L A Costacurta Junqueira

JB Vilhena

CEO of INSTITUTE MVC

costacurta@instituomvc.com.br

            The opening speech represents a very important moment in every event. And here, at the ASTD, it couldn’t be different. We have, in the last years, had the opportunity to be present at several meetings where renowned consultants came to talk about things that very often we already knew or had even experienced in Brazil. But this didn’t happen today, June 4^th with Jim Collins speech.

         Jim introduced himself not in the role of a teacher or consultant, instead he performs  more like the manager of a learning process devoted to study how the big companies grow, achieve better performances e turn up to be exceptional organizations (going from Good to Great companies). One of the remarkable differences he exhibits in relation to the other consultants is that Jim discusses the process used by people in the area of corporate education. The majority of works published in this field seems to be confined to the report of results. However, because Jim is more concerned with the “how” – and not only with the “results” – his speech led the public to ponder over questions such as:

a)     You probably have a log of things demanding to be done, but do you have a log of things that should never be done? The example Jim gave to illustrate this idea was the purchasing of the Pacific Southwest Airways (that had been enduring a critical financial situation) by an unknown air company. This unknown company decided to continue with all the right things that the PSA was doing – the use of one single aircraft, for example. But, at the same time, they decided to stop with all the things typical to be a PSA characteristic, for instance, they cut off on flight meals and only hand baggage was permitted to the passengers. They also drove their preference towards the regional airports in the big cities. Few years later this formerly unknown company became a benchmark to the American market having inclusive inspired our Gol company. Its name? Southwest Airlines.

b)     Organizations go through six clearly distinct stages during their lifetime. In the fifth stage they have in general become great and respected, stemming the envy and admiration of their competing companies. According to Jim’s opinion, this is the most dangerous stage. When we believe we have attained the state-of-art stage probably this is the time when certain changes must be implemented. Chrysler became the third more important company in the American automobile sector. But, in less than six years this company went down several points in the ranking and is today fighting to survive. Does anyone remember Mesbla, or even the old-time Varig when hearing this kind of history?

c)     Jim sustains he learned from one of his mentors that “it’s only interesting the one who is interested”. This is probably a very important lesson for our marketing and sales personnel. Before trying to make the public interested in the things they are offering it’ll be necessary to be interested in knowing what their public understands to be interesting. Let’s see, for instance, the I-pod example. Why was this equipment developed by Apple and not by Sony (the walkman creator)? Sony had a very interesting product, but Apple demonstrated interest in knowing what the market would be willing to use as a portable sound system. Nowadays millions of I-pods are sold yearly and walkman is becoming to appear as a museum curiosity.

d)     One of Collins earnest suggestion is that companies should transform their CEOs into a kind of knowledge multiplier. What good would come from those bearing undisputed managerial competence, or technical and scientific in depth knowledge, if these CEOs are unwilling to share such wisdom with the people they are presently leading? It’s not enough to tell people they ought to share their learning. And it’ll be necessary for the organizations to prepare their CEOs for the role of multipliers, giving support to their initiatives. And when the time comes to evaluate their performance, effective results should be asked from them in terms of how this competence was used.

e)     More important than to say – or even to teach – what should be done is create an appropriate environment where people will always feel inclined to make the best use of their learning opportunities. As an example, Jim mentioned the opportunity he had for a visit to Peter Drucker. As he was leaving, at the moment when their conversation had already finished – and Jim was thanking his host, he couldn’t resist and asked Drucker why he agreed to receive an unknown Stanford teacher. And Drucker replied that he had reasons to believe that, when talking to another person, he always had the occasion to learn something.

There were many messages and teachings given by Collins in the course of the 75 minutes of his speech. It’s worth saying that, during all this time, the lecturer exhibited total mastery not only of the subject but inclusive of its construction. His presentation enthralled the audience. And he has awaken in everyone the wish to know his ideas better and more profoundly and read his book “Empresas feitas para Vencer” (Good to Great).

PS. If you wish visit the site www.jimcollins.com for more information.

Luiz Augusto Costacurta Junqueira

CEO of INSTITUTE MVC

costacurta@instituomvc.com.br

Executives are generally characterized as people who keep asking for results, demanding fast answers and assertive behaviors, in other words, they are always searching for the nearest and urgent definitive “truth”.

And, the real thing is that at the end they finish hearing more lies and half truths, and worse, accepting or considering as acceptable what they had just heard.

The scope of this article is to set down a few of the most usual lies and uncover certain behaviors/suggestions that could reveal whether what was said is closer to the truth than to the hoax.

THE MOST COMMON LIES  

We are light-years ahead of our competitors!!!

We shouldn’t change what is doing so well, we did a benchmarking and now everything’s going just fine!

I’ll deliver this planning tomorrow!!!

Your participative style is what makes this company grow!!!

You can relax and take your holiday. Don’t worry, this company will keep going on.

I’ll be back in fifteen minutes!

I can’t figure out why it’s not working, everything is going just like last year!!!

In this company we all have the same treatment!!

It’s been many years since the market is working like that!!!

Leaving all lies behind and searching for the truth we have devised a few ways to encourage our staff, mates and clients to exhibit a more reliable behavior.

HOW TO ENCOURAGE THE TRUTH

Even though this theme could lead to a more forthright approach I’ve included here a few styles of behavior that could “help” other people to be more honest in their relationships. Avoiding any sort of dogmatism, I offer here a few suggestions;

Try to identify what there is behind the lies:

Lack of confidence in you or in the company;

Perhaps scarcity of motivation or

Incompetence;

Etc,

Start asking others to do anything that you  could possibly and reasonably do (in terms of time schedule, competence, costs, etc);

Order verbally, but later try to confirm the order in written before the time schedule is over;

Keep in mind to have always a witness by your side when you’re placing an order and the same witness (if possible) when your order is being delivered (in special cases, of course);

Try not to say harsh words to the person who lied to you, use the silence to disconcert him (her) or to make him (her) understand the truth;

Ask this person to” write down” the lie and then to e-mail it to you soon after the interview;

Repeat the lie with your own words giving the excuse that you want to be sure to understand quite well what has been said;

Try to think you’re in a poker game and learn how to identify gestures and behaviors that could reveal your counterpart is not telling the truth;

A lie shouldn’t be spread about, keep it within the four walls and make it revert to the same person who told it (just to make easier its correction);

The person in question should be reminded that we are entitled to say a lie (or a half truth) only once, the problem is in the second, third or …. times;

Discuss everything you’ve been told, it’ll make your counterpart respect you even more.         The ideas we’re describing here are really very simple and there’s no doubt that your experience has already shown you something quite similar (or perhaps, with more details). It may happen that if you can hold a more structured position it’ll help with the management of the problem.

It’ll be important to remember that lies don’t go very far (they’re short legged), they don’t survive and the sooner they are unmasked the slighter will be the inevitable consequences to third parties relationships and to the results for your company.

Finishing, give the example. Always say the truth, even when it’s a bitter one!

 JB Vilhena

Vice-President of the Instituto MVC and

MBA Coordinator in FGV´s Commercial Management

vilhena@institutomvc.com.br

The best agreement is that of the yield-yield

J. B. Vilhena

In management many myths are being blamelessly created, or perhaps they even go unscathed. There are those who truly believe that advertising is the business soul, and there are those who almost swear that the client is always right. In addition there are those who fight tooth and nail that it is better to sell something that the client doesn’t wish or need than leave bare handed the interview. And so on.     In our seminaries, speeches and training courses we have always tried to discuss the harmful results created in the organizations by the belief in many of these myths.

Today we want to discuss with you one of the most frequent of the negotiation myths: the winning myth.

Looking up in any dictionary we’ll find that the word “method” can be rendered as a form or process to do something. Inspired by the myth a few negotiators arrive at the conclusion that it is possible to follow each step of the process “winning” something. Let’s see if this idea makes sense.

If every negotiation arises from a situation of disagreement in terms of means, and of agreement in terms of the end, the only possible method to arrive at a satisfactory harmony for both parties will be the yielding method.

Let’s consider basically a commercial negotiation. Party A wants to sell a product, however this product cannot be delivered before the next 90 days. Party B wants to by the product – and here we find the disagreement in terms of end – but wants it within a maximum of 45 days. Therefore, we have here a disagreement in terms of means. Imagining that the time schedule required by both parties is real, the only way to establish an agreement is to obtain, from each party, some sort of concession, for example to close the deal with a 70 days delivery (both parties had to do some yielding, right?).

If the negotiation has a political feature we can imagine the following situation. Party A wants a minimum wage of R$300,00 while  Party B proposes R$240,00. After endless discussions they arrive at an agreement of R$255,00. They had both to make concessions, to yield.

In union negotiations the “boss” offers an 8% increase while employees are claiming 20%. After many discussions the parties agree with 10%. Can you deny that both parties have yielded a little and they arrived at a satisfactory conclusion?

I don’t pretend to deny that parties very often ask for more than what they really think it would be the minimum acceptable. The strategy here is to pretend that you are making concessions in order to obtain compensations from the other (in other words, what we say that is the maximum we can concede, is really the minimum). Sometimes, we stand our ground in terms of a certain request when, in fact, what we really want is quite different (we call it our hidden agenda). In this case, the strategy is to make our counterpart to concede certain things supposing that they aren’t our main goal (for instance, when the client is insisting in a price reduction when what he really wants is a more convenient time schedule for the payment. But this is the game of the win-lose, isn’t it?

There are many techniques which, however leading to the win-lose, are widely used aiming to compel the other party to make concessions above what could be possibly considered as reasonable:

Blanket: consists in mentioning everything we want to find out later what we really could be disposing of (the analogy is, shall leave the head or the feet uncovered?)

Brackets: consists in segregate what the other party is more interested in aiming to make it look for a defensive position.

Surprise: consists in a unexpected change of the purpose of the negotiation, leaving the other party uncertain and unprepared to negotiate.

Intimidation: consist in threatening the other party – suggesting to put an immediate end to the negotiation, for example.

Silence: consists in avoiding to give any opinion or criticism about what is being proposed with the purpose of disorienting the other party.

Dribble: consists in make believe that we want something in special when we are really interested in another thing quite different.

Limited authority: consists in create a superior agency that has to be consulted before we are in condition to give a final answer to any proposition received.

Good boy/bad boy: negotiators working together. One plays the role of a good boy, while the other is the bad boy.

We could include here a very long list that comprises a few tricks, strategies and frauds. When talking to participants of our events a significant number of them confessed that this expedient has been largely used when they want to arrive at certain agreements. According to their opinion they are acting in consonance with the rules proposed by books and manuals (unhappily many of them really propose these things) and, consequently, this people have no idea that they are behaving against any ethic or moral limits.

Here, at MVC, we have a different way of thinking. Since Luiz Augusto Costacurta Junqueira has been actively working as adviser in seminars our company was always convinced that “it is better to lose a negotiation than make a bad bargain”

We have sustaiened – long time before Daniel Goleman wrote his book Intelligence Emotional – that the crucial element in a negotiation is behavioral. We have always encouraged people to examine carefully the process in order to identify the positive aspects of the offer that is being made to the other party, so that the compulsory concessions could be rewarded with advantages – financial, emotional and strategic – offered by the other. We encourage empathy as one of the best strategies to be able to “think as the other thinks”.

Our firm belief is that a win-win attitude really exists, but not in the process. It can be reached at the end of each negotiation when the parties sums up all concessions made, compares with all results attained and arrive at the conclusion that it was really worth while.

Material from the ADVANCED NEGOTIATION PROGRAM

Luiz Augusto Costacurta Junqueira

CEO of INSTITUTE MVC

costacurta@instituomvc.com.br

A significant portion of professionals and executives fall into basic mistakes when negotiating or trying to persuade the “Corporate Gods”, or better, those who presently are filling top positions in their organizations.

Among these mistakes we can point out the emphasis given to quality in detriment of quantity, the inability to summarize and disclose their ideas, or to carry on an argumentation where the customizing process has not been taken in account, or has not been founded on the peculiar characteristics of those whom they have previously made business which.

Our monthly text offers today a few suggestions to negotiate and persuade those persons who occupy top positions in the organizational hierarchy (or heavenly positions).

To begin with it is always useful to remember that “Gods” have usually a result oriented mind, willfully tangible and quantified. Firstly, try to begin any contact mentioning the expected results and to explain, only then, the procedures that more likely will be used for this achievement.

Considering that the “Gods” language is based on “numbers”, you must strive to insert quantified information in your reasoning process; numbers constitute a worldwide (or heavenly) language, equally understood by earthly or celestial beings.

“Gods” are usually very sensitive to facts, to the competitors experiences, (the devils, certainly), to benchmarking examples, requests or statements from clients, suppliers or official authorities (all them as earthly as ourselves); try to introduce such information as if they were a “filling” to your assertions.       

Never begin a interview or a meeting without the traditional questions, “how much time do I have?” or “When do you expect it will be finished?”. Try also to keep yourself within the previously established limits, let him be the own“God” if anyone oversteps such limits.

First of all, don’t forget to keep in mind your “God’s” behavior characteristics and make use of them in you presentation:

Is he more inclined to see our hear your ideas?

From the Bible or the Koran?

To already proved and safe ideas or is he more inclined to run the risks?

Is he likely to prefer relationships or results?

Perhaps an informal presentation, or is he in love with a Power-point with detailed texts?

Prefers that those heavenly differences from competitors are mentioned?

We previously mentioned that facts are essential, but now we wish to remind you that opinions are dangerous, especially when they are given before the facts (due to their questionable nature, they are apt to divide the spectators, forgive me, the angels and other advisors). Facts, being neutral and exempt from positions, should be exhausted and only then we will be in condition to talk about our own opinions.

Exaggerated objectivity could be a handicap, especially if the “God” belongs to that category who loves an “ice breaker”, a joke, and so on, and you must remember this. Sometimes it might be necessary to do some “warming up”, before starting with the main subject.

“Gods” are very sensitive to opinions and quotations from other “Gods”! If you can possibly find a few of them, capable of reinforcing you point of view, you’ll have covered half of the way.

Remember that you have the ability to persuade or influence anyone you wish using different alternatives:

You have an excellent idea or product (focus on the product),

You own a very convincing argumentation (focus on the process),

You inherited a relative amount of empathy and know how to “customize” the relationship (focus on the style).

The ideal is to integrate these three dimensions, but trying always to identify which one of them will be more capable of emotionally touching your counterpart, i.e. your “God”.

Other important aspect is to remember that “Gods” are inclined to behave as “Gods” and very often this means that they like to talk more (or first). Perhaps, therefore, it would be better if you listened first.

“Gods” love solutions, and hate problems, and what’s more, they “hate” when someone brings problems for them to solve. It will be better to always have in your pocket an alternative or a contingency plan..

A good idea, or an excellent suggestion, should be frequently followed by the expected and respective implementation costs. More than that, by a cost/benefit inventory. It must be emphasized  that, though rich, “God” needed centuries to get there…

Now, dear reader, you have already a certain amount of strategies, techniques, and behavioral aspects that will enable you to influence “God” (or the angels, archangels and similar creatures), the only missing thing is a good idea to be applied.

Remember that “the sky is the limit”…

Material from the Pocket MBA NEGOTIATION BEHAVIOR PROGRAM

 JB Vilhena

Vice-President of the Instituto MVC and

MBA Coordinator in FGV´s Commercial Management

vilhena@institutomvc.com.br

Authors in the sales area make use and abuse of specific military metaphors to enlighten their ideas. The competitor is the enemy and clients are the territories yet to be conquered. In this article our purpose is to put in practice this military analogy aiming to answer a question that concerns every professional in the commercial area: what measures should be taken to conquer a client who is perfectly happy with all consideration he receives from our competitor?

According to the military jargon when it’s necessary to conquer a territory where the enemy is strongly positioned the best thing is to establish a “bridgehead” to function as the starting point of the invasion. It’s in everybody’s mind the memory of the “D Day” during the 2^nd. World War when a considerable number of allied soldiers began to recapture Europe from a bridgehead they had lodged in the French Normandy (South of France).

There are a few interesting lessons to learn when we analyze this remarkable military movement from the allied troops:

·   The number of German troops in Europe was substantially higher and best equipped than the allied forces, however they were fighting in two different fronts (there was the Russian front where a major part of the German army was concentrated);

·   The allied forces decision was that the onset of the offensive would take place where the Germans least expected (Hitler believed that the invasion would come from the Pass of Calais)

·   Millions of lives were lost in the first hours of the disembark and this tragic event was understood to be the cost to be paid for Europe’s freedom;  

·   To “divert” the Germans attention the allied forces played a small act of disembarking in the Pass of Calais.

Back to the issue of how to conquer clients who are happy with our competitors we have a few suggestions:

·   Try to find out which is the client’s weak point (could be the logistics, the price, the after-sale, however it’s always there);

·   Offer the client to be conquered something you are sure his present supplier has never offered (could be a personalized attention, an unconditional guarantee, scientific researches, financial benefits, or an exclusive contract of supply, for example);

·   You must never give up when the first results don’t meet your expectations. Insist, look for new ideas, make questions, inquire, but never succumb to the temptation to overlook it;

·   Get in contact with other clients who are not exactly those you’d like to conquer. This will lead your major client to think that your company is devising a mass attack against the client’s basis.

One last advice, don’t think that because the client you are so willing to conquer has placed an order he will from this moment on become a faithful client. As a matter of fact, the first order is nothing but an order, the first order. Be sure to provide that nothing will go wrong in such a sensitive moment when someone who is used to receive the best consideration has now decided to run the risk of a change.

If are willing to ponder more deeply over this subject send us an e-mail asking for an abstract from Von Clausewitz, a Prussian general understood by many as one of the world’s major military strategists.

A final suggestion: Why don’t you send this text to the people of your company’s commercial area?

 Américo Marques Ferreira

 MVC Senior Advisor

americo@institutomvc.om.br

In the threshold of the twenty first century the biggest challenge that hovers on the organizations is the search for survival and the adaptation to an environment that is constantly becoming more uncertain and turbulent. Under such circumstances the grounding of the decision making process only on the ballast of accumulated experiences will be as absurd and dangerous as driving on a road looking exclusively through the rear mirror.

The search for new markets and the introduction of new technologies have brought about the vertiginous sensation that everything we know can be simply reduced to nothing. Reviewing these facts we realize that what remains to be done is to question what is usually considered as truth. And every time presuppositions change and all previous knowledge and accumulated experiences no longer represent competitive advantages it results that everybody is generally and equally led to a zero level of knowledge.

What do all these terms and concepts have in common? Which directions all the identified tendencies they carry have been leading to? To competitiveness, fast changes and a growing complexity.

The executive and the profile of the organizations, that had been previously adapted to function in such environment, find themselves unable to mobilize support from their “load” of wisdom and experiences. It has gradually become necessary to possess adequate skill and posture to learn from facts and review behavioral patterns. But the simple adoption of new paradigms won’t be enough. Instead different models suggesting long-term environmental conditions must be abandoned and replaced by other models conditioned to face a certain ongoing instability.

The concept of “learning organizations” represents a synthesis of all the answers offered by forefront organizations to the environmental challenges. It can also be understood as a tangible expression that contemplates emerging paradigms focused on the preparedness for an ongoing situation of change. A “learning organization” doesn’t submit fixed models to the members, based on immovable systems and structures, but encourage them and sustain an attitude of permanent schooling and of steadfast re-invention of the organizational practices taking into consideration the evolution of the environment conditions.

David Garvin questioned: how can an organization improve without first learning something new? In the absence of learning, what we see is that companies and individuals are simply repeating the old methodology. All changes have achieved nothing but a superficial make-up and all improvements are at the same time fortuitous and short termed. Many important organizations already recognized the close relationship between their strategic goals of business improvement as a whole and organizational learning. Consequently, they have re-oriented their efforts. According to Garvin´s definition, “a learning organization is the organization that has enough competence to create, acquire and transfer knowledge and to modify its behavior in order to portray a new discernment and perceptions”.

Peter Senge, a precursor of this concept, describes in his book “The fifth discipline”  five basic elements for the development of those organizations really capable of learning.

Systemic Thinking: the capacity to develop a global vision of the relevant facts pertaining the organization life. It points out to the relationship existing among several circumstances that exhibit a tendency for isolated interpretation.

Personal Area: the focus here is on the development of important spiritual values, concentrating the energy to achieve and harvest at the same time pre-determined goals, and the sufficient amount of patience to reach them.

Mental models: comprise the most inherent convictions and ideas of the individuals who accordingly have established their own vision of the world. The numbness of conscience to recognize these models may lead to accept certain interpretation of facts as if they were unquestionably true.

Common goal: establishment of a real mobilization of the energy of the group and disposition towards a converging goal, or the “image of the future” that’s shared by everyone.

Group Learning: It’s the process used to achieve synergy through integration of the individual’s learning capacity. It’s based on the ability to develop group reasoning by means of dialogue. Considering the present state of organizational complexity, the relevant learning designed for business performance occurs more in groups than in each of the individuals.  This is the fundamental nature of the “learning organizations”, where learning is understood as a group process. On the other hand, the context is situated beyond the cognitive realm considering that such learning has to do with our personal convictions and behavior.

Organizational practices are strongly contaminated by the replica concept that goes from the simple copy of products, and the adoption of organizational models conceived far from the specific reality of each environment, as well as of each market, to a simple and straight reproduction of strategies used by the major companies, the real market leaders. An inaccurate understanding, coupled with an impaired benchmarking concept, helped to reinforce this type of attitude. “Follow the leader” recommends the popular wisdom. Imitations lead to mediocre results, and sometimes to irremediable failures Learning to understand the environment through one’s own senses, and continuously re-inventing the organization, its business and process, is the only way that has definitively guided companies to the success.

The learning of the organization can be seen as a cycle. In the course of its usual activities, routines and business procedures, as well as through the individuals who are a part of it, each organization implements decisions that liberate environmental answers. Such answers often contain information that is processed by the individuals and represent the feedback received from their actions. In relatively stable environments long cycles of permanent feedbacks help to reinforce the same behavior and, consequently, no new forms of learning are generated. In the present environmental conditions under which businesses are developed, unfavorable signs are frequently noticed concerning actions that, not very long ago, were accepted as the most appropriate. When this occurs actions are re-evaluated in the search for a positive environmental feedback. However, a simple change of behavior isn’t likely to be associated with learning, unless a revision is made in the mental models that function as basis for the action. When learning is only superficial, the available knowledge necessary for an effective organizational improvement is not strengthened, and vaporizes as soon as new changes occur in the environmental conditions. The organization, as well as its members, will tend to make a readjustment according to previous practices and behaviors and which is effectively in line with their mental models.

Another aspect worth considering in the cycle of the organizational learning refers to the conditions necessary for knowledge consolidation. The revision of the mental models should be shared by the total members of the organization. In this case, this sharing of knowledge will represent the direct result of group learning. When such revision occurs exclusively in the individual level the learning process becomes fragmentary and dangerously meaningless when organizations are considered according to systemic terms.

To the third millennium pioneers there will be no other alternative than exercise the creative capacity “sailing on waters never sailed before”;

Companies capable to stimulate an environment of ongoing learning will achieve special advantages in relation to their competitors.

References:

1.  Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday, 1990)

2. David Garvin, Building a Learning Organization (Boston: Harvard Business Review, 1989)

EDMARSON BACELAR

Senior Advisor of the Institute MVC

Professor of MBA Programs at FGV

edmarson@institutomvc.com.br

“There is no quality in things or persons, only in the relationship between them”

Robert M. Pirsig, in “Zen e a arte de manutenção de motocicletas”

This phrase, one of the prominent concepts found in Pirsig´s remarkable book, translates essentially what means to think and manage strategically an organization. And, at the same time, it means the technique and the artistic ability to connect the existing “things”, or to build in the world, using nature’s peculiarities and human behavior. We are now going to explore each one of these concepts.

First, it may be considered a technique if we consider the specific methods and approaches designed to facilitate the understanding through the binding of elusive treads of logic, sometimes subtle but sufficient to keep interconnected the network of the mind to a subtle cognitive game and the casual relationships that can be explained and even determined.

Second, it’s may be accepted as a sort of artistic manifestation taking into account that often we have to make “bets” supported by our personal sceneries or feelings which can not be explained through reasoning or a methodic or projective analysis of data, even using a probabilistic dimension.

Another aspect to bear in mind is the “philosophical” and referent dimension of attitudes and behaviors existing in the organizational environment: vision, mission, values, beliefs, etc. comprising clear and motivational statements, not necessarily capable of appealing to the mind under the classic sense we are familiar with.

When talking about Strategic Management we are ground on the supposition that there is, or there should be, a mature understanding about the business environment we are dealing with, inclusive it’s management nuances, organizational culture and the various tendencies of it’s dimensions, the spirit behind the risk levels, in short, the group of manager’s ability to face challenges, stimulate “future events”, involve partners and business associates and devise objectives and all strategic architecture  that could influence all the organizational scope.

In conclusion we could assure that to Strategically Manage and Think demands courage, maturity, techniques, perceptions and the certainty that we can do better when we help to find and “build” the future.

ALEXANDRE FREIRE

Senior Consultant of the Institute MVC

FGV Professor of the MBAs

 alexandre@institutomvc.com.br

Common wisdom says that people shouldn’t gossip where they work, period. But if my friend Helena had followed such advice perhaps today she would be looking for a new job. It happens that, soon after hearing rumors that one of the bank’s divisions where she worked would soon be closed, she went after a new job even before the decision had effectively been implemented. Helena told me: “Gossips not always are true, but if you hear the same history over and over you can’t deny to yourself that it could be real.”

However, all conceived gossips originate from people bearing the following profile: they have a very low self-esteem, they are skeptical and enjoy creating animosity among people, they have a propensity to divide and conquer groups, an ongoing feeling of anger and hate and are deeply in need of some sort of self-assertion. One of my friends confessed he had left his company because someone told him “in private” that the promotion he had been waiting for a long time wouldn’t happen. In the same day he informed his superiors about his decision and his boss sadly answered, “What a pity! Your promotion have just been approved by the Board”.

Apart from these two types of gossips, others could be found in the working environment. For example:

Unintentional type Gossip: “Look, I didn’t want to mention it, but this thing is indeed bothering me a lot!”

Candid type Gossip: “Look, let me tell you something about so and so, but only because I’m one of his friends. I have the best of intentions to help him”.

Statement type Gossip: “Do you think that our new manager is homosexual?

Lowest type Gossip: “I saw Marcos and Lucia together in the restaurant. But don’t go mentioning it to the boss, otherwise, you never know…”

“Coup de grace” type Gossip: “I’ll tell you a story about Ana because I really want to hurt her, because she well deserves it”.

“The carpet” type Gossip: “I have no intention of pulling anybody’s carpet, but…”     

The worst combination that could exist in a working environment is the flatterer with the gossiper. It’s a dangerous combination. Flattering is the oldest profession in the world. In some companies they acquire a hierarchic status, they are entitled to create, to devise and spread gossips according to their own concern, or the concern of those people who are presently supporting them.

The flatterer’s gossip is administered as if it was a directory memorandum, it has a precise origin and addressee, the words are clearly written and, in general, the text is short and direct. This element uses preferably the gossip of the fabricated type and the styles vary according with the victim that had been previously and specifically chosen.

I met once an organization that was rich in flatterers. They were dispersed through every floor of the central building and had the private number of the president’s cell phone. Promotions were granted to those who were the most efficient and skilled gossipers. To overthrow someone, belittle a manager, and de-stabilize a project were special assignments given to the professional gossipers. Years later, the President was fired by the Board. Reason: there was a rumor that he had been dating a trainee.

José Luiz Meinberg

MVC Senior Consultant

FGV MBAs PROFESSOR

 meinberg@institutomvc.com.br

When talking to salesmen after a day’s work I often meets a few of them complaining about their unfruitful attempts to convince clients to by the products they were offering.

It can be really frustrating when a salesman has to confess such failure. On the other side, it has been a long time since the word “no” could be surely expected as an answer. The “old time salesman” used to work following a system of tentative and error. Usually unprepared he (she) ventured into the world endeavoring to receive “orders from clients” without planning a previous program of visits or a thorough knowledge about the client needs, and so on.

At the end of the day few return without any “order” and the excuse usually given is that clients were complaining their products were very expensive.

The word “expensive” has always sounded very badly to me because every time we want to by something which price is high we say, “It’s too expensive!” But we are wrong, and wrong are all those salesmen who keep grumbling that the client didn’t by because the price is too “expensive”.

My interview with these salesmen always follows a very simple path: if your client has decided that the product is very expensive it’s because you were unable to establish the value of what is been offered. That’s the no-sale reason.

The client was, truly, telling the salesman: “I can’t see any good in buying this product” or “It can’t bring me any profit” or even “With the price you’re offering I can’t see any value in it”. The reason of the client answering “It’s too expensive” is very clear.

“Expensive” is the expression used to say that a product, under the conditions described and understood by the client, has a value below the offered price. I have no doubts that this is the major problem faced by many salesmen.

“Expensive” for instance, is the price asked for a popular car when the latest model of a sports car is quoted with the same price, or when a Brazilian whisky costs as much as a Scottish whisky. In these cases we notice there was an unbalanced relation between the price and the benefit that answered why the price was “expensive”. What’s more, the price has no affinity with the quality of the offered product. The price of each product is defined by two related factors: on one side we have the cost; on the other side we have the product’s image.

If the client had complained the price offered was very high and far from his available resources the situation would be different. This is the moment when a new strategy associating price/availability of resources should be devised or, even better, an approach to finance the price according to the client’s payment schedule should be found. In this case, the negotiation would’ve certainly followed a different path!

I inclusive believe that the word “cheap” used for low rated products is wrong. I’m always suspicious about the so called “cheap” products. It’s too much of a product for such low price. If we inversely use the two examples given above, Scottish whisky with a Brazilian price and a brand new Ferrari with a Beetle price we’ll have a really cheap price. However, I think I’ll have some problem buying such products.

Valued sale

The serious problem faced by these salesmen is to establish the precise value of what is being offered. Value is a subjective appraisal of benefits received in exchange for the costs incurred to evaluate, purchase, use and reject a product considering the market and the competitor’s offer.

The salesman’s problem arises from the “subjective appraisal”. It’s subjective because each client will take into consideration all the specific benefits derived from the product and then connect such benefits with the cost of the product. Therefore, value has a perceptive, contextual and multidimensional quality:

• Perceptive because it varies according to the client’s perception;

• Contextual because it varies according to the purchase conditions and the available alternatives; and

• Multidimensional because benefits are evaluated by the client in terms of its financial, technical/functional and psychological aspects.

Concerning the concept of the benefit, the answer to the client’s question, “What advantage do I have with it?” could be financial, functional and psychological:

• Financial value corresponds to the quality/price relation. If the client notices that there is no difference of quality between his and the competitor’s product he will certainly save money deciding for the lowest price.

• Functional value comprises all tangible characteristics, advantages (or properties), durability and utilization;

• Psychological value covers all intangible advantages such as the trademark, reliability, reputation, and experience.

It’ll also be necessary to establish a costs/benefit relation. Costs can be monetary and non-monetary:

• The monetary cost is the price paid for everything that is objectively included in the product (price, taxes, delivery expenses, maintenance, etc.);

• The non-monetary costs are more subjective and can be associated to the efforts, purchase time, distances etc.

One critical factor of success devised for those salesmen who are unable to sell because clients usually complain about the price is to train and practice the concept of a valued sale and its effective and daily application to each client.

The valued sale is a sale partially made. For each part of the offered product a specific benefit must be explored. All parts of the product revolve around the benefits and values mentioned above. An offer doesn’t comprise exclusively the physical aspect of the product. A renowned trademark, the salesman profile, a supporting service, an application follow-up, the company’s trustworthiness and logistics, an immediate answer to the client’s problems constitute, among others, “the parts of an offer”. And, for each of these parts, the salesman must create an appropriate environment and an intelligent reasoning as well so that the client will be per se induced to discover all the benefits. The purchase will correspond to the summing up of all the benefits, and this is will be a valued sale.

If, after all these measures, the client continues to claim that the product is “too expensive” the salesmen can easily inquire, “What in my offer is worthless?”

And, generally speaking, we must stop using the wrong expression “expensive” for everything that bears a high monetary value.

Marcelo Boog

Director of Climate Surveys

of the Institute MVC and

System Boog de Consultating

marcelo@institutomvc.om.br

Usually, the decision to conduct for the first time a climate survey is not easy. There are companies that have made it in the past and are now willing to repeat. In different occasions people have asked what we think should be the more appropriate time for a Climate Survey. And in each case we gave a different answer, all them related to the same subject. But the current issue is, “which is the best time for a Climate Survey?”

We have frequently heard several reasons to postpone the project, such as,

·   We are currently in the process of changing one of the managers…

·   We are modifying our organizational structure…

·   We are planning to finish first a training process…

·   The company is presently very busy and our people won’t have time to answer the questionnaire now…

·   We are inaugurating a new branch…

·   We are presently in a merger process…

·   We lost a client and the climate is not really very good…

·   We are thinking we should change the office lay out…

·   We have just dismissed a key element of the company…

However, the best moment is a myth. If the company decides to wait till the different factors have turned out stable and propitious it’ll be running the risk of never making the Survey. We are inserted in a dynamic world where people and clients come to companies as easily as they go, and where there is an ongoing dynamic process currently within all aspects of the organizational life. Our opinion is that there is always an ideal moment to introduce the Survey. But, is it really true? Not always. Several basic issues should be clearly defined before a Climate Survey is put in practice. What will really be done in the after Survey period? Do we sincerely want to change? Do we want to develop the company? Do we positively have the means to undertake all necessary changes? Is our budget adequate to implement all the actions that were planned? The Climate Survey is an excellent (and fast) instrument to draft all the best improvement measures, not only through Human Resources, but also with the management cooperation as a whole. However, when the Survey is introduced the totality of measures should be kept in an ongoing condition. The Survey usually generates great expectations in the participants which, as much as possible, shouldn’t be frustrated.

The biggest mistake that could possibly occur is to carry on a Survey and neglect the results. Our opinion in this case is that the Survey should never be made. If the company has previously decided to do nothing with the results, it would be better wait for a more convenient opportunity. Otherwise, it will be a waste of money and time, and all energy invested in the process is lost and, even worth, the credibility too.

Clients inclusive want to know whether the Survey should happen at the beginning or the end of each year. However, what’s even more important is the fact that they must be aware if the company offers the best conditions for an ongoing and accurate application of the Survey. If the answer is positive, than, anytime is valid!

A well conducted Climate Management leads to a permanent cycle of improvements, such as,

Drawing up of Reports, Planning of Actions, Strategic Planning and a New Climate Surve

The Survey generates reports (an X-ray of the moment and of the recommended measures) which, coupled with the company’s strategic planning and in consonance with its future insight, will give origin to the specific actions of Climate Management. Such actions will be applied through corrective or preventive measures. The duration of this cycle diverges from one company to the other, considering that they have their own rhythm. There are cases where a new Survey is conducted every two or three years, however a every year Survey would be the best choice, and always at the same time of the year. Consequently, this type of Survey will render a new report that will generate new actions for improvement (and support) in order to maintain the same cycle of success within the personnel, leaderships, shareholders and clients.

Claudio Goldberg

MVC Senior Advisor

claudio@institutomvc.com.br

Considering that negotiations are a shapeless process conducted by human beings, our purpose is to point out how important is the confidence factor. After all if there is no confidence participants will feel inclined to adopt a defensive disposition in relation to the other part that generally becomes in itself a bellicose attitude. This sort of relationship will give origin to a vicious cycle that will greatly damage the negotiation.

It’s our purpose therefore to recognize here the importance that should be given to communication. One of the most difficult things is to make oneself understood because the cognitive process includes knowing deeply the other negotiator. It should be mentioned as well that communication is but a part of the negotiation and we must keep in mind that because it involves by definition a bilateral relationship it’ll be necessary that the participants exhibit a reciprocal empathy in order to hear each other. Apart from this we must really understand our counterpart, and the best way to achieve this goal is asking, “Let me see if I understood what you’ve just said”, or “We have another way to understand the situation, what’s your opinion?” I want inclusive to mention that all negotiations process depends, basically, on the manner we deal with people and, in many occasions, this becomes evident through what we’re saying.

Every negotiation process comprises, apart from the profit, special concerns. In order to achieve the best results from a negotiation each negotiator must identify and pinpoint the counterpart’s real interests and objectives, besides the visible ones. I like to mention the case of a manager who had only US$10.000 to contract the services of a consultant, whose price was US$20.000. Both sat down and, honestly discussed their real interests which, concerning the manager, included a limited budget and a rigid time schedule to finish the job. On the other hand, the consultant wanted to gain some profit to cover his costs and from this job to define future projects and build his own image. This is just one example of the circumstances that could be involved in each negotiation. In short, “it’ll be necessary to see the negotiation field according to a holistic point of view, detaching if possible what is and isn’t tangible”.

The Interests

The parties negotiate because they have interests that must be fulfilled and it’s important that they’re identified so that all divergent points that could interfere with the relationship could be recognized. A remarkable ability of any negotiator is the capacity to make his interest clear without necessarily revealing its intensity (for example, when negotiating the sale or the purchase of a car if the salesman gives away the necessity to finish the deal so that his sales share can be settled, this sort of behavior will certainly influence the client’s behavior who, in turn, will try to harden the negotiation expecting to gain more advantages).

I remember inclusive that the perfect exercise of this strategy will no doubt offer to the negotiator what we usually call “bargaining currency” that enables him (her) to make use of several variables very useful to satisfactorily close the deal.

Summing up, there are a few aspects the negotiator must analyze to receive an affirmative answer from the client. Among them we can include the importance of detaching people from the problem. The negotiator could do this reasoning and act according to the reaction he has the intention to provoke:

• Place yourself in the other’s place (process and art to provoke empathy|)
• Hear before speaking (speak is gold, hear is platinum)
• Create confidence and respect (transparency and honesty)

• Invest in something really fruitful

One detail: the negotiator must bear a friendly disposition towards the others, however keeping his stand in face of the problem. In this case, such firm attitude means only the protection of his interests avoiding to believe that the present factor is nonnegotiable. (We´re talking about fairness, about treating justly the other part).

Luis Roberto Mello

Senior Consultant of the Institute MVC

Author of the book commercial certification       

FGV Professor at the Executives MBAs.

luis.roberto@institutomvc.com.br

Place yourself in the following situation: its noon time and you’re leaving work for lunch. In which of these places you’ll find easier to decide what to eat, in an “a la carte” restaurant or a “self-service” place? We’re going back to this question at the end of the text.

As it happens with the process, the decision making implies several stages among which the most critical is the development of the alternatives. After all, your decision will never be better than the best alternative you’ve had the capacity to develop. At this point, two important questions arise: the creativity used in the development of alternatives and the number of alternatives already devised. Let’s think a little about these points.

In the course of life our creative capacity rapidly increases in childhood and gradually diminishes along the subsequent years. And why? Because, basically from this age on, we begin to learn the why, when and where things are good or not. In other words, we learn how to use a pencil and are led to continually repeat this movement (a creative way to make use of a pencil is as hairpin, but such use has lately become so common that it’s not creative anymore).

Therefore, we start learning what is and what isn’t good and, at the same time, we establish a limit to the manner we see the potentialities inherent to each of our goals. Let’s think about the case described by Peter Senge in his book “A Quinta Discipline” where two groups of children are asked to execute the same order: to cut off figures from a magazine and fix them on a board. To the two groups were given scissors and magazines but only one of them was instructed on how to use the scissors. The result was that the first group was able to precisely cut the figures but couldn’t fix them on the board, while in the second group though the figures were poorly cut, they could fix them on the board with their own scissors.

In the organizational environment, apart from the instructions usually given to people and organizations, there are many other factors inhibiting their creative potential and generally expressed through phrases such as, “This has never worked here”, “This is beyond our policies”, “We have to get the right answers” or “We must be practical” and many others.

How, then, our own creativeness could be improved? In the first place, we must be aware that what has worked in the past may not work today considering that the context can now be changed. People who prefer not to run risks are inclined to keep repeating the same old decisions, and limiting their creativity. Second, it’ll be necessary to better “manage” the ideas, what means to run away from the comfort of the customary situations and ask for new questions and challenges, or to search for new meanings, interpretations, practices and other points of view, adopting what Edward de Bono calls a “lateral thought”. In other words, we must search the unthinkable alternatives for our common problems. We’ll be able to adequately build up our thoughts when we leave our routines behind in order to face new experiences – either knowing new places, reading new books, seeing new films, or even carrying out a few changes in the everyday world such  us changing the route for our work.

Increasing our creativity will make us more capable of developing different alternatives in the decision making process. But there is also a paradox, less alternatives leads to increased chances of reaching worse alternatives; however we are easily led to arrive at a decision. On the other hand, more alternatives result in more chances to arrive at better decisions, however the decision making process can possibly grow even more difficult. After all, is there an optimum number of decision alternatives? Certainly a precise number doesn’t exist, though we must consider there are certain limits to the amount of information we’re capable of managing. It’s usually said that Napoleon, for instance, believed we couldn’t deal with more than seven different information at the same time and structured his army accordingly, so that each commanding officer had no more than seven direct assistants. Something around three or five alternatives will be a fair objective to have in mind “sifting” all the other alternatives before arriving at a decision.

Going back to the restaurants, where’d be better to make a decision? In a “a la carte restaurant” you’ll have to decide what dish to order, pasta, meat, salad etc. In this case, we1ll have to deal with the trade-off, for instance, if we chose one option we’ll be leaving aside the others. On the other hand, in a “self-service” restaurant we’ll be dealing with less trade-off because an option doesn’t necessarily leaves aside the others and we won’t have to define exactly what to eat. However, sometimes we end up heaping such an uncommon combination of food that our decision could be equally questioned.

Denize Dutra

Institute MVC Consultant

FGV MBA PROFESSOR

denize@institutomvc.com.br

The purpose of this article is to share with you the results of a recent and remarkably enriching experience I had at the time I was coordinating a diagnosis research for a client who from now on will be called ALFA.

In the middle of last year the management of ALFA was suffering a significant change after the resignation of one of the “supervisors”, who had left behind strong marks in the organization climate with the implementation of a “witch hunt” and whose evaluation isn’t our intention to make, nor do we have the competence, means or results…. It must be said though this company that had always followed a very conventional behavior was suddenly undergoing a period of intense turmoil.

The current management, after carrying out a strategic planning where it’s values were clearly defined became aware that most likely a few of its goals wouldn’t be reached and also that its actions and decisions couldn’t be expressed by such values if a change in the leadership profiles prevailing in the organization wasn’t introduced considering both the existing leaders and the company’s culture. It was clear where they wanted to go but the path to get there was obscure on account that they didn’t know how to identify their starting point.

I thought it’d be a mistake to present a “LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT” program, and such was their request, before getting acquainted with the real situation, which mistake could later be impossible to remedy. With the support and compromise of all organization we decided to introduce a diagnosis program focusing the organizational environment and the leadership style currently existing in the company. We acknowledged that the group’s vision, though correct, could be only partial and, most certainly, the vision of the remaining hierarchic levels as well of the organization as a whole could be significantly enriched or even get to be very different from the usual one.

We decide to conceptually use the “JOHARI WINDOW” model, well known since the sixties, to understand better the importance of this feedback considering that as it happens to individuals, organizations also have their “blind” region in relation to their outside clients (in respect to the quality of their products/services) and specially in relation to their inside clients whose vision concerning a few aspects of the company’s climate and also of its leadership styles could differ from the management perception towards itself or the organization.

The purpose of the diagnosis, besides getting to know the organization climate under its associate’s perspective and the prevailing leadership styles, was inclusive to identify the several improvement points that could operate as a basis for the development of a program designed to meet the current organizational needs totally in accordance with the strategic planning so that all the remaining actions previously identified as necessary could be implemented in order to consolidate the expected management style.

At this point, everything looked very logical and customary; however we hadn’t yet decided about any conventional methodology for the diagnosis through the application of questionnaires, without identifying any target population, statistics etc. We were audacious enough to innovate, to leave behind the traditional and chose the following path:

• After collecting the samples we had gathered elements from all the company’s areas according to each hierarchic level. By means of a group dynamic and the support received from the measuring instruments related to the organizational climate as well the evaluation of the managerial competences, the groups were duly prepared and oriented to carry out the first diagnosis of the company as a whole.
• In a second stage, using the same group method, we carried out a consolidation of the diagnosis we had made, but this time mixing up all different hierarchic levels belonging to the same area (below the managers) limiting our focus to each area and director.
• In a third stage the diagnosis was presented and discussed with the directors in accordance with a working chart previously suggested and, lastly, we held meetings with each director and the respective area to discuss the feedback we had received.

When the diagnosis process had been concluded and its consolidation had been assured in the highest spheres of the organization we set about to install two parallel processes;

• The first one was related to the leadership development considering that at this point we were conscious of the place we were standing,
• The other dealt with a deep discussion, within the scopes of the already expected strategic planning, comprising a group of actions that could consolidate the envisaged management style and contribute to achieve certain objectives of this strategic planning such as the definition of a human resources policy as well of a few of its consequent priority actions.

The process was what in itself the most interesting part of this work. It became clearly evident that the methodology used had transformed a “mere diagnosis” into a significant instrument of “cultural change” because we had to get into feelings, expectations and also into the different “behavior patterns” of the people within the organization. Through a deep and sensitive work we had won the confidence of the employees and the credibility of the current management. We had provoked the recognition of feelings such as fears and unsafely and also awoken the personal respect and valorization. We were able to make that a few of them had courage enough to expose themselves and that others, in a more contemporized way, faced the truth and perhaps in some cases exceeded in their critics because  “they had kept for so long in themselves this cry of alarm”.

Without embellishing the reality we could say that the process was perfect, valid, etc. But certainly it wasn’t. Similar to all process of this nature it had been submitted to the subjective conditions of the human mind in spite of our efforts to minimize such effects with the use of quantitative measurement instruments apart from the quantitative analysis carried out. Other aspects could, there is no doubt, be improved for the further utilization of this methodology.

However, what was most important, and this we must recognize, is that in spite of having been really painful for all the people directly involved, because they had to face a more critical situation than they could imagine, it had been an extremely enriching experience for the consultant in terms of personal and professional growth and also for all the organization as a whole. In fact, during the diagnosis process we could already notice, as we are noticing now, an improvement in the motivation level, in the relationship among the several areas and, mainly, because people had won credibility in the “organization future” what represents the basis for the compromise of people together with a shared vision of the strategic planning.

Although many details of the process can not possibly be described I must confess that it’d be meaningless to share this experience if I didn’t recognize that this was one of the most challenging situations of my life as consultant in the last years (and the challenges weren’t few). Perhaps because I already knew the company and also that it’d be very difficult to obtain the people agreement to this diagnose process, or perhaps because we always believe that in face of what is new people are prone to resist, and that this could hamper the results of our work, or even that on the contrary I still believed a lot on the HUMAN BEING, in its capacity to CHANGE, to ADAPT, to realize its FEELINGS and understand its FEARS, is that I was capable to “mobilize” the elements and lead them to carry out a task that could only be made by us.

I could possibly be understood as improper or unjust in relation to the efforts all had to make for the success of this work but I feel necessary to point out two persons that were special in this task: one of them, due to the capacity shown to adequately make and receive criticism and also because of a special articulation capacity, transparency, good disposition and a positive vision of the future. The other because of humility, in other words, the capacity to receive criticism and make it “grow” inside, because was so direct, questioning and untiring in the search for the company’s improvement and nowadays  exhibiting such improvement in the own person. These people I admire because they are real Human Beings and Professionals, offered me occasions of deep learning and emotions. To be intimate with people like that make us stronger, inspired, renewed…

When we notice that in the end people gained with all this process it’d worth to believe that the organization will have this gain mirrored in its results!!!