- Keep a log of your daily activities: to understand where you have spend your time or wasting it.
- Procrastination: Adapt a "Do it now" attitude, focus on tasks that are important, not what is urgent.
- Delegate: Learn to delegate all of non-essential tasks. But be clear on what exactly you want and assign to the right person when delegating the tasks.
- Avoid meetings: if it does not concern you, stay on the subject and start the meeting on time (with or without all members)
- Dealing with Interruptions: Don't be slave to phone, answer them at your own leisure. Organize your daily time to have one or two hours of interrupted time daily.
- Batching your tasks: Batch similar jobs together and do them all at same time to do them more efficiently and effectively.
- Neatness: KEEP YOUR OFFICE CLEAN. Have the work you need to do the only thing on the table to keep focused. Also, most of top managers or executives would not want to hire someone who can not keep his office clean.
- Chunks of time: Most of critical tasks need a "Chunk" of time (60 - 90 minutes) to perform, learn how to manage your time so you won't be interrupted.
- Transition time: Make use of time you spend on transportation. Read an article, listen to educational medias to enhance your knowledge for better career.
- Punctuality: ALWAYS be on time. Being punctual is usually assoicated with positive image for a business person in people's eyes.
- Work Simplification: Understand how to increase your productivity, learn how to prioritize your tasks. Focus on doing what you do best or what is most important. Learn how to work as a team.
- Say NO: Learn to say NO.
- Improve your Life: Learning how to manage your time better is to provide more time for you to spend with close ones. They are the most important people in your life.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Time Management
Points of how to manage your time more efficiently
PowerPoint Summaries
Leadership & Communications
Chapter 5: Using Graphics and PowerPoint for a Leadership Edge
Chapter 6: Developing Emotional Intelligence and Cultural Literacy to Strengthen Leadership Communication
Essential of Negotiations
Chapter 7: Finding and Using Negotiation Power
Chapter 8: Ethic in Negotiation
Chapter 9: Relationships in Negotiation
Chapter 5: Using Graphics and PowerPoint for a Leadership Edge
Chapter 6: Developing Emotional Intelligence and Cultural Literacy to Strengthen Leadership Communication
Essential of Negotiations
Chapter 7: Finding and Using Negotiation Power
Chapter 8: Ethic in Negotiation
Chapter 9: Relationships in Negotiation
Negotiation chapter 9 "Key Elements in Managing Negotiations within Relationships"
Reputation, Trust, and Justice are three elements that become more critical and pronounced when they occur within a relationship negotiation.
Definition of Reputation
A reputation is a “perceptual identity, reflective of the combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior and intended images preserved over time, as observed directly and/or as reported from secondary sources” .
Importance of Reputations
•Reputation are perceptual and highly subjective in nature.
•An individual can have a number of different, even conflicting, reputations.
•Reputation is influenced by an individual’s personal characteristics and accomplishments.
•Reputations develop over time.
•Negative reputations are difficult to “repair”.
Trust
“An individual’s belief in and willingness to act on the words, actions and decision of another.”
•Recent research on trust and negotiation.
•Trust repair.
Justice
Justice can take several forms:
•Distributive justice is about the distribution of outcomes.
•Procedural justice is about the process of determining outcomes.
•Interactional justice is about how parties treat each other in one to one relationships.
•Systemic justice is about how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the norms that develop for how they should be treated.
Repairing a Relationship
•What might be causing any present misunderstanding?
•What might be causing a lack of trust?
•What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced ?
•What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected?
•What might be causing one or both of us to get upset?
Definition of Reputation
A reputation is a “perceptual identity, reflective of the combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior and intended images preserved over time, as observed directly and/or as reported from secondary sources” .
Importance of Reputations
•Reputation are perceptual and highly subjective in nature.
•An individual can have a number of different, even conflicting, reputations.
•Reputation is influenced by an individual’s personal characteristics and accomplishments.
•Reputations develop over time.
•Negative reputations are difficult to “repair”.
Trust
“An individual’s belief in and willingness to act on the words, actions and decision of another.”
•Recent research on trust and negotiation.
•Trust repair.
Justice
Justice can take several forms:
•Distributive justice is about the distribution of outcomes.
•Procedural justice is about the process of determining outcomes.
•Interactional justice is about how parties treat each other in one to one relationships.
•Systemic justice is about how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the norms that develop for how they should be treated.
Repairing a Relationship
•What might be causing any present misunderstanding?
•What might be causing a lack of trust?
•What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced ?
•What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected?
•What might be causing one or both of us to get upset?
Negotiation chapter 9 "Negotiations in Communal Relationships"
· Are more cooperative and empathetic.
· Craft better quality agreements.
· Perform better on both decision making and motor tasks.
· Focus their attention on the other party’s outcomes as well as their own.
· Focus more attention on the norms that develop about the way that they work together.
· Are more likely to share information with the other and less likely to use coercive tactics.
· Are more likely to use indirect communication about conflict issues and develop a unique conflict structure.
· May be more likely to use compromise or problem solving as strategies for resolving conflicts.
Guidelines for balancing inquiry and advocacy include the following:
When advocating your own view,
1) Make your reasoning explicit.
2) Encourage others to explore your view.
3) Encourage others to provide different views.
4) Actively inquire into others’ views that differ from your own.
When inquiring into others’ views,
1) State your assumption clearly and acknowledge that they are assumptions.
2) Share the “data” on which your assumptions are based.
3) Don’t ask questions if you are not genuinely interested in the others’ responses.
When you arrive at an impasse,
1) Ask what logic or data might change the others’ views.
2) Ask if there is any way you might jointly design a technique that might provide more information.
When you or others are hesitant to express views or experiment with alternative ideas,
1) Encourage them (or yourself) to think out loud about what might be making it difficult.
2) If mutually desirable, jointly brainstorm ideas about overcoming ant barriers.
· Craft better quality agreements.
· Perform better on both decision making and motor tasks.
· Focus their attention on the other party’s outcomes as well as their own.
· Focus more attention on the norms that develop about the way that they work together.
· Are more likely to share information with the other and less likely to use coercive tactics.
· Are more likely to use indirect communication about conflict issues and develop a unique conflict structure.
· May be more likely to use compromise or problem solving as strategies for resolving conflicts.
Guidelines for balancing inquiry and advocacy include the following:
When advocating your own view,
1) Make your reasoning explicit.
2) Encourage others to explore your view.
3) Encourage others to provide different views.
4) Actively inquire into others’ views that differ from your own.
When inquiring into others’ views,
1) State your assumption clearly and acknowledge that they are assumptions.
2) Share the “data” on which your assumptions are based.
3) Don’t ask questions if you are not genuinely interested in the others’ responses.
When you arrive at an impasse,
1) Ask what logic or data might change the others’ views.
2) Ask if there is any way you might jointly design a technique that might provide more information.
When you or others are hesitant to express views or experiment with alternative ideas,
1) Encourage them (or yourself) to think out loud about what might be making it difficult.
2) If mutually desirable, jointly brainstorm ideas about overcoming ant barriers.
Negotiation chapter 9 "Dimensions of Relationships"
A relationship is “the meaning assigned by two or more individuals to their connectedness or coexistence.”
First, most of the elements can be either unidirectional or symmetrical.
Second, the presence of these qualities is likely to affect how the parties negotiate, and, conversely, a negotiation is likely to have impact on these factors.
Finally, each relationship will differ on the configuration of these qualities, which will then affect how the parties approach negotiation.
First, most of the elements can be either unidirectional or symmetrical.
Second, the presence of these qualities is likely to affect how the parties negotiate, and, conversely, a negotiation is likely to have impact on these factors.
Finally, each relationship will differ on the configuration of these qualities, which will then affect how the parties approach negotiation.
Graphic Rules: Color Wheel, Primary/Secondary Colors
A color wheel is a wheel used to show the relations of colors. The standard color wheel for light has colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan located at positions that can form an equilateral triangle when connected by straight lines, and another for red, green, and blue. Connecting all 6 of these points forms a hexagon.
Noted that Blue, Yellow, and Red are labeled as the primary while Purple, Green and Orange is labeled as secondary. In presentation graphics, it is the best practice to limit yourself with use of only primary and secondary colors to achieve best contrasting effects. Also, choosing complementary colors (colors that are directly across each other in color wheel) to receive best contrast.
For further information on using color, please consult the following links:
Color Theory
Complementary Color
Friday, June 1, 2007
Chapter 8 - Ethics in Negotiation
What Are Ethics and Why Do They Apply to Negotiations?
•Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards.
Major Ethical Questions
1)What are ethics and why do they apply to negotiation?
2)What are questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation?
3)What motivates unethical behavior, and what are the consequences?
4)How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception?
Four Standards for Evaluating Strategies and Tactics in Business and Negotiation
-Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve
-Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles
-Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms, values, and strategy of my organization orcommunity
-Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions
Four Approaches to Ethical Reasoning
•End-result ethics
•Duty ethics
•Social contract
•Personalistic ethics
Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation
-If you believed in end-result ethics, then you might do whatever was necessary to get the best possible outcome
-If you believed in duty ethics, you might perceive an obligation never to engage in subterfuge, and might therefore reject a tactic that involves an outright lie
-If you believed in social contract ethics, you would base your tactical choices on your view of appropriate conduct for behavior in your community; if others would use deception in a situation like this, you lie
-If you believed in personalistic ethics, you would consult your conscience and decide whether your need for cash for your upcoming trip justfied using deceptive or dishonest tactics
Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral Problems
Understand all moral standards ->>>Define Complete moral problem ->>>
Determine the economic outcomes ,Consider the legal requirements and Evaluate the ethical duties ->>> Propose convincing moral solution
Recognize all moral impacts:
-Benefits to some
-Harms to others
-Rights exercised
-Rights denied
Identifying Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Attitudes toward Their Use
•What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Are There?
•Is It All Right to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics?
•Deception by Omission versus Commission
•The Decision to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics:
“A Model”
Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and Consequences
•The power motive
•Other motives to behave unethically
•The consequences of unethical conduct
• Explanations and justifications
The Power Motive
The purpose of using ethically
Ambiguous negotiating tactics is
to increase the negotiator’s power
in the bargaining environment
Whoever has better information,
or uses it more persuasively,
stands to “win” the negotiation
Other Motives to Behave Unethically
Negotiators may rationalize the use of
marginally ethical tactics versus taking
personal responsibility
•“He is going to cheat so I might as well cheat first”
The Consequences of Unethical Conduct
A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic
Will experience positive or negative
consequences. The consequences are based
on:
•Whether the tactic is effective
•How the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic
•How the negotiator evaluates the tactic
Explanations and Justifications
The primary purpose of explanations
and justifications is:
•To rationalize, explain, or excuse the behavior
•To verbalize some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary
Rationalizations for Unethical Conduct
•The tactic was unavoidable
•The tactic was harmless
•The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences
•The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated
•“They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due”
•The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
How Can Negotiators Deal With the Other Party’s Use of Deception?
•Ask Probing Questions
•Recognize the Tactic
–Ignore the tactic
–Ask questions
–“Call” the tactic
–Respond in kind
–Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviors
Summary
Negotiators who are considering the use
of deceptive tactics ask themselves he
following questions:
1. Will they really enhance my power ad help me to achieve my objectives?
2. how will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
3. How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
•Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards.
Major Ethical Questions
1)What are ethics and why do they apply to negotiation?
2)What are questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation?
3)What motivates unethical behavior, and what are the consequences?
4)How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception?
Four Standards for Evaluating Strategies and Tactics in Business and Negotiation
-Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve
-Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles
-Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms, values, and strategy of my organization orcommunity
-Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions
Four Approaches to Ethical Reasoning
•End-result ethics
•Duty ethics
•Social contract
•Personalistic ethics
Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation
-If you believed in end-result ethics, then you might do whatever was necessary to get the best possible outcome
-If you believed in duty ethics, you might perceive an obligation never to engage in subterfuge, and might therefore reject a tactic that involves an outright lie
-If you believed in social contract ethics, you would base your tactical choices on your view of appropriate conduct for behavior in your community; if others would use deception in a situation like this, you lie
-If you believed in personalistic ethics, you would consult your conscience and decide whether your need for cash for your upcoming trip justfied using deceptive or dishonest tactics
Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral Problems
Understand all moral standards ->>>Define Complete moral problem ->>>
Determine the economic outcomes ,Consider the legal requirements and Evaluate the ethical duties ->>> Propose convincing moral solution
Recognize all moral impacts:
-Benefits to some
-Harms to others
-Rights exercised
-Rights denied
Identifying Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Attitudes toward Their Use
•What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Are There?
•Is It All Right to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics?
•Deception by Omission versus Commission
•The Decision to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics:
“A Model”
Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and Consequences
•The power motive
•Other motives to behave unethically
•The consequences of unethical conduct
• Explanations and justifications
The Power Motive
The purpose of using ethically
Ambiguous negotiating tactics is
to increase the negotiator’s power
in the bargaining environment
Whoever has better information,
or uses it more persuasively,
stands to “win” the negotiation
Other Motives to Behave Unethically
Negotiators may rationalize the use of
marginally ethical tactics versus taking
personal responsibility
•“He is going to cheat so I might as well cheat first”
The Consequences of Unethical Conduct
A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic
Will experience positive or negative
consequences. The consequences are based
on:
•Whether the tactic is effective
•How the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic
•How the negotiator evaluates the tactic
Explanations and Justifications
The primary purpose of explanations
and justifications is:
•To rationalize, explain, or excuse the behavior
•To verbalize some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary
Rationalizations for Unethical Conduct
•The tactic was unavoidable
•The tactic was harmless
•The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences
•The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated
•“They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due”
•The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
How Can Negotiators Deal With the Other Party’s Use of Deception?
•Ask Probing Questions
•Recognize the Tactic
–Ignore the tactic
–Ask questions
–“Call” the tactic
–Respond in kind
–Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviors
Summary
Negotiators who are considering the use
of deceptive tactics ask themselves he
following questions:
1. Will they really enhance my power ad help me to achieve my objectives?
2. how will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
3. How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
