Reflection_on_Resistance_and_Negotiation

Reflection on Resistance and Negotiation When joining higher education I had underestimated the demand for varied skills within the business and marketing sector. According to Daft (2009) various skills are obtained to cater to different roles and increase the value of an individual. I had previously assumed that it was only about me and what I had to offer and this consultancy module has helped me to comprehend, that this is not always the case. A consultant’s role would include assisting companies, in enhancing their businesses performance, thus growing and obtaining further skills. These include managing first contact with a client, giving an effective presentation, knowing the processes of a consultant, handling resistance and negotiation whilst also structuring and running a project. In this reflective piece, I will endeavor to reflect on the use of handling resistance and negotiation based on my entire experience gained from the consultancy module. Resistance is defined by Block (2000:p139) as “ a reaction to an emotional process taking place within the client” the counteraction of this, is negotiation where “negotiation is the basic way of getting what one party wants from another, it is an exchange of information through communication” (Nieuwmeijer,1988:p1). A scenario such as in the case of the client feedback meeting was a clear situation where resistance was identified. As an external consultant, I approached the situation having met the client for the first time. I knew and understood that there would be some form of defense barriers put up. I first recognised resistance, when I was asked to give more detail in regards to the price of kiosks and Luke Althorp’s financial commitment to the implementation stages. These questions highlighted possible concerns, which in my opinion showed me that Luke Althorp had some uncertainties as to the success of the solutions proposed. However, Blocks theory (2000) argues that a client should always give two good faith answers, before resistance can be recognised, which was not the case in this meeting. From my point of view, I think it may be fair to say that resistance was perceived as a result of the client’s body language. Body language has been identified as a means for understanding what an individual or in this case a client really means. In support to this Bens (2005) mentions that at other times resistance can be hidden but only expressed in the persons negative body language or lack of participation. So in regard to both views, I can in future take into account both factors, firstly the client’s body language and then finally addressing the issue of resistance once the client has given me a repeated question. Drawing from my experience, should I and the client have differing outlooks on the solution proposed, then a first step that I would need to take in the future to prevent resistance, is to take on the clients perspective. “Obviously, when people are seeing the same thing in different ways, they start to wonder about one another” (Robbins & Finlay, 2000: p165). I must view the business challenges and day-to-day responsibilities in the same light that the client see’s them, so I thought to myself, how can I reassure the client that these solutions were appropriate' Cormier et al (2009) addresses that the fear of doing things in a new way represents a level of uncertainty to the clients, which can be somewhat threatening. So it was then that I clarified that as a team we would be able to assist them and act as a supporting base, the best method looking back at it now, I would suggest is Kotlers 8-step change model. Kotler describes this as “a flow of effective large-scale change efforts” (Kotler, 2002: p3). This process however is rather rigid and is largely controlled by the consultant, in order to ensure discipline of the stages and limits. Conversely this can also backfire as clients can be left feeling incompetent within their roles, Argyris (1999) states that should an organisation feel as if they have no part to play in a project, it will inevitably result in feeling incompetent. So in order to avoid this in the future, I would reassure the clients that continual, sustained client involvement through each phase of the development process would be incorporated. The best approach might be Cope’s change ladder. “It demands that both have the time and courage to be really open and reflective about themselves and each other” (Cope, 2004: p86). I have learnt that the best method of preparing for resistance is, understanding and knowing my material inside out. I would in future use a shadow map for each major stake holder and consider likely or unlikely topics that may or not want to be discussed. To further prepare myself for resistance, it is helpful to consider the personality type of the client, by considering Myer Briggs theory. Team work Reflection Within all aspects of life it is essential to meet, communicate and work with different people from varied backgrounds. Within this module I have had to do exactly that and incorporate my past skills of communicating with the new skills such as structuring team roles that I have discovered through Consultancy skills. Teamwork as defined by Larson & Lafasto (1989) is a collaboration or association between members brought together to work towards a common goal. Within my team our main aim was to do exactly that and achieve an A grade in the consultancy skills module. Understanding each other and our differences is a challenge within itslef. This is where Holmes states, consultants overlook, “One of the most important and yet neglected processes in any engagement is the preparation of the consultants prior to their joining the team” (Holmes, 2002: p95) The initial stage of our team according to Tuckman (1965) is known as the forming stage, as we each stayed within our boundaries and didn’t decide on who would lead. Testing each other’s limits, resulted in some conflict for a position of control, Tuckman’s (1965) theory would consider this as the storming stage. This issue was not dealt with effectively, as clear team roles had not been established, which I can assume contributed to our performance. According to Holmes (2002) understanding Belbin roles gives teams a perspective on who is best suited for specific position. In the future, I would deal with this issue by completing the Belbin questionnaire before starting any tasks, this way responsibilities can be established and conflict limited. This Nonetheless does not reduce conflict, “there are still many tasks which no one wants to do” Robbins & Finlay (2000: p56). This was the case with all team members, including myself. My evaluation of this is that each team member viewed a specific task as their “turf”, Holmes describes this as meeting an individual’s needs; “because the ambitions of individual members are superseding the team mission” (Holmes, 2002: p58). In order to avoid issues of conflict in the future, I would encourage open negotiation of tasks, collaboration, and communication and evaluated team selection. As Holmes states, “people are often picked for working groups because they are sensed as having characteristics akin to those who are already there” (Holmes, 2002: p133). To greater understand my role and reflect on it, Belbin (2004) highlighted my personality of being a plant, which according to Belbin (2004) referred to me being individualistic, serious-minded and unorthodox, which I could definitely recognize with. The advantages of this role according to Belbin (2004) are its imagination, intellect and knowledge. On the other hand, Belbin (2004) addresses its draw backs as its disregard to practical details and easily distracted nature. The members of my team each showed different personalities such as Team member A was a Completer-finisher; team member B a Shaper and team member C, Monitor evaluator. Due to the diverse roles within the team, a natural leader emerged, Team member B, in support to Belbin (2004) possessed natural drive. My Belbin role, has clarified that I need to in future participate within the early stages of projects, work alongside a team member such as a shaper, who keeps momentum going and a completer-finisher who focuses on task completion. In disagreement to Belbin, personality was not the only group restraint, being the only female however was. My approach to conflict was more serene, Cohen & Mullender state “The world profoundly influences a woman’s approach to conflict, disagreement and confrontation” (Cohen & Mullender, 2003: p19). Working in a group of males, would have been easier if they understood that different gender can sometimes impact team members, “the rational model has profoundly influenced our understanding of the impact of gender on groupwork” (Cohen & Mullender, 2003: p8). In future I would address the gender differences, ensuring that other male team members appreciate, that I may respond in an alternative way to what they may expect. Nevertheless, it is argued that “the consequence of having different views of what is appropriate behavior for each gender is that people then use different standards of judgement when they evaluate identical behaviours in women compared to men” (Reed & Garvin, 1983: p8). In addition to this, Hofstede (2005) contributes an added factor that such behaviours may not be a result of feminist theories but cultural differences. To reduce the chances of this occuring in the future, would mean me communicating more. A problem that kept arising was lateness. My own time keeping was poor, so the team used Tuckmans (1965) theory incorporating the norming stage into setting rules and overcoming a team issue. To improve on my lateness, I also adapted my priorities, (Adair, 1935) by managing the three elements of task, team and individual contribution to improve the bond of team members. References Adair.A, Downie. L. M, Mcgreal. S and Vos.G (1996) ‘European Valuation Practise’ 1st Edn, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Argyris, C (1999) On Organizational Learning MA: Blackwell Publishing: Malden Belbin. M. R, (2004)‘Management teams’ 2nd Edn, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemenn Block, P (2000) ‘Flawless Consultanting: A guide to getting your expertise used’ 2nd Edn, New York: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Cohen. M. B & Mullender. A (2003) ‘Gender and groupwork’ 1st Edn,New York: Routledge Cope, L (2004) Organic Reaction Mechanisms Wiley Productions: Sussex Cope (2004) The seven Cs of coaching: the definitive guide to collaborative coaching Pearson Education : Edinburgh Cormier et al (2009) Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy 8th edn Published by; Thomson Brooks/Cole Hofstede, G (2001) Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions Sage Publications: California Holmes, (2003) Why teamwork fails, Blackwell Publishing: Malden Kotler, P (2004) Making marketing happen: how great companies make strategic marketing 1st edn Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford Kotter, J & Cohen, D (2002) The heart of change: real-life stories of how people change their organizations Harvard Business School Press: US. Larson & Lafasto (1989) Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong' Thomson Publishing: Edinburgh Maples (1988) Group development: Extending tuckman’s theory 13 The Journal for Specialists in Group Work: Edinburgh Nieuwmeijer, L (1998) Negotiation: methodology and training HSRC Publics: Pretoria Reed, B & Charles G (1983) Groupwork with women The Haworth Press: Michigan, US Robbins & Finlay (2000) The new why teams don't work: what goes wrong and how to make it right Berrett-Koehler: SAN Francisco