in building rapport and stronger long-term relationships. People generally enjoy talking about what they do if asked in a non-judgmental and casual manner.
Read more »
Job Titles Create Stereotypes
People at work and elsewhere have prejudices that serve to impede the flow of information between them. Among the worst barriers are those that take root in culture, race, religion or national origin. Much has been written elsewhere about these prejudices and their deleterious effects. Bad as they are, such prejudices are diminishing, to the benefit of all who value equal opportunity and free expression.
We will focus here on another, less recognized barrier to communication, and that is the attitudes and stereotypes people have about the jobs others do and the job titles associated with those jobs. We all know that people look up to some kinds of work and down on others. They tend to pay more attention and give greater consideration to those occupations held in higher regard. These hidden attitudes serve to distort the flow of ideas and therefore need to be addressed.
Unfortunately, it is the job titles that contribute in part to communication stereotypes and biases. The job titles people hold tend to elevate the influence of some co-workers and reduce the influence of others. In truth, what people think others do at work by virtue of their job title is usually far from what they really do. Job titles contribute to this disconnect.
I know someone in a high position on a major engineering project who thinks little of those who work in purchasing. In describing them, he says, “All they do is buy whatever and as much as they are told to buy.” Instead of finding out what purchasing executives actually do and what is difficult about their work, this engineer scoffs at it to everyone’s loss.
At project meetings he barely listens to what they say. He is wrong. I have worked with purchasing professionals in small and large corporations. Their job requires a high level of intelligence and business judgment. They engage in protracted and difficult negotiations over a wide spectrum of ideas, specifications and legal complexities. Supply management is a very important activity in most organizations. When those in supply and procurement speak, it’s wise to hear them out.
Read more »