Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Miller" data-source="post: 49022" data-attributes="member: 5063">Hi [USER=8055]@MZ[/USER], great set of questions and really important issues!I'll break my response down more or less issue-by-issue that you raise. In terms of the firm's decision to only assess one part of the negotiation, I'm sure they will have a reason for doing so. Nonetheless, I can understand why it might add a degree of anxiety. I would say, though, that, in general, assessors are able to see through candidates who maybe pretend to be great at teamwork but actually aren't behind closed doors, so don't worry too much here. 1: In terms of how you can communicate with your partner, I've used WhatsApp's PC platform in the past and had it open on a split window (as have teammates) so we can use that to communicate. In terms of the assessor not knowing the specific steps you're taking to ensure you're a united front, don't worry too much- the important thing is that they will be able to see the result which, with good communication, will generally be positive. In terms of how you can seem collaborative, I would probably refer to my point of closely monitoring the conversation during your partner's point (and vice versa) so you can follow up with questions on areas they might miss, as they can for you. You can also refer to your partner's points in your own parts if the references are relevant. 2: In my experience, going in with a slightly softer, more collaborative, approach will give you more room to move towards a hardball/ competitive style if necessary. I've had to make steady adjustments to my style in almost every negotiation I've ever done, and, in my experience, knowing when to adjust your style and approach is hugely important. It will also normally come off better than sticking rigidly to one style that clearly isn't working in the circumstances. Knowing when to adjust your approach demonstrates versatility, adaptability, pragmatism and maturity so, as long as you're not chopping and changing every 20 seconds, I generally think this is fine. 3: This is extremely hard to account for. To state the obvious, a unilateral decision is just that: unilateral. I've personally had this happen to me more than once- I even once had a teammate interrupt me in the middle of my sentence to directly contradict me on a point we'd agreed as a team... suffice to say, he didn't get the Vac Scheme. It's absolutely one of the hardest things to deal with, but remember that the assessors have all the background information and will also normally be able to tell if one individual in a team makes an unexpected unilateral decision. As you say, I tend to think that undermining your partner in front of the opposition is bad politics and, save for extreme circumstances, should be avoided at all costs. If this does happen, I would typically suggest making a very quick analysis of how that may impact on your other negotiation points and being cognisant of this as it is necessary to be. Ultimately, you can't predict whether a teammate will or won't go rogue on you- it's also in their interests, though, to work collaboratively to get the best result for themselves so you need to rely on that in part too. If you first and foremost concentrate on doing the absolute best you can yourself, and rely on experienced assessors being able to see through someone going rogue, then you can't go too far wrong.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread