From Negotiation to Collaboration, Part I

For future leadership programs, I’ve been researching negotiation strategies. As I read through the literature, I realize that most of our negotiations have nothing to do with salaries, the purchases of cars, or the release of hostages. Our daily negotiations transpire between colleagues or loved ones. They occur in committees, teamwork, or familial decisions, and they demand that we protect the relationship.

They also are the sources of our future opportunities and voice.

Many negotiation tactics elevate the participants’ roles. They portray negotiators as opponents. Some legitimize theatrics, deceit. Even if everyone reaches satisfactory agreement, people still refer to outcomes as wins and losses.

Because negotiations enable essential university operations, group choices, and familial decisions, and because only a minority thrives in stressful negotiations,  perhaps we have a moral obligation to rethink at least daily negotiations as collaborations. If we and our partners at the table do not see eye-to-eye, even on being collaborators, we still can reframe the discussion—and without “losing” our voice or opportunities to someone else’s cleverness or aggression.

Strategically, all we have to do is downplay the role of the participants and raise the visibility of the various factors that impact the decision-making process.

How do we accomplish that? First and foremost, we have to clearly connect our position to the needs of others: our families, the students, our colleagues, the department, our divisions, the institution …. This connection will empower us—not only in the eyes of others, but equally importantly, in our own eyes. Ironically, it empowers by removing you. It removes you as the sole benefactor and therefore implied subject of discussion.

Since we’re removing the participants as focal points, we never have to feign an emotion. We never have to stage theatrics. And we need only one prop.

That prop is paper. Particularly if the discussion gets aggressive, paper enables us to redirect the focus from each other to the paper, which is where we will write the facts—not as leverage, but rather as necessary components for problem-solving. The paper keeps us honest. Also, focusing on facts for problem-solving can help everyone escape from interfering emotions. If possible, move your chair next to your partner across the table, so the proximity encourages intimacy and you two have to look occasionally at the paper instead of each other.

Those are the easy tactics. The rest involves reflection, research, active listening, and targeted questioning. Use those skills to investigate your side, their side, and external factors, because the more you know, share, listen, and question during the discussion, the better you can collaborate.

 

negotiation_as_collaboration

 

  • If you know your own principles, needs, concerns, and goals, and if you’re willing to acknowledge and overcome your preconceptions during the collaboration process, then specificities do not matter. In collaborative negotiation, you’re not aiming for a specific package. You’re using bundled options as illustrative starting points for collaboratively exploring how to satisfy principles, meet needs, circumvent concerns, and accomplish goals. If possible, bring multiple packaged options to the table as conversation starters.
  • Both prior and during negotiation, if you can determine your partner’s principles, needs, concerns, goals, and preconceptions, then you can significantly impact if not dictate the terms of agreement—especially if you openly and transparently subordinate all options to them. This isn’t about control. It’s about motivating and building trust.
  • Both prior and during negotiation, if you can determine the external factors that might positively or negatively impact the deal, then you can focus the meeting on seizing opportunities or problem-solving. What is the status of traditional funding sources? What are the collaborative or alternative funding opportunities? Whose presence or contributions in the planning phase might expedite the process or expand the available knowledge, technology, workers, funds, or other resources? Which policies might affect the agreement’s language or action steps? Whose buy-in do you need, and how can you give them a voice in the process?

The remaining quadrant represents the collaborative exploration, reevaluation, brainstorming, and problem-solving of the other three. It represents the meeting space that can shed new light on your reflection and research, new light that can yield new opportunities.

This space demands four skills: sharing skills, active-listening skills, questioning skills, and the ability to build on what others say. How well can you connect the discussion to your stakeholders, principles, needs, concerns, and goals? Can you consistently repeat—or better, rephrase—your partner’s position and points, including inferences you make from body language, in order to verify you understood and demonstrate your attentiveness? Can you ask follow-up or other questions to learn more about your partner’s principles, needs, concerns, goals, or preconceptions? Rather than emphasize points of objection, can you build on possible points of interest?

Collaboration appears to be a subset of negotiation, but it’s the main platform for effective university operations, productive human interactions, and campus innovations. When we work against each other, campus community gives way to disgruntled individualism. When we work together, we create new opportunities for everyone.

A Man Conducting a Workshop for Women on How to Work within a Male System

Yesterday, the H.R. Training Specialist requested that I conduct a workshop next month on “Negotiation Strategies for Women.” From my work in developing the Women’s Leadership Program and our discussions on the unique challenges and strategies for women in negotiations, she believes I’m the right man for the job. But that’s the problem.

I don’t want to mansplain how women should behave in order to get what they want. If men and women dismiss women for deploying the same negotiation strategies that men use, then we need better Title IX training, not to correct women’s negotiation strategies.

Unfortunately, a Title IX training session wouldn’t work. We’d need a Title IX immersion program. Developing equitable interpretive frames would require constant reevaluation of blind-spot preconceptions. This questioning process has to occur within sustained, in-depth collaborative learning engagements with people of different perspectives — and in high-trust environments. Since interpretive frames shape one’s own identity, the process reforms the self. It’s emotionally exhausting. It’s painful. Not many people want to go through that process, especially not for what, on a first glance, appears to benefit only others. Far more commonly, people reach for low-hanging skills, or at least skills that clearly benefit themselves.

And that brings us back to where we are: a man conducting a workshop for women on how to work within a male system.

Don’t get me wrong. Instead of presenting bullet-point slides on research, I will shift both the attention and source of knowledge to the participants. I will use research not to lecture, but rather to ask targeted questions. In other words, I can downplay or even somewhat undermine the structural parallel with the social problem.

But I’ll still be a man conducting a workshop for women on how to work within a male system.

Women’s Leadership Program and Campus Integration

Since Spring 2013, multiple faculty and staff members have approached me and asked for a women’s leadership program. In Summer 2013, I started researching the unique concerns and strategies for circumnavigating them, particularly in academia. I learned more about the unparalleled familial support network that males have for entering into leadership and the constraints on the negotiation tactics women can use — not just for salaries or raises, but equally importantly, for the daily negotiations in teamwork, committee work, and even interactions with friends and family. After developing a strong enough knowledge base to ask questions, I conducted cross-campus interviews with faculty and staff to develop a better understanding of their specific needs and interests.

Many have asked me why I as a man have pushed so hard for this program. Particularly after reading the literature, I strongly support the cause. But based on my experiences with other leadership programs, I also recognized the importance and opportunity of a cohort program that can connect diverse areas of the university. I’m constantly thinking of ways to improve the university’s capacity for cross-campus knowledge transfers, resource sharing, and other collaborations. The more ways we can integrate faculty, professional staff, and non-professional staff, the better prepared the university will be for responding to external threats or opportunities.

Although we have done an excellent job of integrating different departments and academic colleges, we have not yet expanded our integration to include staff. For nearly two years, I have explored ways to include staff in our existing programs. Differences in approval hierarchies, pay structures, and especially cultures thwarted every attempt. I may be wrong, but I suspect the Women’s Leadership Program (WLP) overcame those differences because people stopped thinking of themselves as faculty or staff and started thinking of themselves as women — and then the men either supported it or got the heck out of the way. Whatever the reason, instead of thinking why not, people started figuring out how to.

Meanwhile, the WLP can build channels between faculty, professional staff, and administrative staff that will enable other integrative programs to navigate the system. It sets a precedent.

Unfortunately, the program’s timing thwarted my ability to see it to fruition. My office assumed a large amount of responsibility for the New Faculty Program and the highly ambitious Quality Enhancement Plan. I was asked not to roll out new programs.

With prior approval, I sought champions and initiated conversations with the faculty and staff senates to co-house the program. Before the senates could vote, the program’s champions proliferated, to the point of potentially tearing apart the program. Across campus, people made appointments to discuss the program’s design and funding without including each other or other essential stakeholders in the conversation. Rather than wait until the program had a proper home that could institutionalize it, I chose to appoint program co-directors, one faculty and one staff member, who could manage the champions and see the program to implementation. I gave them the names of program champions, the names of other stakeholders, the list of interviewee requests, and the program design I created.

One of the co-directors is a graduate of this spring’s Faculty Leadership Program, so I see this handing-off process at least in part as a continuation of that professional development.

As I saw today in the information session with the Staff Senate, the co-directors are working as a team, and the program design already is starting to change. Although I take pride in my design, their changing it means the co-directors have taken ownership over it. The change is good. It is a sign of life.

So now I will lose decision-making abilities, fall-out of the information loop, and watch with anticipation, and even a sense of loss, to see in what unpredictable ways the program will develop and grow.

Arming Faculty without Telling Them What to Do

By Day 1, new faculty need to know our students and how to reach them. They would need that kind of knowledge if we were Harvard, if we were a community college. No two campuses have the same demographics, so learning the different student bodies, characteristics, and learning preferences orients faculty to their new environment.

But I don’t tell faculty how to teach. They know better than I do how to teach their content. Any implication otherwise would be wrong and insulting.

I do provide faculty with teaching strategies. A simple cohort-building activity helps faculty acquire and assimilate the specific teaching strategies for those diverse student bodies — and this activity circumvents my “teaching” anyone anything.

Most strategies overlap for different demographics — like fostering a sense of classroom community in order to improve student-to-student knowledge transfer, socially incentivize attendance, and diversify classroom accountability structures. Participants encounter a short list of specific classroom activities, with their slightly different pedagogical intentions. And then we use think-pair-share: participants individually choose which activity they most likely would use and explain their reasoning to their neighbors.

The process of choosing only one forces the participants to evaluate and cognitively organize the options. Also, by selecting first and then discussing their reasoning, they activate multiple parts of their brains to access the same content, which increases the likelihood of their retaining that content. Participants also develop a vested interest in other people’s answers, and the in-depth discussion becomes a reflection activity that fosters metacognitive understanding. It also improves mutual understanding and peer relationships. The subsequent greater group discussion disseminates more information for improved reflection and understanding, but it also fosters a sense of cohort community. After an hour of tackling five strategies this way, the faculty see those five strategies in a list and take that list home with them. They’re also motivated, talkative, and reluctant to leave the conversation behind.

This activity is an example of how to help faculty develop new understandings, without boring them with a lecture or their perceiving the faculty developer as trying to rob them of their academic freedom. Regardless of the topic, look for opportunities to deliver information as tools — for socializing, problem-solving, designing a project … — not as endpoints. When information becomes the endpoint, it should become a handout; the interaction, only an email. Otherwise, we’re wasting both good will and everyone’s time.

Reflections on the Faculty Leadership Program

Participants in the Faculty Leadership Program sacrifice 1/5 of their work week for an entire semester. This sacrifice not only impacts their time, but also their capacities. At least some participants discover a new normal in what they can achieve.

This semester, participants met with over thirty campus contributors from every university division. They explored the inner workings of Austin Peay, and then they focused their interviews. The faculty investigated a personal frustration that negatively impacts student success. They compared Austin Peay to peer institutions, met with stakeholders, and learned whether this frustration was a high enough priority for the university to dedicate resources to remedy. During that process, they discovered a few champions for their cause — people who behind the scenes not only supported their goal, but also looked for ways to help achieve it. Although this was a truly campus-led program, it was very much the participants’. To change even one of them would have changed everything about it. They’re proud of their accomplishment, and they should be. One faculty member claimed she felt transformed by the experience.

Not everyone in the program wants to enter into administration, but everyone leaves feeling empowered. Program alumni know enough about the institution and how it works to connect disparate parts of the university and make something happen. Even if they don’t take advantage of that superpower for their own ideas, they might connect others who otherwise lack the resources to see their ideas come to fruition.

In other words, these faculty members’ very presence makes this university stronger.

 

Chair Leadership Development

We’re currently piloting a Chair Leadership Program with future, new, and relatively new academic chairs. Over the course of two semesters, participants meet twice a month for 3.5 hours, and then the program will funnel into a chair organization that will start in Spring 2015. Although both the program and organization sound like excessive burdens on precious time, the participants begged for these opportunities, and they repeatedly express their appreciation in both conversation and program assessments. The program and hopefully the organization benefit participants, contributors, and the institution enough for people to want to make that sacrifice.

Some program sessions improve campus efficiency, and not just by creating more knowledgeable chairs. After presenting on the university’s budget, the Director of Budgets worked closely with participants over multiple days, learned about the chairs’ needs, collaborated to streamline certain processes, and shared upcoming changes. Similarly, the University Attorney and her senior administrative assistant discussed the approval process for software agreements, learned about chairs’ concerns, and collaborated to streamline the process for everyone involved.

These interactions were not merely information sessions; the chairs, contributors, and institution truly benefited. As a result of these meetings, chair participants now receive monthly — or in one case, weekly — automated budget updates that help them determine when and from where to move money to prevent shortfalls, which will save the Director of Budgets from having to resolve problems on the back end. They also will acquire a PDF list of clauses that cannot appear in contracts, which chairs then can send to software and other service providers. Eliminating these clauses on the front end speeds up the approval process and reduces the Legal Office’s workload. They also make the chairs’ lives a lot easier.

All program sessions improve inter-divisional relations and mutual understanding. The Chief Human Resources Officer, Director of H.R., and Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action explained the hiring and firing process and participated in a Q&A that cleared potentially poisonous misconceptions. They also helped a chair develop action steps to resolve a specific problem.

As much as the participants appreciate these meetings with cross-campus representatives, they truly value the cohort-building opportunities to share freely, discuss and even laugh at their experiences, and collaboratively brainstorm solutions to their problems. They covet these experiences so much, the participants want to make these opportunities permanent, which is why we’re creating the funnel organization.

The Chair Leadership Program and its corresponding chair organization are part of our overall aim to improve cross-campus knowledge transfer, collaborations, and resource sharing. We’re building campus capacity for responding rapidly to external threats or opportunities, one program at a time.

Leadership from the Ranks

In the revised edition of Management, Peter Drucker (2008) draws attention to the overlay of multiple organizational structures vying for dominance, all with the shared aim of improving human productivity. The greater the crisis, Drucker argues, the greater the need for hierarchy; the more high-touch services, the more important becomes local autonomy (p. 68).

Higher education, of course, provides high-touch services. Faculty and staff serve as role models for cognitive skills, behaviors, and attitudes that can lead to success. Sustained employee-student interactions expose students to new frameworks for engaging themselves, each other, and the world. But these interactions require intentional design. Otherwise, they can crumble into lower-order thinking skills and low-value work for everyone — like what happens when academic advising deteriorates into merely course scheduling. In order to perpetually reassess, revitalize, or redesign intentional interactions, faculty and staff need a high degree of local autonomy.

Higher education also is in the midst of a crisis. Both citizenry and a growing number of work environments require the skills to navigate an increasingly rhetorical- and statistics-based world. But the social insistence on more college has expanded the number of student bodies with different needs, as well as redirected higher education’s focus to student retention and graduation rates. On one side, faculty now struggle not merely to deliver course content for diverse learning habits, but also to ensure diverse student engagement and in-depth content assimilation for an improved likelihood of continued student success. On the other side, academic professionals struggle to identify and resolve bottlenecks in the system and reach-out to previously ignored populations who could benefit from more education.

This re-imagining of higher education coincides with an economic crisis in which people need jobs and employers want higher-quality job candidates. In the face of rising student debt, students and their parents, legislators, and potential employers now question the value of higher education. Meanwhile, our computer-infused work environment demands greater technological and critical-thinking skills for even entry-level jobs — yes, even the jobs that can’t pay back the resulting debt. This conflict has resulted in new entrants in the market who then compete with at least the public colleges and universities, which have had to raise tuition to replace diminishing state funds.

Higher education is a high-touch service in crisis. On the one hand, the industry requires local autonomy. On the other, its crisis calls for strong leadership. Our university has worked to bridge the two by building campus capacity for leadership from the ranks. We have opted for professional development that pushes “thinking big” and interconnects the campus for collaborative autonomy.

Thus far, the process has worked well. Faculty and staff have created the Office of Undergraduate Research, Office of Service Learning, and Non-Traditional Student Support Center. On the organizational chart, they collaboratively relocated Career Services to improve its staffing and funding. They’re currently exploring ways of recruiting international students. They’re piloting redirect advising for students who are capable of earning degrees but who have encountered a brick wall in their current majors. They’re testing the preregistration of students before summer orientation. Faculty and staff investigate ways of designing a seamless learning environment.

No one merely has managed these changes or explorations. They result from collaborative leadership, an empowering of the ranks to determine when and how to move forward. That level of empowerment requires aggressive professional development. But it saves institutions from sacrificing their high-touch services to crisis management.

 

Drucker, Peter. (2008.) Management; Revised Edition. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ownership over Self-Development

This week I pitched to the Faculty Senate the idea of the faculty and staff senates’ collaboratively housing a women’s leadership program. I made a case for creating a professional-development program that is truly self-development and which fosters not only cross-campus knowledge transfer, but also inter-divisional collaborations and resource sharing that can strengthen the entire institution. Equally importantly, the university has an opportunity to visibly demonstrate its support for women in leadership. Faculty questions were limited; it was a lot to take-in. Still, through individual discussions, I learned some primary concerns.

On the one hand, we as a university suffer from both insufficient funds for new professional staff and a worry about administrative bloat. On the other, the faculty have had to harbor more and more administrative responsibilities, part of a growing trend of reframing faculty as academic professionals with a growing number of non-teaching responsibilities. Within the context of the senates’ co-owning this program, at least some senators privately expressed concern about the latter.

That’s a legitimate problem. The program I’ve proposed is not a simple one. One faculty member and one staff member would serve as co-coordinators and co-facilitators. Based on my initial cross-campus interviews, we can roll out a series of workshops on requested topics — interviewing, negotiation, building a support structure … — while fostering a sense of both cohort and campus community, the latter via diverse campus contributors. Early in the semester, each participant would shadow another participant in a different university division and report back to the rest of the group, which would improve cross-institutional cultural understanding. After meeting for 3.5 hours every other week for five sessions, the cohort should have bonded enough to pursue as a team an intrinsically-motivated charge, such as investigating a personal frustration that negatively impacts student success and is a high priority for the institution to address. The charge would enable the cohort to develop teamwork skills, learn more about the university, cultivate an understanding of institutional priority, and possibly inspire champions for their cause.

One faculty member privately expressed concern that the program’s design would overtax the faculty and staff coordinators. Although we would hope to reward the coordinators with more than a line on the C.V. — for example, by using state and institutional diversity-grant funds to support their attending a state or national leadership retreat — we wouldn’t be able to promise them anything since we’d have to secure those funds after they’ve started. This faculty member rightfully questioned what would happen if a coordinator’s interest faded in the face of a high workload coupled with uncertain or no reward.

Still, I learned through my campus interviews and private conversations that, with or without a home, this or a similar program will happen. The demand is so high that even if the senates rejected the project and the administration couldn’t take ownership of it, individual faculty and staff would assume responsibility on their own. It would become a grassroots program.

While that fact in itself is truly beautiful, an institutionally homeless grassroots initiative sends the wrong message. It implies, the institution does not value women’s leadership.

The real problem has nothing to do with campus desire to support the program. Although we can pursue university and state diversity grants, people do not want to put an organizational name on something without that specific organization’s appropriately funding it. Meanwhile, the entire campus has committed its resources to an ambitious Quality Enhancement Plan and other student-success efforts.

We have other formal avenues if the senates do not assume responsibility for the program. But I hope faculty and staff senators recognize the opportunity and seize it. A women’s leadership program co-owned by the senates has greater significance than one housed in a different area. It says, We the employees of this university have united for more than information gathering or problem-solving. We have united to act for own our destiny.

Socially Integrating Faculty and Staff

I’m in the process of rethinking new-program development. Due to organizational changes and new initiatives that might impact my time, I have been asked not to roll out additional programs. However, I had designed a Women’s Leadership Program in response to multiple requests from both faculty and staff. Not only is there a need to support women’s leadership development, but the program can begin the process of socially integrating faculty and staff, which will improve cross-campus knowledge transfer, resource sharing, and collaborations. Social integrations will make a more adaptable campus, capable of rapid response in the face of external threats or opportunities.

I couldn’t let this program die  — or the others that this program might inspire.

So long as the Center for Teaching and Learning houses all such programs, a new administration can determine their future. Although I have problems imagining administrators who wouldn’t support building campus capacity for leadership, I recognize that I’ve served under an exceptionally forward-thinking administration.

As I searched for the program’s new home, an advocate of the Women’s Leadership Program suggested the faculty and staff senates collaboratively house it. Brilliant: Ask the faculty and staff senates to collaborate in housing a program that encourages the faculty and staff to collaborate. The senates’ outgoing and incoming presidents supported the idea, and we’ve packaged a program proposal to present in this week’s agendas. Even though the new organizational home is not a done deal, we’re making progress.

As I explained to the senate presidents, this new organizational home is a starting place for even more collaborative programs directly in the hands of faculty and staff, where only they can determine their futures. The whole point of professional development is to foster agency to strengthen the institution, and only collaboration empowers. It’s time we cultivate collaborative agency — directly in people’s own hands.

New Faculty Orientation for Faculty and Institutional Success

In redesigning the orientation program, I am struggling to envision from a new faculty’s perspective, how to decipher our university’s distinct student bodies, our students’ role models for successful attitudes and behaviors, their unique challenges on their time, their preconceptions of what it means to learn, their preconceptions for what it means to teach, their expectations for their courses and professors, their reasoning for choosing their majors, their thoughts and emotions when they no longer can progress in their majors, their potential for isolation from the campus and its opportunities, the factors that impact their opportunities when they graduate, …. and how the university operates as a system to improve the likelihood of student success.

Here are some of the campus-led program topics I’m imagining:

  • student demographics and their retention and graduation rates
  • teaching students with different at-risk characteristics
  • classroom management strategies for diverse student bodies
  • how to structurally prevent the likelihood of academic dishonesty
  • how to leverage the course-management system for student success
  • collecting course data for more effective changes
  • how to interpret student evaluations
  • student pathways, bottlenecks, and the system of student movement
  • the philosophic trajectory of academic advising: where we are heading
  • how and why the university connects with the community
  • RTP as a tool for student, faculty, and institutional success
  • campus as a collaborative community with a shared purpose: student success
  • emotional intelligence and conflict management with colleagues
  • retention to the second year and beyond

I’m also hoping to brand each year with, for instance, an “Incoming Class of 2014” T-shirt. Depending on the number of new faculty, perhaps we can provide them with individual teaching consultations.

We’re still early in the design process, and a lot of people will play a role in the program’s ultimate shape, but I truly believe we can orient new faculty to a systems-thinking paradigm that will help the institution stay proactive and innovative in fostering student success, while bolstering faculty retention and success.