We don't know where to start

Published: Feb 28 , 2013
Author:

The British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the talks with John Kerry, the new US Secretary of State, would be so far reaching that it would be difficult to know where to start.

I am sure he was joking. At least I hope he was.

Whilst I am sure there are a mass of things on their agenda, Afghanistan, Syria, climate change, printing money to get out of austerity, even the Falkland's, it always makes sense to enter any form of meeting or negotiation with a clear idea of the most important issues.

Many years ago I was working with a guy who said he often started negotiations with low value, easy to resolve issues in an attempt to build up a level of rapport that made the bigger issues easier to resolve later on in the discussion.

Indeed he would, he said, often give in on the smaller issues so that later in the negotiation he could say to the other side that he had already made a number of concessions, and it was their turn now.

Whilst I understood the principal it worried me that the concept of capitulation (even capitulation in an attempt to build goodwill) may just as well create a feeling from the other side that the negotiation had not even begun yet. Variables had been removed from the game without any trading (negotiating) even taking place. 

Almost as worrying was the concept that leaving the big issues or priorities to later in the meeting may actually be an utter waste of time.

Imagine that the big issues can never be resolved, all that effort resolving the smaller issues may eventually get you no-where.

Time is a commodity in very limited supply. I want to use what I have as effectively as possible, which means for me sorting out the big stuff first.

Alan Smith


SHARE

Latest Blog:

Muck Shift

Just when is a deal not a deal…? I heard this story from a friend of mine the other week; there are some lessons to be learned! So, my pal is a developer and is building some houses on what is essentially a square site. Two sides of the square can be accessed from the road in a neighboring housing estate and the other two are beside a field owned by another developer. There is a huge pile of muck to shift before the actual building project; this phase is known in the trade – and not unreasonably - as a "muck-shift"! As there will be 80 -100 lorries coming in and out each day for 6 weeks, it was considered more convenient to access the site over the field, so an approach was made to the developer to discuss the terms under which he would allow access. This is a standard arrangement and the deal typically is that the field would be returned to the owner in its original condition. Developer makes a bit of money, where otherwise he wouldn’t; homeowners in the adjoining estate are less inconvenienced; builder does not need to spend money cleaning the streets and getting them back to a usable state at the end of the project. Win-win.

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png