A SUMMER OF REMINDERS FOR SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION

This summer has been full of significant sets of negotiation in the political arena at home and abroad. These events illustrate some of the key dynamics of negotiation such as power, time, information and compromise. These hold true whether negotiations occur between countries/provinces, organizations or individuals.

Let’s take a look at how our examples from the summer played out:

Alberta’s Rachel Notley after her very first Premier’s Conference in St John’s Newfoundland made this telling comment:

“Negotiations are not about standing in the corner and having a tantrum. Negotiations are about what you get at the other end. That’s what I’m focused on now”. She was  referring to her sparring with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall over how to make the sale with the Eastern provinces with respect to the Energy East Pipeline. What Notley had been trying to do is collect information in this case on how environmental concerns that Quebec has might be mitigated. The premier was criticized by some for taking too conciliatory an approach but really was simply displaying an understanding that if the government of Quebec was to change its stance, they would have to have a palatable “get” as well. Any successful negotiation involves compromise and concessions by both sides providing that they are part of a process of yielding to reasonableness. 

Where Premier Notley may have been naive is too suggest that tantrums have no place in negotiation. They may have no place in interpersonal dealings. However, they can be one of the tactics behind a strategy designed to be successful over a long and protected negotiation involving representatives from two sides.

Overseas in Vienna Austria the two camps led by America’s John Kerry and Iran’s Muhammed Javad Zarif had been clearing roadblocks by first of all focusing on what they could agree on. However, the elephant in the room remained. A major dispute lingered over whether a ban on Iran’s ability to purchase conventional weapons and missile technology would remain in place. With the Russians and Chinese aligned with Iran, which side had the most “power” was very debatable. Both countries had invested considerable time but  the Kerry-Obama camp was more reluctant to leave the table empty handed. There were shouts and confrontations over 17 days, some real and some staged. Although the two countries were negotiating with different agendas, what resulted in the 11^th hour was a compromise that both sides could live with. Finally after a period of years, each side came to understand what mattered most to the other.

You couldn’t ask for a more lopsided setting for a negotiation than the one that faced Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. After a marathon 23-hour session August 11^th in Athens, Tsipras agreed to bring forth a number of policy reforms in exchange for the third bailout by Euro Zone creditors, this one totaling up to 86 billion Euros. Tsipras was between a proverbial rock and a hard place. Negotiators for both sides faced the unenviable position of not being necessarily able to “deliver” on their side of the agreement. For the Germans who had contributed most to the two previous bailouts, throwing good money after bad was becoming intolerable. For the Greeks, it was accepting new terms of austerity they had long fought against or get thrown out of the Eurozone. They had run out of time, Eurozone negotiators had all the perceived power and once the Greek Finance Ministry had agreed to open up their books to outside inspectors, the information required to demand specific reforms was in abundance. Tsipras was dealing with a different set of cultural values and pressured by time tried to “split the difference” as pressure mounted from the EU nations. When you do that you end up working for your opposer’s needs who then tend to toughen their position. Tsipras reluctantly had to agree to a series of austerity measures that divided his party, forced a September 20^th election and may yet isolate his country.

Power, time, information, and compromise; four key negotiating dynamics that were very much on display in these three examples.

We learn as kids how to negotiate. We also learn that when we go too far in with what we are asking for, or are unreasonable or disrespectful in our approach, we’re going to hear a resounding NO. One of the biggest lessons I have learned in business over the years is when to stop pushing. All parties to a negotiation should come out with some needs satisfied. Win-lose deals may be destructive to the loser at the time, but they also usually catch up to the winner in the long run.

Mark Olson (click to see Mark’s profile)

Managing Partner & Principal

Other Articles Written by Mark

Damage from "A Different Direction"

When RFP Stands for Real Flawed Process

Industry Experience Needed...Really?

All Interim Management Models Aren’t Created Equal

The Courage to Get It Right

The Hidden Potential in any Organization

RUSS TYNAN JOINS OIM

Osborne Interim Management is pleased to welcome Russ Tynan to the organization as a Principal.

Russ provides executive leadership for the resolution of organizational challenges and change. A trusted advisor and business leader; an innovative and creative problem solver. Noted for his successes in transitioning companies and organizations through new opportunities or difficult challenges. Russ works with the executive team at the strategic stage, then with employees and stakeholders through implementation. Outcome focused, he instills discipline by aligning brand, culture and strategies.

THE MOST COMMON PITFALLS WHEN AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEAVES AND AN INTERIM POSITION IS CREATED

“Anyone can be an Executive Director, especially when it’s a short-term fill-in position - how hard can it be, right?"

I have had that conversation more often than is good for my blood  pressure. As soon as a Board member of a not-for-profit says “how hard can it be, right?” I know they are headed for trouble. “We have a Board member (or colleague, or donor) who is retired and has time and won’t charge us anything, so he can fill in and we’ll save some cost. I mean, how hard…etc”.

Canadian author Margaret Lawrence once told of being at a cocktail party and talking with a neurosurgeon who said “you know Ms. Lawrence, when I retire I’m going to write a novel”. “What a coincidence” said Margaret Lawrence “when I retire I’m going to be a neurosurgeon”.

Well, it is hard to be an Executive Director and in some ways even harder to be an Interim Executive Director. The learning curve is very steep and an Interim Executive Director has to keep the organization strong, on track with its programs and strategies, manage all stakeholder relations, plus keep staff and systems  functioning positively while not making decisions that will have adverse consequences when a permanent  Executive Director is recruited. An Interim Executive Director is supposed to come fully conversant with and experienced in grant application processes and regulations, HR best practices for NFP’s, knowledge of fundraising and campaign methodologies, internal and external communications strategies, basic financial management, and the ability to deal with Board/Governance policies and procedures. Someone who has “a bit of time on their hands” and can volunteer for the position but has no direct experience in managing the complexities of a not-for-profit  (serving on a Board does not constitute operational experience) will at the very best be less than effective, and at worst leave a time bomb of financial, staffing (usually including plummeting staff morale) and other problems for the permanent person coming in. Like any rule there are of course exceptions, and I am aware of cases where a person with senior and somewhat related experience has been a successful Interim Executive Director, but it is rare.

In addition to the amateur Interim Executive Director issue, here are some of the other most common mistakes made in looking for either an interim, or even a permanent Executive Director:

Job Description – it’s the same but shorter, isn’t it?:  

Just taking the full time Executive Director’s job description and tacking “Interim” on to it is not a good idea. The interim position will have different performance measurements from the permanent position and it will have very different operational requirements. For example, an Interim Executive Director will not normally be required to create long-term strategies or program development and should not tinker with those already in place unless funding is in jeopardy or projected outcomes are not being achieved. Also, the emphasis on some aspects of the role will be different and may require, for example, paying closer attention to staff morale and retention  in order to maintain stability and continuity, while paying less attention to such aspects as, for example,  new capital or brand redefinition and new marketing programs.

We don’t need their advice on anything else, do we?:   

One mistake I have seen is the missed opportunity of failing to capitalize on the range of knowledge plus variety of experience that an Interim Executive Director usually brings to the position, or actively discouraging any consulting or advice outside the job description. Assuming this person does not want or is not considered for the permanent position, they can be objective and truthful in providing a point of view about the organization’s operations. Having an experienced and objective consultant as well as an operational leader can be a real bonus and the job description should include providing an assessment of the organization’s strengths, challenges and opportunities for improvement as an exit requirement.

Pay peanuts and you get monkeys:  

This, plus “you get what you pay for”, are two clichés that Boards still sometimes forget when hiring for an  interim position. Just like the “how hard can it be?” argument, Boards sometimes see hiring an Interim Executive Director as an opportunity to save money. The flawed reasoning is that the interim person will not have the same level of responsibility or skill requirements as a permanent position so they don’t need to be paid as much. Not true and can lead to bad hiring. Granted, the responsibilities are different in an interim role, but no less difficult or demanding and require the same level of expertise and ability as any permanent role. Don’t expect to pay less (or nothing!) and expect the same level of competence. Remember, the interim person is responsible for maintaining your brand, reputation and carefully built donor and other stakeholder relationships. No matter how much money you think you’re saving by hiring someone at a lower rate than the permanent position, a less experienced and low performing Interim Executive Director can cost an organization dearly if those areas are neglected or poorly handled.

Why hire anyone? We can just give a staff member the job for the interim: 

Sure, add a whole new job to an existing and presumably important one for someone who probably doesn’t want it and isn’t sure how to do it. Plus, when it’s over, that person drops back in status and presumably loses the few extra bucks you were paying temporarily. The job will not be done well, the staff will find it hard to   relate to a colleague who is now their boss for a while and the person will resent the whole situation. I have seen it done and it’s a lose/lose proposition. It’s in the same category as “we need someone to handle HR.  Susan, who does admin and bookkeeping, can’t be that busy – let’s put  her in charge of HR”. As the saying goes, it’s not a problem until it’s a problem. Suddenly the organization has a legal, ethical or performance failure or dismissal issue and Susan is totally out of her depth and the organization is in trouble.

Let’s just ask the outgoing Executive Director to find someone:

Even if the outgoing Executive Director is leaving on positive terms, they will either try to find someone just like them (which may or may not be good) or a friend they know who may not be suitable, or will often go for upgrading a staff member, particularly a close colleague who may have lobbied for the job. Hiring an Executive Director, either interim or permanent, is a Board responsibility. In almost all not-for-profits, the Executive Director is the only employee of the Board and reports directly to the Board, often via the Chair. It is wrong and usually against the by-laws to delegate this responsibility.

How does an organization avoid all those pitfalls and keep things running smoothly? The Board needs to:

• Take on the responsibility for creating a job description and appropriate compensation level designed specifically for an interim position, ideally with professional help.

• A committee of the Board needs to manage the search process.

• The Board needs to review then approve the committee’s recommendation.

• Staff need to be informed fully and positively once the decision is made and before rumours start.

How hard can it be, right? It needn’t be hard at all. Osborne Interim Management can provide a senior, experienced Interim Executive Director and can guide Boards through the whole process of job description, on-boarding and eventual transition to a permanent Executive Director.

Blane Hogue (click to see Blane’s profile)

Principal

Other Articles Written by Blane

Fundraising and Philanthropy in a Tightening Economy

Social Enterprise: Profit Meets Not-for-Profit - Can They Live Together?

  

HOW TO SET UP AN EFFECTIVE MENTORING PROGRAM

Early in my career, I learned about the value of having a mentor. Back “in the day” there were no formal mentoring programs at the financial institution that I worked at, but I found myself looking forward to spending time with two particular senior executives. I watched their interactions with employees and customers and listened to their messages and how they delivered them. I took note of how they dressed and how they carried themselves. I didn’t know the word for it then, but I was being mentored and my mentors didn’t even know it! 

Today, mentoring has come a long way in becoming a more formal program in most progressive companies. It also has become a critical function as a great deal of corporate knowledge needs to be transferred to the next generation. 

This article is a follow up to Osborne’s article in January about the merits of mentoring. It will help your company set up a mentoring program that is easy and sustainable. 

There are four parts to setting up a mentoring program. 

First, the company needs to articulate the purpose of the mentoring program. The purpose can be anything from sharing the knowledge of a senior employee approaching retirement to development of junior staff, preparing them for a future in your company or industry. Articulating the purpose of your program will allow you to be focused and avoid becoming too broad and diluted. For the purpose of an example, “our mentoring program is to develop young accountants in an organization, preparing them for future roles.” 

The second step is to define the areas of the company that will be part of the program. In our example, we are going to involve all departments of accounting in an effort to give our young grads exposure to all the area’s different disciplines. For each discipline, a check list of mentoring topics should be documented. This will assist the mentor in structuring their part of the program, making the learning consistent between mentors. 

The third step is to identify mentors. Previously, we discussed what would make a good mentor. In sum, a good mentor is a good listener, empathetic, very knowledgeable in their area of expertise and has time to dedicate to his or her mentee. A good mentor need not be a leader of people. In fact, being a mentor can assist an employee in becoming a good leader by developing coaching skills. Always identify mentors first before committing to a program. You will need to know you have the support and resources to make it happen. 

Once the mentors have been identified, the obvious next step is to identify the mentees. An ideal mentee is one that has already shown initiative, loves to learn and is obviously looking forward to moving up in the company. Never choose an employee who has performance or attitude problems. A mentoring program is a reward for those employees who want a challenge and have proven themselves in their current role. It is not the time to hand problems off to someone else to try and fix! 

The matching process is the next step. When considering whom to match with whom you should take into consideration the following: 

• Personality – having the same is not always better. But be aware of total opposite personalities. 
• Learning style, versus coaching style – exposing employees to different types of mentors will lead to a more rounded individual.
• A mentor should never be an employee’s leader. 
• An obvious factor is location. While proximity is best, current technology (i.e. Skype) allows you to expose employees to others in your organization from around the world. 

So here you are: You have defined the program, identified and matched your mentors and mentees. Now what? 

I recommend having a kick off meeting that has both a formal agenda and a networking component and includes all participants. The formal agenda should be led by an HR facilitator and every attempt should be made to have the most senior executive address the group at the beginning. The formal part of the program can outline expectations of both the mentor and the mentee and provide recommendations on meeting frequency and length. Every relationship will fall into its own rhythm over time, but initially, structure is important for sustainability. In order to get the mentors and mentees talking, I recommend, planting some questions with both parties. This may or may not be required. If there is initial awkwardness, having some prepared questions will really help the conversation flow. The goal of this initial session is to make sure that both the mentee and mentor have similar expectations and feel comfortable moving forward. 

The formal agenda should be followed by a less formal networking session, even over a lunch or dinner. The mentor should demonstrate their networking skills and introduce their mentee to others in the group. The meeting should not end without a commitment for a follow up conversation or meeting. 

The final piece of the mentoring program puzzle is the most important and the most difficult – sustainability. While it is inevitably up to the participants to keep the program going, you can assist by offering the following assistance: 

• Regular check in’s with participant (monthly or quarterly). Are there any challenges? What are some successes? 
• Give topics for discussion. 
• Bring the group together six months into the program. Focus on results and if any improvements can be made. 
• Follow up with the mentees leader to see if there has been any progress. 
• Ensure there is a goal related to mentorship on the mentors performance reviews (what gets measured gets done). 
• Provide a expense fund for mentors and mentees to go for coffee or lunch. 
• Develop a year-end assessment scorecard that will assess the program from all perspectives. 
• Start the cycle every year with a kick off. Consider changing up the mentors and the matches currently in place. If the current matches feel that want to continue, let that happen too. 

Suzanne Wilson (click to see Suzanne’s profile) 
Principal 

Other Related Articles 
Mentoring - Successful People Never Achieve Their Goals Alone 
Leadership - The Holy Grail of Business 

IAIN DRUMMOND JOINS OIM

Osborne Interim Management is pleased to welcome IainDrummond to the organization as a Principal.

Iain is a highly experienced IT executive with an extensive background as CEO of both public and private companies. He is well-versed in all aspects of management, including running international operations for a large multinational computer manufacturer. As a result of his extensive earlier experience as a systems analyst and troubleshooter, Iain is used to creating high-value solutions to challenging business problems. He has a strong focus on sales, marketing, product development, budgeting and financial controls, and is a top-level presenter with strong verbal and written communication skills. He is a skilled motivator and people person, and is used to dealing at C-level with both government and private sector organizations.