New York just voted down a plan to approve gay marriage.  Many other states have acted similarly.  What is newsworthy is that the NY Legislature, often referred to as dysfunctional (I think some readers by now may believe that the offcial name for this body is “the dysfunctional New York legislature”) actually debated the issue and politicians actually asked to be heard on the issue.

The results were disappointing to proponents of gay marriage.  But at the very least the politicians spoke to the issues and took the matter seriously.  People talking to one another is never a bad idea.  Discussion creates respect and is most humane and decent.

In mediation, parties going through a divorce, or commercial dispute, actually speak.  They create a begrudging civility and even respect.  The alternative to such communication has little to show for its efforts.  Mediation truly works.  we are human by our power to speak.  mediation assures that such conversation will be conducted with civility and integrity.  Try it. It works.

By Steven G. Mehta

Congratulations to Diane Levin for her blog Mediation Channel being selected as one of the top 100 blogs to read in the law by the American Bar Association Journal .  Her blog was selected as an “ABA Journal Blawg 100” – one of the 100 best legal blogs in 2009 – garnering a spot under the “Practice Specific” category.

Anyone who has read her blog would surely agree that it is an informative, timely and thought provoking blog.

Congratulations again Diane!

hexyeah! Tomorrow (today!) is our in-class presentation for the negotiation workshop. And we’re doing…

"By Chrissy, Jason, Lindsey, and Sarah"

It’s a PowerPoint-based game show. The five categories are called Monkeys!, Squirrels!, Frogs…, Fish & Chips, and BUNNIES!! …’cuz titling them “Interests” or “Options” would give away the answer. And I’ll be your gracious host… “Trey-BECK!”

I found all the “Jeopardy!” sounds, and a TrueType font that’s a very good knock-off of the show’s theme font. And we’re using a bunch of YouTube videos to make it more fun. The class will be split into three “teams,” and we’ll be keeping score in traditional “Jeopardy!” ways.

When our time’s up, or we’ve used all the answers, I’ll click on the two exclamation points at the end of BUNNIES!!, which takes us to the very special “Final Jeopardy!” round…

…and the arrow on the lower-right takes us back to the opening graphic, “Negotio-Jeopardy! By Chrissy, Jason, Lindsey, and Sarah.”

This is gonna be good!

The only thing I gotta say beyond that is that Microsoft PowerPoint is a real pain in the tuckus. Good idea. Poor execution. Like so many Microsoft products… But, I made it work. This’ll be good!

Even better: I graduate from college in two weeks and two days. Yowza!

The All Whites made soccer history a second time by making it into the 2010 football world cup in South Africa. The draw for pool play happens tomorrow in South Africa. Some would prefer that the All Whites are drawn in a tough group. They want the opportunity to play Brazil and other tops sides in pool play. For most of the team it would be there only opportunity to play against the top players in the world.

Not the captain though. Ryan Nelson wants to be picked in the easiest group to maximise the teams chances of making it past the pool stage.  To make it to the last 16 would be the greatest sporting achievement of all time for NZ. He’s not settling for just making up the numbers. That’s achievement focus!

Making an offer shouldn’t be like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it will stick.

(Originally Published 7-08-06)

Dear Tom: We are interested in a house that has been on the market for a long time and hasn’t sold. Clearly the Seller is asking too much or someone would have bought it by now. We want to make an offer but we don’t want to waste anyone’s time. So, we thought we would just make our offer to the Seller verbally through our Agent and their Agent. What do you think? Waste Not, Want Yes

Dear Want: Except for rare instances (mostly relating to counter offers and counter to the counter offers) I am not a strong proponent of throwing verbal offers casually out into the ether of the marketplace, as though one were tossing strands of spaghetti against a wall, just to see if something might stick.

As anyone who has worked in this business long enough will tell you – talk is cheap, even if the houses aren’t. I don’t know how many times in my career, an Agent has called to say that he/she was bringing in an offer on one of my listings, only to have some sudden mysterious act of “client interruptus” take place in the form of a last minute change of heart or a debilitating attack of buyers remorse – in which case the mythical offer got hijacked before it actually ever materialized in the flesh.

I stopped telling Sellers a long time ago that we “might” have an offer coming in every time someone calls to say they are “working on something.” Too often it gets emotions worked up and adrenalin shooting through the system needlessly. There’s nothing worse than a Seller waiting  in vain for their date to show up and the dance to begin – sitting all “addressed up with no place to go.”

So rule of thumb is: unless there is a bona fide Purchase Contract completely filled out with someone’s John Hancock on it staring up at me from the safe harbor of my own desk – it ain’t an offer.

It might be a dream. It might be a flight of fancy. It might be a negotiating ploy. It might be unrealized potential. But it ain’t an offer.

As a Buyer there’s another angle you might want to consider. By making a verbal offer, you could be selling your own interests figuratively short if you are really trying to convince the Seller of  a property that has been on the market for a while to sell his/her interests literally short.

Think about it! When you tender a verbal offer, you are in effect saying to a Seller: “If I were to hypothetically think about writing an offer on your home somewhere in the range of some price, how do you think you would hypothetically respond to such an offer, were I to actually make it?” Hardly compelling stuff, is it? Specially for a Seller stuck in the morass of their own mind-set.

I guarantee you that as long as Sellers are thinking about the prospect of selling their property on a purely hypothetical basis, rather than a real one, the vast majority are going to revert back to the same conceptual set of expectations that convinced them to overprice their property in the first place.

There is only one way to transition your interest and their dreams out of the realm of the hypothetical and into the real. Put your offer in writing. Make it appear on their dining room table. Force them to review its terms and conditions in a way that requires them to do some actual soul-searching and confront their own presuppositions.

A real written offer alters the internal process of even the most recalcitrant Seller. It says to them that the whole ordeal can be over if they just agree to sign on the bottom line. And that is compelling to someone who is tired of living in the fish bowl of the marketplace.

This isn’t to say, of course, that you can write any offer at any price and expect Sellers to immediately cave in and hand you the keys and the deed to their property. What it hopefully means is that you can create an opportunity to get your foot in the door and begin a dialogue about acceptable price and terms without getting it slammed shut abruptly in your face.

Talking the talk isn’t enough. You’ve got to help the Seller walk the walk and do the difficult work of coming to grips with their own deflated expectations. Don’t worry about wasting anyone’s time. It should only take your Agent 20 minutes to write up the Purchase Contract assuming you have a reasonable sense of what you want to offer. The Seller has already wasted much more of their own time than you ever could.

Note: I wrote this during a particularly bellicose negotiation a few years ago.  I’m not really this mean, but this is an effective way to negotiate against an opponent with an agenda…the best negotiation is actually one that maximizes value for both parties and creates on ongoing and positive relationship (My next post will address the ideal negotiation).  The below is kind of like entrepreneurial Karate…only use it when your back is against a wall.

Train yourself to see motivation and intention in the way a person moves.  When a person is acting outside of their natural state, it is visible.  Perception is multisensory experience.  You can hear confidence or lack thereof when a person makes a statement.  Pick apart a representation and attack the weakest parts.  Doesn’t matter what they are, once an opponent feels that you can see their insecurity, they derail and you are leveraged.

You can see a person’s pleasure or pain in the corners of his mouth.  Adaptation within a message is more effective than adaptation post-response.  Very few will assume you know more than they actively convey.  They presume you act on the information they share, and that their inner monologue is not visible.  Shoot a dart into someone’s pride and tell me they don’t wince.  Eyes will open wide, close half way, then avert the line.  Although there is variation, it is possible to systematically and consciously test an opponent and expose their points of insecurity.

Then listen to the subject matter that elicits insecurity and know that representations of a levered position related to these subjects will fall under stress.  For example, when your potential acquirer tells you “if I don’t buy you I’m gonna buy your competitor”…watch them look down at the table instead of into your eyes…probably means your competitor already turned down the offer.

Watch the way a person waves their hands when they have an agenda.  Look them in the eye as they attempt to execute toward an end.  Make them decide every break in direct eye-contact, and recognize that as a point of opportunity to derail despite a constant stream of words.

Interaction moves too quickly to truly synthesize the words.  Instead attempt to abstract the words into the most significant components of the interaction: 1) intention (what were their goals) 2) efficacy (did they achieve them?) 3) expectations (how did they expect you to respond) 4) actions (how will you respond based on 1-3)

The majority of information you will extract from someone with an agenda will rest not within their “key points,” but in between them.  When someone attempts to develop a rational argument or game plan, they will map out how to get from A to B to C.  It is in the transitions that people stumble, expose a card, not having rehearsed or prepared for the words that are coming out of their mouth.

Every time you sit down at a table with an opponent where pressure exists, they will know or at least feel what they want to happen and what they don’t want to happen.  Sometimes that can be as simple as “I want this person to like me” or “I want to appear attractive, or confident, or smart, or respectful”  Other times it can be “I want information,” “I don’t want this person to know my secret,” “I don’t want to talk about this subject.”

Just as you observe, you are being observed.  Calm, low heart rate, eye contact, relaxed muscles.  Even if the information you take in is alarming, it is important to abstract in the present and defer synthesis and response specifically when it comes to points where you are weak.  Engage only where you feel confident.  Acceptance is an effective short term strategy for where you feel weak.  “I get that, I understand what you mean, interesting point, okay” are all ways to acknowledge while neither contradicting nor accepting your opponent’s leverage.  As a last resort, you can apply silence.  When any response will be weak or admit defeat, do not speak.  Let the person weaken their blow with a follow up comment or question that is more palatable.  If truly defeated, exit without response, regroup, analyze, reengage.

We all communicate … but to what extent are we understood?

Today’s professionals increasingly operate with a variety of media and across a wide range of cultures. We deal with people from different professional backgrounds, from diffferent industries and from different countries. We regularly participate in calls and meetings where a proportion of the participants have a different native langauge. So we write and speak … but do we give sufficient thought to using terms and language that will be readily understood?

Of course, in some instances, people use ‘jargon’ quite deliberately. Traditional professions have all developed terms and language that aid efficiency in internal communication, but excludes outsiders. Alan Greenspan apparently confessed to the use of obscure terms whenever he testified to Congress.

The question that is raised in an article in Strategy+Business is whether we are good at separating ‘bad’ jargon from good. Some jargon can assist efficient and lively conversation, but we must ensure that we have considered our audience before we start to use it.

What are some of the things to watch out for?

• Industry-specific terms and expressions
• Terms and expressions specific to a particular profession
• Cultural expressions
• Generational terminology, slang etc.

Increasingly, we see the development of ‘new’ languages, such as abbreviations used within instant messaging, which again exclude those who are not users of such tools.

If we do not communicate effectively, not only do we run the risk of misunderstanding, but research shows that team members, participants and audiences become alienated and potentially negative to the speaker’s goals.

So communication matters – and ensuring you communicate in a way that suppports understanding is even more important.

I often give presentations on the art of persuasion. And the use of skillful persuasion is vital to success in life. But what if your best efforts at persuasion fall short? In that case you may need to rely on litigation (war) as your means of persuasion. The book THE ART OF WAR which is believed to have been written by Sun Tzu is an excellent field guide to preparing for battle in any arena. The book was written as long ago as 700 B.C. It has been referenced by military leaders from Napoleon to General Norman Schwarzkopf.

I highly recommend this book. It is divided into 13 chapters including Laying Plans, Maneuvering, and The Use of Spies. In the chapter on Maneuvering, Sun Tzu recounts the five dangerous faults of a general as follows:

1. Recklessness, which leads to destruction;

2. cowardice, which leads to capture;

3. a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;

4. a delicacy of honour which is sensitive to shame;

5. over-solicitude for his men which exposes him to worry and trouble.

This book is full of practical insights that are helpful to litigators and business leaders alike. In the coming weeks I will provide other examples from this timeless manual.

I don’t mean eating puppies, I promise.

What I mean is that the FI and I aren’t allowed to have a dog at our apartment. When we signed the lease, the understanding was that we could get a cat and let the landlord know. The possibility was also raised later in the year that she might be accepting of a small dog. As I mentioned before, the FI and I want big dogs. Two of ‘em. Tessie is/will be our Boxer, and Hans is/will be our Bernese Mountain Dog. Neither breed could ever be considered a “small dog.” They’re big even as puppies!

The FI and I are both big dog people, and whenever we visit our moms (they both have dogs), we leave wishing we were going home to our own dog(s). Whenever friends have their dogs around, we’re the ones sitting right next to them with bellyrubs.

Here’s my thought (it’s a little bit of a digression, but stick with me). We have had a few renovations at our apartment since moving in, including a new bathroom that still isn’t 100% finished. Here’s a post from APRIL talking about how it’s *almost* done. We have a mirror, but still no heat in the new bathroom. We live in Massachusetts and it’s December. The tile floor is brutal in the morning!

There has also been a whole lot of conversation regarding a new kitchen that’s supposed to be going in. Our landlord told us some work was supposed to be started last Monday (filling in cracks in the foundation and other such small-time items), with demolition on the old bathroom and kitchen to be started just after Thanksgiving. PS- that’s this week. We asked our landlord last weekend when we should start moving stuff out of the kitchen for construction, and she said they’d likely be at the house on Monday to start. Sweet! We spent a lot of time over the weekend moving stuff in the office to make room for kitchen stuff and actively packing just about everything in the kitchen for storage in the office.

Then we heard demo wouldn’t start until Tuesday, but the carpenter was coming over Monday to do work. Fine. One day is ok. Plus, he was supposed to be over a week ago to do that work. The FI got home when the carpenter was still over, and asked when we should expect to move out. The carpenter said NEXT WEEK. When the FI told me this, I let loose a string of profanities that would make George Carlin blush. We are working with a near-empty kitchen and an overfull office, neither of which is really usable in its current state. For. Another. Week.

Not only that, but I’ve had to call MOH S and her boyfriend every day to let them know when to expect us. We have to move out of our apartment for a few days, and the stipend our landlord is giving us isn’t enough to cover a hotel room, and they have extra space, so we’re crashing with them. And we love them for being so patient with us. And teaching us how to play Super Mario for the Wii and not minding that we use up all their lives. Anyway.

So back to the original story: the puppy. Or young dog, either way. What I’ve been thinking is that the FI and I have been really good about this whole debacle. The year-long construction on the bathroom, the never-to-start kitchen… we’ve been very patient. We haven’t withheld rent, we haven’t complained too much, and we haven’t bitched out the contractors for slacking (though I came dangerously close a few times). We’re great tenants overall, too: we always pay on time, we rarely have parties (and she’s invited when we do), we don’t block the driveway, and we keep community property really neat. It’s not part of the lease, but we plan to be there at least another year before we buy a house, so she won’t have to worry about finding new tenants.

Do you think we have a little wiggle room if we ask our landlord if we can get a Boxer? Or should we just keep on waiting until we buy a house and can finally have a dog of our own?

Internal Negotiation is a process that precedes external negotiations. It occurs between two or more memebers of an organization.
The aim of an internal negotiation is also to help minimise instances of conflict and build a team spirit amongst departments.It is needed to guarantee that the buying team get the internal support and resources needed for an external negotiation.

As a buyer there is the constant challenge of dealing with internal customers who happen to be colleagues in the same department as well as members of other departments with different rankings in the organisation.

Handling internal negotiations requires tact. It is not unusual to find an unco-operative individual or department. Their lack of co-operation may well be justified by past experiences, especially where the individual or department has felt like a victim of another department’s overzealousness.

The internal customer must be in agreement or else, external negotiations will be frustrated. Their resistance could make implementation difficult.

Just as external negotiations, internal negotiations are complex, involve mutliple parties, require tangible and intangible resources such as money, time, trust and honesty.

Communication is necessary to ensure that internal colleagues are not caught unawares with the results of an external negotiation. Also, it ensures the active participation of internal colleagues in preparation for the external negotaitions and joint problem solving.

To plan for an internal negotiation, it is wise to examine those with vested interest and engage them in the preparations for external negotiation.
Relationship building is also key in the planning for internal negotiations and this is done by being transparent, asking for ideas and sharing relevant information.

Just spotted Jim Collin’s latest book. I’ve always enjoyed his previous books – Built to Last and Good to Great. This one is Great to Bad! How once great companies fail. He identifies 5 stages of decline.

1. Hubris born of success.
2. Undisciplined pursuit of ‘more’.
3. Denial of risk and peril.
4. Grasping for salvation.
5. Capitulation to irrelevance or death.

Sobering reading as an individual, team, organisation or civilisation.

I’m thinking of climate change and the current financial meltdown.

I liked this quote – “The signature of the truly great versus the merely successful is not the absence of difficulty but the ability to come back from set-backs, even catastrophe, stronger than before.”

There’s always hope …. if it’s well-founded!

Yesterday I wrote about one topic discussed at a recent IACCM executive forum – the use of virtual communication techniques. Subsequently the meeting turned to some of today’s big challenges in structuring deals and forming productive trading relationships.

“Always insisting on competitive bidding and driving for the cheapest means that from day one suppliers have to watch costs. That means we lose the ability to give stuff away and build collaboration,” commented one participant.  The group agreed that collaboration is the only way that new sources of value will be uncovered and that the focus of so many deals on lowest cost and risk avoidance condemns many contracts to disappointment or failure.

By way of contrast, the discussion moved to the UK’s Heathrow Terminal 5 project, hailed by many as a great success. Mark David decribed key aspects of that project and the role that ‘contracting culture ‘ played in its results. The contracting authority – BAA – decided to retain risk and not to appoint a prime contractor. It also formed an approach that guaranteed margins, encouraged and rewarded innovation, offered team bonuses and established a pool of money to protect contractors from errors and oversights. This created an environment of cross-organizational teaming and cooperation, because no one had the need to engage in protective behavior.

So why aren’t similar approaches more common? “Because organizations are driven by a Finance / Procurement partnership that is obsessed by short-term savings and a belief that competition is the only way to achieve them”, commented one seasoned Commercial Director. In his view, relationships and value are sacrificed for these short-term goals. He suggested that many executives recognize the problem – but take the view “You are right, but we have to make this quarter’s numbers”.

The contract tools, models and measurement systems in use at most companies have not adjusted to a service-based world. They simply cannot assess the cost of short-term wins over longer term value. Another aspect of this problem is the ability to build ‘commercial agility’ – that is, being able to adapt to fast-changing business conditions. “For us, the Commercial role is to enable agility within the internal ‘regulatory’ framework,” said a commercial director at a major defense and aerospace company. Participants confirmed that they – and their contracts – must increasingly be capable of applying discipline to what may happen in the future. Change is more frequent, driving many to seek shorter term contracts or increased termination rights.

In the end, the issue of short-termism was felt by all participants to be the biggest challenge of delivering more value and innovation in trading relationships. And although they felt that Procurement practices play a major role in this, they also blamed the overall compensation and reward systems that continue to prevail in most companies. Sales behavior is also driven by short-term gain, and the role of contracts / commercial groups must be to offer an objective view unclouded by commissions or theoretical savings – and to identify bad business, but also to advise management on what would make it good.

“Shes on in 10 minutes” now theres a lovely quote, what it really means is “get shooting and get gone, because we really dont need you in here ruining our karma in here.”

Taking pre-performance shots is often a minefield combining  the skills of a hostage negotiator along with jedi-like speed and reflexes and all this while trying to maintain a calm, charming and professional approach to the shoot. Actually getting in a position to take the shot is the first hurdle, this can be tricky as it often involves a list of people to talk to, some of whom you need to talk to, others you need to talk to in order to find the people you need to talk to, and then there are the people who think you need to talk to them.

Often when I arrive at a venue I have the feeling that no one has been told to expect a photographer and the first effort is involved in “correcting” this view. This is very rarely a problem as the venues will always want publicity but it is the specifics of what you can shoot which where the negotiation comes in, and even this can be taken away in second by a few choice words by the right people.

Ken Dodd was putting on a performance at the Theatre Severn in Shrewsbury while I was on nights for a week. I was quite looking forward to this as you will often get a free show out of these things which is always an added bonus.

On arrival at the theatre I was greeted by several blank faces who had no idea of my arrival (the  usual for this lovely venue). Once I made someone in authority awear of my presence things started moving I negotiated a pre performance shoot easily and was politely asked to only be about 15 minutes when the performance is under way, no problem although there goes my free ticket.

Most of a job like this is spent waiting and this was no different. In this case it was waiting backstage outside the dressing rooms, a tactical spot as it ensures you are not forgotten by people. In this case ken himself popped out several times to see if i was ok and even to apologise for taking some time to put his stage face on. He was a very very nice bloke although he did ask that I did not take pictures of him on stage (there goes that part of the job).

When the time to take the picture came I had to be quick and get a decent picture, I hadn’t waited this long to make a pigs ear of the whole thing, The shot was taken quite quickly, relying on having an exposure for the background before starting and a fairly good idea of what power to set a flash handheld to the left of the camera would be to compensate.

The light sources for this shot were a mix of daylight from a large window behind Ken and nasty overhead flourescent light, by exposing to keep the background from burning out due to the daylight I was able to stifle the flourescent lights and have the flash as my main light source creating a more pleasing image than trying to work with thew light from inside the room.

Despite not being able to get into the theatre for the performance I was quite pleased with the outcome of this job as I prefer the control I get from a posed shot rather than reacting to the performance.  Plus I came away with a tickle stick!

Another night job, taking photos  of former Catatonia vocalist Cerys Matthews at Ludlow’s Assembly rooms, a place I had never before visited. After arriving at the sleepy south Shropshire town and running round trying to find the place (almost opposite the car duh!) I went in and strolled past a queue of people paying for tickets (a big camera is often as good as a ticket at times like this).  After a brief search I found someone who appeared to be in a management position and made enquiries about the performance and the possibility of a pre-performance shot. This was an unusual event as no one really knew a thing about the photography, some people were saying “yes its all fine”, others that there was no photography at all. I was not too worried about the nay-sayers as I had a press release stating no flash but also no guidance on duration (normally these events are first three songs, no flash)

Eventually I made contact with Cerys’ manager who explained that I could get some posed shots but they were not awear we were looking for them (I didnt think they would be but I like to push it a little) and that she was on in 10 minutes.

The location for this shot was some stairs backstage, very glamorous i know! As I was restricted with time and space I ended up holding a flash high up trying to bounce off a corner of the ceiling about 15 feet  above me and to my left. We tried a few poses and positions, and finally settled on this one as I liked the expression and red stripe on the left, plus it hid a pregnant bump.

As for shooting during the performance I got so fed up with the conflicting information that I decided just to go in and start shooting to see how it went. As it turned out I managed four songs before I was informed that I had enough photos and this was the way out.

What sets the successful cross cultural negotiator apart from the rest is their ability to think in terms of ‘differences’ between cultures and people rather than thinking in terms of  ‘right and wrong’.

As humans we tend to think that those who are different to us and our ways are wrong. You see, we all view the world through the filters of our own experience and preferences and this means that our picture of ourselves and others is by definition almost always prejudiced one way or another.

If you can think of others as only being different rather than wrong, then it is much easier to emphatically and openly engage them in interest based negotiations.

When considering business negotiations across cultures there is a tendency to only think about the national or ethic cultures involved. You could easily make the mistake of stereotyping people according to their national culture whilst ignoring the other elements of culture that will contribute to the success of your negotiation.

In addition to national or ethnic culture, you should also consider:

The secondary or group culture, for example the organisational culture (corporate culture & norms) and/or religious culture (Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.).

The professional culture (accountants, lawyers, research scientists etc.).

Considering these additional cultural elements may well serve to assist you in uncovering potential common ground that would not exist if you only thought about culture in terms of national or ethnic dimensions.

The problem with preparing for cross cultural negotiation is that there is so much material that exists on cultural differences and similarities that it would take a significant amount of time for you to explore it in intricate detail.

To make it easier for you to derive some utility value from all the information that exists on cross cultural business negotiations, I would like you to consider only 2 key elements:

1. The maturity & sophistication of the financial infrastructure in place within that territory.

When we have a mature & sophisticated financial infrastructure in place it means that we have relatively easy access to capital and tools like credit vetting & credit insurance. This removes some of the risks associated in entering into business transactions.

2. The maturity & sophistication of the legal system in place within a territory.

When we have a mature & sophisticated legal infrastructure in place within a territory it means that we have reference to case law & precedents to provide guidance in terms of structuring agreements. It also means that when things go wrong it is easy for us to have recourse to the courts where we can rely on a relatively objective ruling to resolve disputes.

If you are negotiating in an environment where there is both a mature and sophisticated legal and financial system in place, you can expect to focus more on the content of the negotiation rather than the context surrounding the negotiation. Examples of these territories are Western & Northern Europe and North America.

In content driven negotiations the focus will be on the contractual terms and supporting details. Involve finance & legal early on in these negotiations. The relationship can be explored after the contract has been successfully agreed & implemented.

However, if you are negotiating in an environment where the legal and financial systems are relatively immature then it becomes important for you to focus on the context within which you negotiate rather than focusing only on the content. Examples of these types of territories are Africa, parts of the Middle East and Asia and parts of Latin America.

This means that when you are involved in negotiations in a context driven territory you should spend more time on developing relationships and establishing trust. Once you have established trust the agreement will follow!

Follow me on Twitter  http://twitter.com/Top_speaker

have a look at our website www.negotiation-training.eu

John F. McCarthy, Carl A. Scheraga, and Donald E. Gibson, recently posted their interesting paper, titled “Culture, Cognition and Conflict: How Neuroscience Can Help to Explain Cultural Differences in Negotiation and Conflict Management” on SSRN.  Here’s the abstract.

* * *

In negotiation and conflict management situations, understanding cultural patterns and tendencies is critical to whether a negotiation will accomplish the goals of the involved parties. While differences in cultural norms have been identified in the current literature, what is needed is a more fine-grained approach that examines differences below the level of behavioral norms. Drawing on recent social neuroscience approaches, we argue that differing negotiating styles may not only be related to differing cultural norms, but to differences in underlying language processing strategies in the brain, suggesting that cultural difference may influence neuropsychological processes. If this is the case, we expect that individuals from different cultures will exhibit different neuropsychological tendencies. Consistent with our hypothesis, using EEG measured responses, native German-speaking German participants took significantly more time to indicate when they understood a sentence than did native English-speaking American participants. This result is consistent with the theory that individuals from different cultures develop unique language processing strategies that affect behavior. A deliberative cognitive style used by Germans could account for this difference in comprehension reaction time. This study demonstrates that social neuroscience may provide a new way of understanding micro-processes in cross-cultural negotiations and conflict resolution.

* * *

You can download the paper for free here.  For a sample of related Situationist posts, see “Social Neuroscience and the Study of Racial Biases,” “Law & the Brain,” “The Situation of Risk Perceptions – Abstract,”and to review previous Situationist posts on cultural cognition, click here.

Currently this new business is still in an embryonic state. However, there has already been investment into the business and a number of features / technologies have already been built.  Therefore it is not straightforward to set-up the company structure and equity holding.  A number of factors have to be considered:

• Investment of co-founders to-date – time, cash and emotion!
• Investment into business going forwards by all parties
• My commitment and role going forwards

In order to get to a suitable conclusion there have been a number of actions agreed:

• Quantify investment to-date
• Identify gap in feature set for a launch product
• Finalise draft business plan, probably covering multiple scenarios
• Assess resource requirements to get the business to a public beta – cash and time.  The time part of this equation will include my commitment to work for free
• Understand likely requirements for future cash and personnel to get to cashflow breakeven

It is at this point that we can understand what has gone into the business at this embryonic state (pre-my involvement), what needs to go in to get it to “birth”, including my commitment, and what is the likely cost to get turn it into a self sustaining business.  I see the equity position at birth as the key factor of negotiation today.  However, I will need to consider the potential funding routes to cashflow breakeven as this could have dilution implications later on.  I may cover some of these considerations in another post.

One important point to make is that we will need to put in certain legal provisions that protect all parties. The key one for me is the “reverse vesting” of my equity… this will protect the business should I leave earlier than my vesting period, say 3 years…

Most attempts to compare the effectiveness of virtual meetings with physical meetings are too simplistic. That was the conclusion from IACCM’s executive roundtable in London last week. Participants shared hints and tips on approaches they have observed that contribute to the success of virtual meetings – and may even offer advantages over the physical variety.

‘We tend to see virtual meetings – phone calls, video-conferencing, webcasts – as inferior to physical meetings”, observed one participant. “Perhaps that is because the driver has been largely negative -  a push for cost savings, rather than promotion as a positive and perhaps superior alternative to physical meetings.”

Beyond reduced travel expense, how can virtual be superior? One reason is that they can be more inclusive. It is possible to involve a wider range of people, potentially for just part of the meeting. But another more important reason is the versatility they can offer in both the medium and the combination of methods used. ‘Virtual’ includes instant messaging, e-mail, conference calls, webinars, video calls and video conferencing, such as Telepresence. But it is not a matter of choosing just one approach – a well planned meting may use several.

“When we use any of these mediums for negotiation, we also ensure our team is linked to instant messaging,” commented one participant. “That way we are communicating behind the scenes, sending instructions, planning next moves. Those are things you can never do in a face to face negotiation.”

So if virtual methods sometimes offfer advantages, what are some of the hints and tips to make them successful? One interesting comment came from an executive who observed the need to put all participants on an equal footing. He had observed that many virtual meetings have a physical component – a tendency for those based in one location to gather in a conference room or office, with remote participants then joining by phone. “That puts the remote people at a tremendous disadvantage. The meeting inevitably gravitates to those who are together and the rest feel excluded.” He now requires all participants to use exactly the same medium.

In the world of negotiations, a recent IACCM study revealed that the most admired companies are those which excel at planning. And it has become evident that they also plan the methods they will use for communications and meetings and the points at which they will use them. So deciding the right mix and timing of physical and virtual meetings and communication is very much part of the planning agenda.

The roundtable group also discussed recent research findings from Harvard Business School regarding language issues. The research highlighted the alienation that typically occurs in multi-cultural teams, forced to operate in the company language (typically English). Many members of the team feel unempowered and this can be especially extreme in a virtual conversation. Successful leaders recognize this risk and ensure that all participants have opportunities to contribute. They also open a variety of methods – for example, spoken or written – to accommodate different preferences. “In any meeting, I know what I said, but I don’t know what others heard,” said one participant. “By using several forms of media, I may be able to reduce the chances of misunderstanding – and virtual methods certainly increase the options available to me.”

Another Commercial Director – who heads the UK team within a European multi-national – highlighted the fact that language diasadvantages can work in several directions. Although English is the official working language in his company, the native speakers often find themselves at a disadvantage, because non-natives actually understand each other far better than they understand their US or UK counterparts. “If we want to be effective, we must remember to use terms and speak at a speed where they grasp what we are saying. I often observe team members just trying to get their message across by speaking faster and at higher volume – it doesn’t work.”

These thoughts led the meeting to a discussion about the role of the contract as a means of communication – but I will cover that conversation in my next blog. Meanwhile, please share your thoughts and ideas on how to ensure effective use of virtual communication tools.

- inclusive

On Friday and Saturday of last week I assisted Helga Henry of FierceEarth with the delivery of their Metapod Fast Forward course. I attended Metapod Be affective as a participant a couple of years ago and it really changed my attitude to my practice. Fast Forward is aimed at businesses that are more developed than mine was and are exploring the next stage of their development.

All of the participants are in the creative sector. I hope after the next two day session that I will certainly be able to blog in more detail about them individually. It would be improper I think to do so yet.

It was really inspiring to spend time with people who have been in almost every case really brave at one point or another taking their businesses to where they are. The content of the course means a certain amount of trust is built up over the two days. With exercises that involve building a vision of your future and communication skills giving you time and distance to think about progress. Although there as assistant I absolutely benefited from this. But what I enjoyed most was getting to hear the different approaches and opinions of the participants. Not to mention the inspirational speakers. Notably Andy Bass whose session on negotiation was enlightening and empowering!

I think it will take a while to process the revelations. But I will try to share them as I implement them. I guess they address the issues that a lot of you that are artists or makers struggle to deal with. Pricing, negotiating, talking money, valuing properly what your talent  is worth! If anyone is struggling with these issues leave a comment and maybe I could share what learnt about this stuff.

Other news: I have a exciting meeting at compton verney this week to discuss delivering an adult workshop. I am attending training at the RNIB to audio describe art to the visually impaired. I still havent made a start with my print work and the commission is slowly making progress. Oh and congrats to Chantal Powell who has been featured in Cut – Click online Zine!

Once we have encountered someone they are permanently recorded in our memory and not forgotten unless we suffer some sort of catastrophic, irreversible memory loss. The factual details are recorded in our Parent and our emotional responses concerning the person are recorded in our Child – see my previous article on Perspective for a description of the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris.

Consequently under normal circumstances once we get to ‘know’ someone it is not possible to get to ‘not know’ them or, to use a more common term, ‘forget them’. I think that whenever we encounter someone, however briefly, we establish a relationship that we never really ‘lose’. My view is that it continues to exist in one of the four states depicted below – Harmony, Triggers, Conflict or Resolution.

Even if we never see a person again after a brief encounter, e.g. check-in staff at the airport, one night stand etc, if our parting was on good terms the relationship remains forever in Harmony with no chance of ever entering Conflict because we will never see that person again and we will have warm, pleasant memories of the encounter. If, however, triggers occurred, e.g. the service, sex etc was terrible, this may have led to conflict and the relationship then remains forever in Conflict with no chance of resolution as we never get to see that person again in order to attempt to reach Resolution and restore Harmony.

The more time we spend with a person and the better we get to know them the more chance there is of entering the Conflict state. In his excellent book ‘You Can Be Happy No Matter What’ Richard Carlson says:

“THE THOUGHT SYSTEMS OF OTHERS

We have learned that thoughts with recurring patterns become part of our individualized thought systems. Because our thought systems are self-validating systems (in psychological terminology, closed systems), we are unable to question them, and it will always seem to us that we are seeing life accurately and realistically. Because of this, we tend to question the ways in which others live their lives and the ways they do things, because self-validating systems are very protective of themselves. Information that doesn’t match our existing beliefs will be filtered through our belief system and judged as “inconsistent with the truth,” “a strange way of doings,” “weird,” “unusual,” “different,” and most often, “wrong.”

As we get to know another person better this tendency to question their thought system will increase, not decrease. The more opportunity we have to interact and spend time with other thought systems, the greater is the chance of conflict. This is why the most difficult relationship, for so many people, is marriage. For unmarried people, the most difficult relationship is commonly the person they are closest or most intimate with. In some ways, it seems ironic that we should be most bothered by those to whom we wish to be closest. But it can’t be any other way, unless and until we understand the psychological functioning of ourselves and our partners. Once we do, the opposite will happen. With understanding, we will gain new love and respect for those we choose to spend the most time with. We will retain our positive feelings for them as special and unique people. The issue of our differences will cease to bother us – perhaps it will even become amusing! We will begin to see people as characters, rather than adversaries.”

I agree with Richard…the closer we are to someone the more likely it is that conflict will arise. When we talk about ‘working at a relationship’ I believe what we are saying is that we need to work through resolving conflict whenever it arises and that it is particularly hard work in our closest, most intimate relationships. As time goes on and the relationship evolves the frequency of entering the Conflict state diminishes; in some cases to a point where conflict no longer happens between the parties.

As the diagram shows I believe that the route to conflict is via triggers. These are pre-existing psychological states many of which have not yet been resolved. For example some peoples’ rage is triggered when they are pointed at moving them to the Conflict state while others just shrug and think “hmmm… pointing isn’t polite” and their rage is not triggered hence they remain in the Harmony state avoiding getting anywhere near the Conflict state.

A relationship that has become stuck in the Conflict state is sometimes described as lost. However I believe that there is no situation that cannot be resolved. Whether or not it does get resolved depends on the desire of all parties concerned to reach resolution and return to a state of Harmony. Communication and negotiation play a very important part in resolving conflict – see my previous articles on Communication and Negotiation.

Here are some of the things that I think are common causes of conflict:

Lack of Expectation Management – This is one of the major causes of the build up of anger leading to resentment and rage. This, in turn, results in very serious conflict – see my previous article on Expectations

Mismatching – Mismatching is also a significant cause of conflict. One of our major issues is hoping to match ourselves with others before we get to know ourselves. How can we hope to enter in to an effective match with someone else when we barely know who we are ourselves? This is why I think that introspection is so important – see my previous article on Introspection.

Attachment to Things and Acts – For a variety of reasons we find ourselves drawn to material things and acts of others toward us. Here are a couple of questions we should be asking ourselves:

• Are we falling in love/in love with ‘Our’ things (Our Tune, Our Joke, Our Place, Our Gifts etc) or with the person?
• Are we falling in love/in love with the person or the way we’re being treated?

Where we are in love with things or acts, once others are unable to give these to us anymore a major conflict occurs. The reason being that we no longer have any reason to stay with the person(s) who is (are) no longer a source of the things or acts that we have fallen in love with. So we move on to others who can restore to us what our former partner/friends etc are no longer able to give and leave them devastated. If we are in love with the person(s) and/or simply appreciate them for who they are we stick with them.

Possession or Person – The treatment of a person as a possession always leads to conflict. Whether slavery (actual or metaphoric), excessive jealousy or perceived ownership, the person(s) who is (are) the focus of the possessiveness will eventually rebel either quietly or very loudly.

Contact – Some of us are contact junkies; others of us are quite happy to wait, sometimes extended periods of time, between contacts. This can be a very significant source of conflict. Contact junkies will terminate relationships (or, more accurately in my view, put them in an indefinite state of Conflict) because they are aggrieved that they are not being contacted often enough.

Dominant Parent and/or Child – Where one, both or all parties in a relationship have a dominant Parent and/or Child conflict is inevitable. This is because the weakened or absent Adult is unable to assert the necessary rationality that fosters effective communication and negotiation. If the Adult is dominant and strong in at least one party the conflict can be resolved quickly.

Mental Illness – This in my view is the most disappointing cause of conflict. In my experience most people have taken the view that they did not get involved in a relationship to deal with someone’s psycho behaviour. It is disappointing because all it requires on the part of the person(s) who are mentally healthy is a resolve to assist the mentally ill person recover be it depression, neurosis or whatever.

Negativity – Excessive jealousy, extreme anger (rage), resentment, blaming and fault finding are just a few of the excellent ways to move very quickly to a state of Conflict. My advice is to avoid expressing negativity inappropriately at all costs.

In summary I think that the trick is to stay in the Harmony state. Where this is not possible then the triggers should be removed and/or the conflict resolved as quickly as is practicable.

Stay strong and serene.

On December 27, 2008, the Israel Defense Forces began their assault on the Gaza Strip in what they called Operation Cast Lead. 13 Israelis and as many as 1400 Palestinians were killed in the three weeks of fighting. The war enjoyed wide support among Israelis: according to the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, 94% of Jewish Israelis (76% of Israel’s population) supported the attack. Operation Cast Lead caused enormous suffering in Gaza and has been a thorn in the side of Israelis since its commencement. Numerous human rights organisations have issued reports on the conflict accusing both sides of war crimes, and the Israeli government has denied any but the noblest intentions. How did we get here?

This essay uses national role conception theory to explain how Israel’s political culture approved of Operation Cast Lead and permitted the latest brutal attack on the Palestinians. You can find it at the following link.

Because we all have a unique perspective on life negotiation and, by extension, compromise are crucial parts of all of our relationships with other people; see my previous article on Perspective which also describes the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model developed by Thomas A Harris which is referenced in this article. In my view, the key to successful negotiation is a clear, Adult (reality based) perception of the circumstances and of each person’s drivers, motivations and/or needs. This is as opposed to perceptions dominated by our Parent and/or Child (distorted reality or pure fantasy).

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore our Parent and/or Child; far from it. Our Adult cannot function effectively without input from both. In his book ‘Six Thinking Hats’ Edward de Bono (http://www.edwarddebono.com) describes a method of discussion that allows expression of all of the components of the PAC model…the Parent (Black Hat), the Adult (White, Yellow, Green and Blue Hats) and the Child (Red Hat). Read more about the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward espouses letting go of the need to be right; something I agree with wholeheartedly. He says:

“THE NEED TO BE RIGHT

This is very much tied up with the ego. An argument is a battle between egos. When you agree you seem to be submitting to the other point of view – so you lose. When you disagree you are asserting your ego and indicating that you may be superior. All this is reinforced by the emphasis on argument and debate in school and also in society, whether in government, the law courts or the media. In government, for instance, an opposition party will often seek to disagree with those in power, whatever the circumstances. Most people are now coming to see this as extremely silly.

If you insist on always winning an argument you end up with nothing more than you started with – except showing off your arguing ability. When you lose an argument you may well have gained a new point of view. Being right all the time is not the most important thing in the world and it is certainly not very beautiful.

A discussion should be a genuine attempt to explore a subject rather than a battle between competing egos.”

In my experience, the outcome of negotiation can be:

1. I/We Win – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
2. I/We Lose – You Win (Parent)
3. I/We Lose – You Lose (Child and/or Parent)
4. I/We Win – You Win (Adult with Parent and/or Child input)

My view on these outcomes is as follows:

1. Driven either by our Child or our Parent. When this outcome is driven by the Child it is evidenced by a desire to control through domination. This has resulted in phrases such as ‘big swinging dicks’, ‘slaughtering the other side’, ‘chewing them up and spitting them out’ etc. When driven by the Parent it is evidenced by a desire for external approval and influenced by such sage advice as “second is nowhere”, “the winner takes it all”, “winning is everything” etc.
2. Driven by the Parent and evidenced by a desire to please. It is influenced by such sage advice as “the meek shall inherit the earth”, “always give of yourself”’, “turn the other cheek, “sacrifice is next to godliness” etc.
3. Driven by either the Child or the Parent. When driven by the Child it is evidenced by a “if I’m/We’re suffering then you’re going to suffer with me/us” approach when losing and the consequent efforts to sabotage negotiations even at the risk of further detriment or harm to themself/selves – the classic ‘cutting off of the nose to spite the face’. When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “if you’re going down, take as many of them down with you as you can” as opposed to surrendering or otherwise gracefully accepting defeat…in many cases to fight another day.
4. This is the outcome I believe all negotiations should aspire to. It is driven by the Adult or Parent. When driven by the Adult it is based on a rational consideration of the, often irrational, input from our Parent and/or Child plus the prevailing external circumstances and a balanced consideration of what may happen in the future. Some of our greatest modern thinkers, such as Edward, have proposed extremely effective ways of negotiating that are very different from the traditional ‘You’re Wrong – I’m/We’re right’ approach. They favour a more objective, analytical approach such as the ‘parallel thinking’ method designed by Edward in 1985. As per the quote from Edward above, letting go of the need to be right is crucial in achieving Win-Win in negotiation. With reference to the book ‘I’m OK – You’re OK’ by Thomas (more information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I’m_OK,_You’re_OK) I believe that this need to be right is a consequence of not being in the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state. This means we remain in the “I’m Not OK – You’re OK” state that we are in at birth and during the first few years of our lives or move to either one of “I’m Not OK – You’re Not OK” or “I’m OK – You’re Not OK” states. Ideally we should all move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state at some point during our lives and, consequently, be able to let go of the need to be right. Unfortunately not all of us complete the move to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” state – witness crusty old folk having a good old moan about how things are a lot worse than the old days! When driven by the Parent the influencing sage advice is “always play fair”; on the face of it this would appear to be the same as when driven by the Adult. However if driven only by the Parent fair play will be observed even when others are playing unfairly potentially leading to an underserved loss. The Adult will take the unfair play in to account and consequently engineer a fair Win-Win outcome.

In another of his books, ‘How to Have a Beautiful Mind’, Edward gives an example of ‘parallel thinking’ saying:

“CO-OPERATIVE EXPLORATION

Imagine there are four people standing around a square building. Each person is facing a different side. Each person insists that what he or she sees is the proper view of the building. They argue via walkie-talkies.

In parallel thinking each person would walk round to one side of the building. They would now each describe what they saw. Then they would all walk around to another side of the building and again describe what they saw. The same procedure for the third side, and then the fourth side.

So, all parties look at the matter from the same point of view and describe what they see. In the end there has been a full exploration of the building (the matter being discussed).

For the method of work (Note from Yernasia: I think that this was meant to read “For the method to work”), it is essential that at any moment everyone is looking ‘in parallel’ in the same direction.”

In yet another of his books, ‘Textbook of Wisdom’, he says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking, where each statement has to be judged before being accepted. In adversarial thinking, the ‘contradiction’ is a very important and powerful tool. Both sides of a contradiction cannot be right. One or other must go. Parallel thinking allows both sides of the contradiction to be laid down in parallel without interfering with each other. Later on, in the design phase, things can be sorted out.

Parallel thinking removes at once the urge to instant judgement. You do not have to accept something as ‘right’ because you have not rejected it as ‘wrong’. You simply accept it ‘in parallel’. Sometimes you can accept it as ‘possibly’ but even when you cannot accept something as ‘possible’ you still accept it in parallel.

Husbands usually complain that wives take far too many clothes on holiday. Husbands say that wives should decide in advance exactly what is going to be needed and to reject what is not going to be needed. Husbands complain that wives take six outfits with them so they can have the ‘luxury’ of choice at the holiday destination. Parallel thinking is what the wives are doing. They take everything along and then make the choice only when it has to be made. The husbands’ thinking is more like the traditional Gang of Three (Note from Yernasia: see below for an Explanation of the Gang of Three from Edward’s website) thinking: accept or reject at this point before packing it.”

Explanation of the Gang of Three

Sourced from http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php

“Argument and Critical Thinking

To this day, Western culture depends on this type of thinking. In family arguments, in business discussions, in the law courts, and in governing assemblies, we use the thinking system of the Greeks, based on argument and critical thinking.

I sometimes refer to prominent philosophers of this day as the “gang of three.” Who were the famous Greek gang of three, and how did they form the thinking habits of Western culture?

The Gang of Three Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
Socrates was trained as a “sophist.” Sophists were people who played with words and showed how careful choice of words could lead you to almost any conclusion you wanted. Socrates was interested in challenging people’s thinking and, indeed, getting them to think at all instead of just taking things for granted. He wanted people to examine what they meant when they said something. He was not concerned with building things up or making things happen.

From Socrates we get the great emphasis on argument and critical thinking. Socrates chose to make argument the main thinking tool. Within argument, there was to be critical thinking: Why do you say that? What do you mean by that?

Plato (c. 427-348 B.C.)
Plato is generally held to be the father of Western philosophy. He is best-known for his famous analogy of the cave. Suppose someone is bound up so that the person cannot turn around but can only look at the back wall of the cave. There is a fire at the mouth of the cave. If someone comes into the cave, then the bound person cannot see the newcomer directly but can only see the shadow cast by the fire on the back wall of the cave. So as we go through life, we cannot see truth and reality but only “shadows” of these. If we try hard enough and listen to philosophers, then perhaps we can get a glimpse of the truth. From Plato we get the notion that there is the “truth” somewhere but that we have to search for it to find it. The way to search for the truth is to use critical thinking to attack what is untrue.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was a very practical person. He developed the notion of “categories,” which are really definitions. So you might have a definition of a “chair” or a “table.” When you come across a piece of furniture, you have to judge whether that piece of furniture fits the definition of a chair. If it does fit, you say it is a chair. The object cannot both be a chair and not be a chair at the same time. That would be a “contradiction.” On the basis of his categories and the avoidance of contradiction, Aristotle developed the sort of logic we still use today (based largely on “is” and “is not”). From Aristotle we get a type of logic based on identity and non-identity, on inclusion and exclusion.”

…and in summary Edward says:

“Parallel thinking is the opposite of traditional adversarial thinking. Instead of judgement, both sides are laid down in parallel and then a way forward is designed.”

Put simply, I think he is saying that we should listen to and understand others points of view and be prepared to explain clearly and quietly our points of view. This, I believe, is the basis of effective negotiation.

Stay strong and serene.

Oriel Incorporated offers two project management training courses to give you the proper tools to create and deliver your organization’s products and services in the most effective manner possible.

From general definitions to the specific skills and techniques of scheduling, team management, communication, and more, our courses will teach you the latest and most effective project management techniques. Created in partnership with Boston University’s Corporate Education Center, these courses are presented by a stellar group of highly experienced professionals who have successfully employed project management across a host of industries.

Whether you are new to the field of project management or are an experienced manager who wants to keep up with the current trends, turn to Oriel. Our core material can also be customized to address the unique elements of your particular organization.

Our courses include:

• Principles and Techniques of Project Management
• Project Management Fast Track

Principles and Techniques of Project Management (3 days)
Learn how to effectively balance the weight of your managerial responsibilities with the expectations of different stakeholders.  This course provides an overview of the concepts and principles of project management, which will enable you to oversee your projects efficiently and effectively.  An integrated case study gives you a first-hand opportunity to practice the theories and concepts discussed in the course.  This class is 100% compliant with the current Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) from the Project Management Institute (PMI®).

In this course, you will learn how to clearly differentiate among project, program, and subproject, identifying contrasting and related characteristics of each;  compare and contrast project management to strategic management, operations management, and crisis management, understanding your role in all of these relationships;  define the role of project manager while addressing the expectations of different project stakeholders;  and develop essential management deliverables such as project charters, scope statements, work breakdown structures, activity lists, duration estimates, network diagrams, and risk analysis.

Project Management Fast Track (5 days)
As a project manager, do you feel confident in your ability to effectively plan, execute, control, and close the projects that are assigned to you?  If not, or if you’d like to learn to perform your job more easily, look no further—this five-day class from Oriel, offered in partnership with Boston University’s Corporate Education Center, will give you the background and tools you need to optimize your role in the project management process.  Even better, this course will help you prepare for Project Management Professional®  (PMI) certification from the Project Management Institute® (PMI).

A case study is threaded throughout the program and includes activities that enable participants to apply the lessons that they’re learning.  The curriculum is presented in dual fashion: PMI theories are presented and then supplemented with examples from the course instructors’ project management experiences.  This combination of theoretical and practical will give you a more intensive presentation of the material, so that you can absorb—and retain—it more thoroughly.

Prerequisites for this course are a minimum of 2–4 years experience working in a project manager role and leading a team, familiarity with and understanding of PMI® and the PMBOK® Guide, and/or interest in and sufficient experience (4,500 hours over 5 years) to take the PMI certification exam.