# Leading through a pandemic

Data: 11-01-2025 21:48:20

## Lista de Vídeos

1. [Leading through a pandemic: Using this time to rethink your career| London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1J2nawqFo)
2. [Leading through a pandemic: surviving past survival mode | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wLoq6qOisA)
3. [Leading through a pandemic: lessons from the Great Recession | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYc7StiGg8)
4. [Leading through a pandemic: Coronavirus and the global economy| London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7bpWsOckk)
5. [Leading through a pandemic: from strategic agility to resilience | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhPxyE_2ps)
6. [Leading through a pandemic - Leading people through a crisis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkCiStoKEY)
7. [Leading through a pandemic: Negotiating losses in times of crisis | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwDxY1umXqM)
8. [Leading through a pandemic: Making difficult judgments in coronavirus times | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBTmc35QuGY)
9. [How to communicate through a virtual working world | LBS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oY6vVUnKIk)
10. [Leading through a pandemic: Marketing leadership in a time of crisis | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnC0yHz_C_0)
11. [The upside of pestilence: how the virus will humanise our organisations | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpUFYT2F1I)
12. [Five problems we encounter when managing teams virtually (and how to overcome them)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaLPc4fNRdQ)
13. [Using a quarantine to improve your work and non-work relationships | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgAo_qAMgIQ)
14. [Building a resilient supply chain: Lessons from COVID-19 | London Business School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbBauB5ejqo)

## Transcrições

### Leading through a pandemic: Using this time to rethink your career| London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1J2nawqFo

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: surviving past survival mode | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wLoq6qOisA

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: lessons from the Great Recession | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYc7StiGg8

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: Coronavirus and the global economy| London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7bpWsOckk

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: from strategic agility to resilience | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhPxyE_2ps

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic - Leading people through a crisis
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkCiStoKEY

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: Negotiating losses in times of crisis | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwDxY1umXqM

Idioma: en

Welcome to the London Business School
webinar series Leading through a
pandemic. I'm Julian Birkinshaw.
I'm going to be
your host for this entire series, which
kicked off already last week and will
carry on at least until May.
And joining me today,
I'm going to introduce him properly in a second,
is my colleague Professor Niro Sivanathan. Welcome Niro.
Thank you Julian. Great to be here.
First of all, no surprises, we are changing our locations.
Today we are in a room at London Business School.
Two metres apart,
we are socially distancing as required and indeed this is the last time we are actually going
to be broadcasting from London
Business School. The Government advice for
the UK is essentially that we should all be working from home immediately.
And so all subsequent broadcasts will go out as planned
But I will be operating from my home office, and my
faculty colleague will be operating from their home office.
So without further ado, I would like to give the floor to my colleague Niro.
Niro has been at London Business School for many many years.  He's a real expert in
decision making, in negotiating, a lot of
behavioural things that matter to us at
any point in our lives but are
particularly important right now.
Niro is going to tell us about what his
specific topic is but of course feel
free as we go through to think of
questions which are more broadly framed
around his own area of expertise, about
essentially the nature of human behaviour, how it
is that we do what we do, how we make
better decisions. So without further ado, Niro I would like to give you the floor.
Thank you Julian. Good afternoon everyone, or good
morning, or perhaps good evening, depending on what part of the world you are logging in from.
First and foremost I hope your
self as well as your nearest and dearest
are healthy and in good spirits. I know
we've received various emails. I
know many of past students, alumni. Not only are you in
the health sector but you're on the front
lines, battling Covid-19.  So on behalf of Julian
as well as all of us here at the London
Business School, let me take this
opportunity to extend the great amount
of gratitude for all that you've done
and all you continue to do. So with that
said let me transition to the webinar
today which is broadly around
negotiations and specifically
negotiating the conflicts and disputes.
Invariably in this current context these
might be some of the negotiations you might be facing. As you know Covid-19 has disrupted
lots of business transactions.
It has wrecked havoc on supply chains. It's
impacted transportation.  It has impacted
shipping and as a result deliveries are
no longer on time. 
Deliveries entirely missed and
essentially services either are not rendered or
services not met to the usual standards,
which of course then has impact
potentially on the cash flow, which then impacts
your ability to make payments. And
invariably this then results in conflicts
of disputes, whether it be with other businesses, clients, customers etc
and then they follow up on you to
try and trigger that conversation or more importantly a
negotiation to try and remedy that
conflict. So I'm going to focus on that
specifically but my hope is over the
next thirty minutes or so is to touch on
a couple of sort of pillars or bumpers
if you will that you want to be
conscious of and considering as you
navigate these complex negotiations. I'm
going to try and cover about six
elements.  Some of them are more general
to negotiations others are more specific
to negotiating conflicts and disputes
and time permitting one other element
which is within the context of social
distancing, how that sort of further
complicates if you will some of the
challenges with regards to negotiations.
So with that and in the spirit of our
previous webinars, let me kick it off
with the first poll.
So the question is do you believe if you're a
good, if not great negotiator?
Okay so
if we could see the results.
So just about half of you believe you're a good negotiator, if not a great negotiator. Others
believe you're not. So these numbers are
on average higher than you typically get.
So when this question is posed whether
it be in a classroom or corporate events by
myself or my colleagues, typically one or
two great souls
raise their hand, and oftentimes the lack
of confidence at the bargaining table or
the apprehension at the bargaining table
tends to be a result of subscribing to a
set of myths with regards to negotiation, and perhaps the most proximal of which, or
perhaps the central of which, is this
belief that good negotiators are born.
Myself, as well as my colleagues
who teach negotiation will tell you,
good negotiators are taught not born.  And
the reason I highlight this is to
mention to you there is about twenty five if
not thirty years worth of sound
scientific research around negotiation.
If you are able to draw on that
science and mobilise that science, you're
far more likely to get better outcomes
at the bargaining table than perhaps relying on either risky behaviours, intuition etc. Or really more
to the point, if you've been propelled
into complicated negotiations
under the context, you're apprehensive, realise there there are resources and
specifically evidence-based science that you could follow to help navigate these
scenarios. Obviously over the course of
the next 25 minutes or so, I'm by no
means going to be able to cover all the
science, only a very small portion of it,
but I would urge you to seek those out.
To that end one of the books that
I recommend to all my students is the
book Getting to Yes. It is an oldie but
certainly a goodie and it certainly
stood the test of time. A more recent
book is by my colleagues Deepak Malhotra
and Max Bazerman which again sort of draws on the
science and it's a wonderful primer if
you are just getting yourself introduced
into negotiations, or find yourself in
scenarios where you need to bring
yourself up to speed before triggering
these negotiations. So with that as a
backdrop backdrop let me delve into
dispute resolutions and consequence
solutions. One of the primary means
by which disputes and conflicts
defer from deal-making negotiations, is
that oftentimes in dispute resolution
you are negotiating losses,
whereas in a deal-making negotiation
often times you are trying to negotiate a
gain of Julian is selling his car, I'm going
to buy it. If the value is higher than
his minimum amount, he makes himself a
value from that transaction and
I get some sort of utility or value from
purchasing that car. The reason why
negotiating losses or negotiations that
are framed as losses that have a
profound impact on our behaviour and, to
take note is a result of a set of biases
that impact transitions and specifically
this notion of loss aversion.
So and this was discovered by
or elucidated by Dan Kahneman and Amos
Tversky. So Kahneman and Tversky sort of
for the better part of twenty five, thirty
years, systematically uncovered all the
ways in which each of us systematically
deviate from rationality. So in our pursuit to
make sound rational judgments, we rely on
certain shortcuts or certain heuristics
to help guide us in what is otherwise an uncertain world and so doing it causes our
judgments and decisions to deviate from
being both sound and being rational. In 2002,
unfortunately by then Amos Tversky had passed away, Danny Kahneman won a Nobel prize for this work.
This is one of the rare instances where a Nobel prize for economics is given to a non economist. And at the
central of their findings is this idea of prospect theory. We could spend an entire day just talking about
prospect theory. Let's concentrate on one of its important tenets, which is if you're a
rational Homo economicus agent, what
you should do is that the utility that
you derived from a certain magnitude of
gains, should be equivalent to the
disutility you experienced from a
similar magnitude of losses. Let me
translate that into English. So let's assume
I give Julian 10 pounds and it gives him 10 points of happiness
or ten points of utility. Similarly
if I go into Julian's wallet and I remove 10 pounds,
he should therefore experience 10 points of
unhappiness or disutility. And turns out
however psychologically that is not the
case.
Psychologically the pain of the
departing ten dollars of ten pounds is
consuming larger than the psychological
pleasurable experiences of gaining 10
pounds. In fact there's several studies
that show that it's almost a 2:1 impact.
So a loss of 10 pounds has the
equivalent of in order to make up
for that psychologically, you require
a gain of 20 pounds.
So that the immediate sort of
tenant of this or the findings of this
is that lawsuit is larger than gains.
This as a result has all sorts of
implications to the various judgements,
decisions and behaviours we engage in. And so
let give you a couple of examples. So this is a study by Putler that observes the price of eggs over
a two-year window. What he found was that whenever there was a 10 percent increase in the price it impacted
demand by about 7.8 percent.
So demand dropped by
7.8 percent. However with the
price drop by ten percent, it only
increased demand by 3.3 percent.  So the
magnitude of change is the same but
people react far more to the losses than
gains. Or a very easy sort of thought
experiment would be if someone were to
give to you a 200 pound bottle of wine, my
guess is it'll give you some sense of
happiness.  However that happiness is will
likely be dwarfed by the sadness you
would experience if you owned 200 pound bottle of wine and, just before serving that at dinner, your hand
slipped the bottle and it lands on the floor and you lose your entire bottle of wine. And again this idea
that losses are essentially larger than
gains. This certainly also occurs in
negotiations. So imagine a scenario where a seller ships a set of goods and the
buyer or the receiver is accepting that
good. And the receiver of the goods
can pay up to 800,000 pounds and the seller is set to make a profit of about seven hundred.
Any sort of deal within that margin, results in a positive utility
for both parties. Now imagine that same
scenario under Covid-19. There's
delays in shipments and it's
delayed by three weeks. As a result the
buyer and receiver
loses customers in that period. Now the
receiver or the buyer needs a minimum of
600,000 to break-even. The
seller still in order to cover the cost,
requires 700,000. Now you're
essentially negotiating losses. It's the
magnitude of what you're negotiating is
the same but however the frame if you
will is that you're not trying to
negotiate the gain of a hundred
thousand but rather divide the loss
between the two parties. Often times
in conflicts and disputes, you are
negotiating losses and realise that
that frame has the ability to
fundamentally shift your behaviour at the
bargaining table. Typically what occurs is
as a result you tend to be far more
competitive at the bargaining table. You
will engage in hard ball tactics as a
way to recoup some of those losses.
You might even engage in aggressive
behaviours.  Or collectively you're more
likely to engage in risky behaviours, if
you will, at the bargaining table, as a
way to help reduce those losses. Now to
complicate these matters further, the
other important element through which
disputing conflicts defer from
deal-making negotiations, is that parties
commonly come to the table with lots of
emotions, and typically not positive
emotions, but negative emotions. People are
likely to enter the bargaining table
angry, bound in spite, perhaps even wanna enact
revenge on your counterpart and within
the context of Covid-19, not only are
individuals going to approach that
negotiation with those emotions, but
they're also wrestling with the backdrop
of uncertainty. Uncertainty with regards
to health, uncertainty with regards to
one's financial health and so forth.
These if you will sort of sort of
further exacerbate this problem. Now
emotions in negotiations is very nuanced but if I could sort of
aggregate to some of that research and generalise, what you find is
that negative emotions generally result
in negative consequences at the
bargaining table. It oftentimes leads
parties to change the mindset with which
they approach. They view the negotiation
as far more competitive enterprise
rather than collaborative one. They're more
likely if you will view it as a
tug-of-war rather than a collaborative
or enjoying the problem-solving task.
They're also more likely to analyse the
situation inaccurately. So they mislead
into certain behaviours, statements
ever said at the bargaining table. It's also shown to lead
to far more conflict or, more specifically,
escalate into conflict spirals. So even
small sparks that will invariably occur in
disputes have a way to very quickly
escalate to very large conflict. But
equally importantly is that emotions also
have a tendency for you to engage in
systematic errors and specifically engage
in self-serving biases. And two of the ones
that I want to briefly touch on, and the
first one is the idea of the fundamental
attribution error. So the fundamental
attribution error is our tendency to
over emphasise other people's behaviour
to their internal traits, especially
negative behaviour and our tendency to
externalise our own behaviour. So imagine
a meeting at which your team member is
late by 20 minutes. The attribution you make is that
individual is you know lazy or doesn't care.
Compared to imagine two weeks
later, you're 15 minutes late for that
meeting.
The attribution you make is that there
was traffic, the alarm didn't sound that
morning or the coffee just didn't have
its intended punch.
Now a fundamental attribution error is
something that we engage in typically, when
it's something to be watchful of in
conflicts. Oftentimes when making
attributions of people's past
behaviour and specifically the
motivations behind those behaviours. So if
if your shipment is late, it
could be because transportation delays
as a result of the crisis. But if
your business partner's shipping is
delayed, you might attribute that to well,
despite some of the environmental
shocks,
if this individual had sort of
pre-planned or was better organised,
we wouldn't be in this scenario. So it's
something to watch out for. It's
something that we automatically engage
in. It has a tendency to crop up in
conference. The second one that I want to
briefly touch on is this idea of the
egocentric bias. So before I delve into
that let me get to our second poll, which
is a requirement for you to rate your
abilities on the percentile relative to
your colleagues at work.
They asked to rate on decision-making abilities, your
intelligence, contributions to charity
and lastly a physical attractiveness.
So if we could see the results?
Okay, so when it comes to decision-making
abilities, we're seeing somewhere around
70 percent intelligence. Many of you believe you
are far more intelligent than your
colleagues. Contributions to charity
doesn't seem to seems to hover around 50
percent, if anything below 50 percent
and lastly physical attractiveness, and
again, it appears that you believe you're
more on average physically attractive
than your dear colleague. So these
are typical of the results that you get
both in scientific studies as well as
when pulled in the classroom and what
you display is this group of biases
that are referred to broadly is as ego-centric bias. The egocentric bias is a
tendency to over rely on one's own
information, knowledge, experience and
underutilise or undervalue, or under
consider the prospective knowledge and
information of others. And related to
that egocentric bias results in other
related biases such as showing over
confidence and believing that you have better abilities
than others, which was demonstrated in your abilities as well as this tendency to believe that
you're better than average. So that's
one of the most famous examples of this,
and often quoted example is a study
by Svenson who polled Americans to
ask them if they believed they were a
better-than-average driver. And on average
93 per cent responded stated that they
were better than an average driver. This is
if you consider it is a
statistical anomaly that 93 per cent of
population believe they're better than
average. Arguably one of my favourite
examples of this is a survey that was
done by the US Newsweek back in 1997
which pulled I believe about 10,000
Americans and asked them to estimate the
percentile likelihood that individuals
will go to Heaven. So Bill Clinton came in at 52 per cent.
Michael Jordan was 65 per cent. So if you're a Chicago Bulls fan you might think
anything below 90 per cent as sacrilegious, but nonetheless the answer was 65 per cent.
and Mother Teresa was 76 per cent. Now
Mother Teresa came in a distant second
to someone far more important - yourself.
So an average people believe their
likelihood of going to Heaven was
considerably greater than that of Mother
Teresa. Before you start thinking
well perhaps being exposed to these
biases you certainly wouldn't, either Julian or myself, might not demonstrate this bias, not so fast.
In another study by Cross, he surveyed
faculty and asked them whether they were
an above average teacher and 90% of
respondents believed they were better
than their colleagues or, should I say,  better than the average teacher.
The reason why I bring up the egocentric
bias is invariably in conflicts there
will be a discourse of conversation
about fairness. Fairness is a normal construct
that also tends to be a fairly nebulous
one because fairness inherently ends up
being egocentric. Critical to fairness are the assumptions
beyond metricize that make up your
definition of fairness and oftentimes
that tends to be very egocentric. An
outcome that seems
very fair to one party will
invariably feel unfair to the other
party. So it's something to keep in mind
that if you invoke fairness this becomes
a very nebulous element on which to
negotiate. The fourth element that I want
to highlight is sort of the nature of
conflict. So typically in any sort of
disputes or conflict you have one of
three avenues to help try and resolve
that conflict. One would be based on
power. So this is your ability to coerce
the other side to agree to the terms on
the table that have been rejected this
is where you might utilise your financial
resources or political resources as a
way to force or get others to comply to
a certain outcome. This is also where
threats are more likely to me enacted.
But if you don't carry a dispute through
that I mean you're more likely to engage
in rights-based argument. This is where
independence standards you call on other relevant areas such as
perhaps the contract. Here's what the
letter of the law says or hearing legal
rights and certainly this is where
fairness tends to reside. The last avenue
that resolves conflicts is
through interests, and this is your attempt
to understand the underlying interests of
your counterpart. Try to cater to that
interest as a way to push that
conversation further. Interests
fundamentally are the underlying
utilities, needs, values,
concerns and desires that motivate
oftentimes what said at the bargaining
table. Oftentimes what's stated at the
bargaining table is a position. The onus
sort of falls on you especially in a
conflict to sort of unpack some of the
interest behind those positions. When
someone says they're not willing to pay the invoice price or they're not willing to
meet a shipment deadline, that's a position. The interest might be very different and you
might be able to trade off on those
interests as a way to resolve that
conflict. Most conflicts are resolved
better and greater satisfaction when
they're interest-based rather than
rights or power-based. So to get it to the person who
might be less familiar with a sort of
interests and positions, let me give a
very quick parable. This is a story
of two sisters and an orange. So the parable goes
that these two sisters were fighting
over the last orange. One sister asks the other
sister kindly. She said no. The other
sister offered to buy from the other
sister. She said no and they continued
arguing. Finally when the sister says
you know let's just do what's fair. Let's
slice it in half. You take one half and I
take the other half. One sister takes her
half of the orange and squeezes the pulp
to make orange juice and throws away the
peel. The other sister takes her half of
the orange of scoops out the pulp,
throws it out and uses the skin of the
orange and, more specifically, the zest in skin of the orange to make chocolate
orange cake. The moral of the story
that the message behind this is that if
both sisters moved away from this
positional negotiation of 'I want the orange
- no I want orange' but unpack the
underlying interests driving those positions.
They could have traded off on
those interests and both parties would have been better off.
The last bit that I want to touch on with
regards to conflict and specifically
disputes is around threats, and
invariably
there might be the instance where you
might need to enact threats.
Hopefully not. Not a great way to resolve
conflicts through interest but you
might end up having to exercise threats.
If you do just a couple of things to
note. Do not make threats that you're not
willing to exercise. your address ensure
that if they don't meet those necessary
standards you are willing to follow
through. Because if you don't follow
through
you will lose credibility right away and
you will have either any reputational
capital to continue that negotiation
further. So if you're gonna make a threat
ensure that you're willing to follow
through. Again when making threats
remember the facts are meant to
push forward your interests. Threats are not
there to punish the other party. Threats
should be either meeting your
counterparts interest more in line on
your interest towards a resolution.
If you're on the other side of the table,
which is you're faced with threats oftentimes
one of the best responses is to ignore a threat. Oftentimes
what threats do you is they trigger your automatic response of wanting to fight back
or retaliate. You can avoid that 
temptation. Oftentimes the counterpart
will revert back to talking about
conversation which might be closer
towards rights or even potentially
around interest and finally outside
the negotiations but certainly relevant to
the current context is the medium
through which you will carry out your
negotiation or your conflict. Obviously
many of us are in social isolation so
the ability to have face-to-face
meetings are not a possibility. The
element to keep in mind with regards to
medium is what communication scholars
refer to as media richness. This is
critically based on two dimensions. One
dimension is the degree to which you are
privy to audio cues and visual cues. So
obviously a face-to-face meeting affords
you the audio cues as well as visual
cues.
Whereas a text message does not give you either audio cues nor visual cue.
Where a telephone call allows you to
have audio infused but not visual cues.
The other dimension that's equally
important is whether the communication
is synchronous in nature or asynchronous
in nature. A synchronous platform would
be obviously face to face or video
conferencing and a synchronous one would
be voice mail, would be email etc.
Turns out these two dimensions are
critically important to negotiations and
especially into negotiations whereby you
need to negotiate based on interest,
where you need to create value at the
bargaining table. There are several
scholars Robin, Swab and others who've
shown repeatedly that negotiations that
are either asynchronous in
nature or lack one of the critical
component used, either vocal cues or audio cues,
detract away from the amount of information that is shared, which is critical for entering
the negotiations. The atmosphere that creates and equally importantly, the efficiency of those
outcomes. And in its current state, it's
also very frictionless to send off a
quick email to start the negotiation
around conflict or dispute. I would
urge you to resist that temptation.
Video conference for instance would
afford you the benefits of the
face-to-face without having to rely on
some detrimental impact of sending or
trying to negotiation over email.
That's an example of why audio cues and
visual cues are important is perhaps
highlighted by the presidential debate I
believe that was in 1960, which was between
Nixon and Kennedy. This is the first
debate that was televised. Now people who
heard the debate on the radio thought
that Nixon won. They thought his points
were more precise. They were pointed. He
was accurate with his statements. People who
saw the debate on television thought Kennedy won. They thought he came across more leader like.
They thought he had more charisma etc. 
And invariably lots of people watched that debate
on TV. And similar to the TV
audience, the individual went on to win
the presidential race that year is
Kennedy. So by no means am I suggesting
that was the only reason but rather to
highlight to you that individuals get very
different attributions or make different
attributions as a result of the cues
that they're exposed to. And we will be trying to resolve conflicts which are incredibly,
incredibly difficult, especially when
emotions are at play. In negotiating
losses, you don't want to shoot yourself
in the foot furthermore by doing it on a
medium that is not advantageous to a
solution that is likely to be focused
on interest. Let me end here. I believe we now move on
to some possible questions that you might
have. And we're looking forward to the discussion.
Thank you Niro. Terrific stuff. I'm going to ask a bunch of
questions. All taken from the many many
questions you've been sending in. As I
said is a good 1,600 people taking part
in this.
I won't be able to get through all of the questions so apologies.  Let's just go straight in.
We're going to dive into some very specific things relating to what you say and then branch it out a bit.
Going back to the centerpiece of your first part which was this notion of loss aversion. When we are
dealing with difficult times, there is
this huge risk that we're all gonna lose.
and of course negotiations get tougher.
You started touching some of the
ways that you resolve that.
You started touching on, for example, framing a couple of
the questions was specifically on the I
am I negotiating with with an airline to
get my money back
I am the give Jeannie has a small
supplier with a big customer unconscious
that they got much more power than I do
just to cover the draggable tips about
how we how we approach those
negotiations demanded or expects what
you said but just be as specific as you
can on this so oftentimes with
negotiations so let me step back with
regards to power where oftentimes you
might be one individual negotiating and
while that might be daunting
structurally with the negotiation your
source of power is your and so that is
what's referred to in the notation is
your best alternative to a negotiated
agreement and so if you have a better
alternatives you have greater power in
the negotiations so the power you have
endogenous to that negotiation is in
fact determined but the exhaustion
factor lots of studies show that if you
have a strong alternative is you get
better outcomes in the current notation
now it's very possible that a large
corporation might have but also may not
so you need to consider what your
alternatives are in that scenario now
with regards to is sort of overcoming
sort of the by so so let me say right
off the bat certainly with loss aversion
there are very seldom is ever sort of a
clear panacea to overcome you're likely
to fall victim to loss so just because
you're exposed to the data or exposed to
the bias does it mean tomorrow morning
the conversations you have will be such
that you are not reacting to those
losses
be aware of it's likely helps but again
it's sort of not doesn't cause you to be
immune to those biases now there is lots
researching and you might have heard of
certain the nudge unit and others that
that try to utilize many of these biases
as a way to frame information to nudge
citizens positive directions or in
directions that are self an official and
beneficial to the society so one
possibility especially if you find that
your counterpart is committing lots of
religion and that's moving away from
reaching a sound decision is to reframe
that outcome in terms of what
potentially they stand to gain because
weather downstream impact on us reacted
to loss is greater than gains is that as
a result it causes our judgments and
decisions and also behaviors to be more
Rasika
and so if you think about if you want
your counterpart to arrest
less for seeking in a negotiation
context one possibility is to refrain
either the proposal in terms of what
they stand to gain from reaching
agreement rather than potentially
reframing look like in practice you can
see that energy is going down a track
that that just isn't working out you
cannot get to where you want to be with
the way that it's kind of in 20 you yeah
so how do we train you can certainly
refrain games mentioned that previously
but often times this is the reframing
comes from moving away from the own
stuck on agreement to another dimension
that perhaps that you can't see eye to
eye and actually caters to or interest
so when the author's get it yes sort of
console that help the other party buy
buildings for the Golden Bridge it's to
move away from the current situation and
connected to some other area that's
causing them to be upset or unwilling to
reach an agreement so the
the examples that comes to mind was so
turned up Steven Spielberg when he was
much younger used to equal 8 so he used
to be not as we call his head to head
and football he'd come by this one kid
was incredibly agonizing so one of the
things he did it turns out he was making
movies even at the age of 10 or 11 was
he went to this William McKee movie I'd
like to make you sort of play the
character of the hero in this movie
movie soldiers not see and he was going
to be the ultimate here comes the movie
initially service said no you know sort
of laughed it off but a couple of days
later came back and said you know
actually I would like to be the hero
this movie the movie
he was able to say into the future is
maybe the heart of the issue
particularly in the current time so on
the one hand I mean most businesses are
absolutely in a weaker position than
they were in saving collectively Society
and I'm sorry quite not incompatible
companies and bit of the very generous
in this so how do we square these two in
other words you know we're seeing
Florian's generosity and yet with a
horse of worry and we're going again
really neck messy negotiations where
both sides are fighting over the scraps
how do we how do we reconcile those two
worldviews I mean are we gonna in this
compassionate world right now and things
are really really bad and that maybe as
soon as we can see that life started
revert normal we're gonna start to
question my my assumption is that these
people generally are each other when
possible oftentimes you get in a
negotiation is the situation of that
context has been reframed in such a
manner where you don't leave yourself
options for more compassionate so their
multitude of the factors that determine
observing and they're you know multiple
factors that result in competition
cooperation and this is everything from
game theorists grappled over this I
think they can co-exist and oftentimes
it's where you sort of anchor yourself
or your perspective impacts especially
with negotiation contexts where
individuals come across as being overly
aggressive so your interest in the
middle I mean does this mean that we
should be appealing more to shared
interest in ago she's often as you can
tell negotiations and conflict whether
we reach it we are not looking at the
conversation of the discourse and more
specifically whether the conversations
are retrospective in nature or
prospected I think so the retrospective
conversations are you guaranteed X you
said yes
we shook hands on Y etc prospector
conversations are kind of in this mess
together how do we both come out on top
or whatever the set of behaviors I could
engage in to help you reach more by mine
or bridge your zone and here's what you
could do now oftentimes when someone
might say no I'm not willing to pay a
hundred thousand pounds it might be that
they're not willing to pay a hundred
thousand pounds now but they might be
willing to you know if it's amortized
over a period of two years or three
years and so again yeah so in many ways
of coming together and viewing
negotiations not as a tug-of-war
but rather a joint problem solving task
is more likely to result in these
negotiations reaching an outcome rather
than escalating to further spirals your
goal in these negotiations isn't really
to try and control the other party but
rather to control your own and as a
resulting the full human behavior that
might shit something that we might see
across the table an industrial age to
our information agent and over all of
the research that was done what in this
industrial age around big big corporates
making stuff and product product
intangible you know the most valuable
companies are all individual companies
does this change any in any substantial
way what we think about when we get into
negotiating Majan so that change would
sort of fundamentally shit the nature of
the material Yoshi
especially if lost immersion is sort of
a psychological component that impacts
negotiations whatever
for might be or the context with
neutrino she ate
now obviously the services that are
being negotiated are more complicated
consequences because economy further
parties might be impacted by the
conflict but in terms of presented I I
can't discharge for a substantially
domestic question but I can see that the
basic principles are sound regardless of
the unquestionable visual versus virtue
in other words can we use this choice of
medium to some of your slides at the end
as a negotiating tactic in other words
would you do something I mentioned is
certainly alluded to this as well
obviously if you want to unpack people's
interest you want to ensure that
synchronous as well as but if you're in
a high-power
scenario you could certainly resort to
medians that benefit perhaps for
instance either afford a later time or
allowing you to more easily make threats
it's much easier to be aggressive over
email them is Esteves and so if you're
struggling to to put that foot forward
you can use a medium as a way to help
you ultimately if you are not able to
collect your thoughts quickly in a
face-to-face negotiation and you need to
craft that message the ability to sort
of sit down and carefully about that
message is afforded to any email so it
varies the reason I focus
on it being a platform where you have
both are you use visual cues was
specifically with regards to console you
do want to bring that conversation back
to us so we're talking about full five
minutes but I've got one big question
that's been on my behind which I want to
ask you even though it's not directly
related to this better not in you are a
professor of organizational behavior you
understand why people behave the way
that you you know four weeks ago Boris
Johnson how prime minister or prime
ministers in some of us gets almost
didn't he then started imploring us to
keep our distance and not get the parts
and do all those who think some of us
did many of us did not help us with that
basic human psychology if you would as
to why do we never do what is clearly in
our general best interests to do what is
holding us back
what sort of advice can you do not
generally collectively
so cover that's one there's lots of
great research just around change and
then that shows that people are
incredibly resistant to change for all
sorts of confluence of reasons there's
also great research showing you know I
can bring about a change I think the
struggle now is how do you sort of bring
about change
I'm a sensitive how you bring about
change two days ago and the research
there is perhaps less clear I certainly
would not be able to sort of point to
one or two reasons for why people I've
stopped or not stopping gathering in
large crowds
my sensitive confluence of factors but I
think one of the elements which could be
contributing to this is that individuals
are not very good with understanding
exponential our minds intuitively can
make sense of
but has a very very difficult time
extrapolating exponential how quickly in
this case the virus spreads and so and
so you can imagine if you were to ask
people to step out of their home and
take 30 steps on a step leaving one
meter most people could very quickly
transpose or extrapolate where they will
be the third step within plus or minus
two meters to get now if you were to ask
individuals to step out of their house
and again take 30 steps but each step
doubles the previous so the first step
is one major the next one is two four
eight and you ask them you know where
will you be 13 step people intuitively
have a very very difficult time for you
sir turns out you will be somewhere
about a billion meters away which if I
recall correctly allows you to certainly
navigate the earth either 24 or 26 tops
over
and so that extrapolation isn't very
easy or another one that I've come
across is you know giving people an
option to do this given the option to
receive $1 every day for 30 days or the
other option is a penny day one day two
for pennies and so forth three easily
people tell the thirty days I'll be
thirty dollars richer
but the choice is very obvious is
exponentially turns out the thirty day I
remember the numbers and the reason why
that's important going back to the
egocentric bias is people are very good
at seeing the impact others have endure
but far less on the one has you're stuck
in traffic you know all the drivers
sitting there and the impact of a
congested lane
stopping complaining to help but we
don't realize is that you are having
that exact same
others so as a result I think people
underestimate what it means we're just
going to visit two of your friends you
don't realize that those two friends
meeting others very quickly and somehow
we sort of am depressed if you like or
just discriminate the Jews the sense of
how much personal behavior is having in
the collective and so thinking in terms
are logarithmic and exponential change
these trying to get our heads around it
trying to see what happened to other
countries in this pandemic two weeks ago
is at least helpful together a pedlar
okay we are now fascinating insights
before we go I'm going to share my
screen with you and I'm going to tell
you that the next webinar is on Friday
and behavior is going to be talking
about the as well and we will have a
similar moment has the last time before
I go to two observations one apologies
for the sound man he was saying the
sound quality was not as good as it was
last week
that is unfortunately true that is the
nature of the room that we're in we're
hoping that by finding that problem
solid and certainly many you've been
asking for copies in the slides as I
said we are gonna be posting up on the
website that you see in front of you we
are going to be posting up all of the
materials from these webinars with that
thank you so much for attending thank
you again here we will look forward to
seeing you again on Friday
thank you
you

---

### Leading through a pandemic: Making difficult judgments in coronavirus times | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBTmc35QuGY

Transcrição não disponível

---

### How to communicate through a virtual working world | LBS
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oY6vVUnKIk

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Leading through a pandemic: Marketing leadership in a time of crisis | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnC0yHz_C_0

Transcrição não disponível

---

### The upside of pestilence: how the virus will humanise our organisations | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpUFYT2F1I

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Five problems we encounter when managing teams virtually (and how to overcome them)
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaLPc4fNRdQ

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Using a quarantine to improve your work and non-work relationships | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgAo_qAMgIQ

Transcrição não disponível

---

### Building a resilient supply chain: Lessons from COVID-19 | London Business School
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbBauB5ejqo

Transcrição não disponível

---

