A Crucial Conversation Plan
Introduction
There is an up-coming company presidential election for the Matrix Construction Company. The company started off as a family business venture. However, after the death of my father, the company was incorporated and new shareholders incepted. The family shares that had been there previously were divided amongst my mother, sister, brother and I. Pursuant to my fathers will my brother got a majority of 65% shareholding in the company. Later on, at incorporation he sold 15% of his shares to two new shareholders and was left with 50 % shareholding. Though not a rule or exception, he was elected the first president for the company after incorporation because he had a majority in shareholding. In the recently concluded business year the company has witnessed a poor performance in terms of profitability due to sub-standard technical management led by the president. This has been attributed to lack of professional knowledge and expertise on the president’s side.
As a measure to save the company’s performance my mother, sister and I think we should vote my brother out and in turn, vote me in as president. This is because I am a professional construction engineer with expertise acquired over many years, whereas, my brother is a professional masseuse. Thus, he lacks both relevant professional skills and expertise for the company. However, the challenge is that the other two shareholders that bought shares from my brother happen to be his close allies and are willing to vote him in for the presidency of the company. As a result, both divided sides are bound to have 3 votes, but with an inability to sway the decision of the election. In disregard of company welfare the new shareholders are willing to vote for my brother because of their close friendship, whereas, on our side we are worried that if my brother does not cease to be the president the company is doomed to fail. Therefore, I have decided to hold a crucial conversation with my brother and his two shareholding friends to sway their votes to my side. This situation requires a crucial conversation because if an impasse resulting from equal votes on both sides prevails, my brother will continue being president. Consequently, the mismanaged company may fail and profitability may drop substantially. This may eventually lead to a collapse.
The criterion of declaring the situation deserving of a crucial conversation
According to Patterson (2002) a conversation warrants recognition as a crucial conversation when all three of the following conditions relate to the conversation. The stakes should be high in terms of the value of the issues of the matter in contention. The parties involved should be varying in opinion pertaining to the issue and emotions involved should be relatively high. Our scenario has the life and profitability of the company at stake. It also involves a long term investment of great monetary value. Additionally opinions of the two sides vary and emotions might be intense. My brother might not like to give away his position and all its benefits (huge pay, allowances, and prestige). Neither would his friends choose to fail their loyalty and friendship towards my brother.
Plan on effecting focus, control and keeping safety during the conversation
Patterson (2002) states that as many people step into conversations they tend to deviate from their main objectives when met with trivial resistance. This in turn, derails the conversation’s aim and goal. Therefore in trying to remain focused towards the goal of making my brother and his allies accept me as president; I have to focus their thought on the importance of change in leadership. This will be possible if I make them realize that the presidency’s management is the reason why the company failed and as such it’s part to change for us to realize success. In order to maintain the focus on issues I will avoid centering the objective of the talks on the presidency succession and instead focus on the importance of the company’s success. This will avoid partakers thinking of me as an egoistic person. Additionally I will avoid talking about individuals and relationships between the shareholders because it may raise tempers. Similarly, I will avoid talking about in-experience and professional affiliation in order to avoid making the conversation personal. These steps will ensure emotions and tempers do not rise, and as a result, we can discuss sober mindedly. This will in turn create a conducive environment for me to convey my ideas and thoughts.
Plan to listen and talk effectively
In order to create a positive environment that will allow me to talk, I will have to offer the involved parties a chance to talk exhaustively on their ideas. As a result, this will offer me a chance to compare their ideas to mine and in turn come up with what to say. Understanding what they have to say first will allow me to know what to tell them in return. Therefore, in order for me to structure my talk I will have to listen all they have to say first then ask queries later before I talk. While talking, I will provide short period chances to answer any up-coming questions to avoid interruptions in my speech. Despite avoiding inflammatory talks and emotionally sensitive points I will have to put forward my talk in a candid manner to make m y point clear and avoid being misunderstood (“Crucial Conversations”, n.d)
Conclusion and action plans after the conversation
In order to achieve a conclusion and avoid endless talk, I will finally ask everyone to offer their conclusive thoughts after everyone has spoken. Thereafter, I will ask everyone to weigh all conclusions reached and make a vote in the next election without external consultation. This will ensure a free will practice. If the vote shall be in my favor, then that shall be well and good for the company. However, if this shall not be the case, I will have to accept the results and avoid the situation that Patterson (2002) refers to as “when we do not work on me first”. This is because holding the company ransom because I think I deserve the presidency might work towards its undoing. Instead, we will have to accept his leadership and guide him to better performance.
Evaluation of the crucial conversation plan
The crucial conversation plan on company presidency election is a possible success plan, though; it will have some shortcomings in efficiency. A number of the possible shortcomings will dependant on factors that the plan’s schemer cannot control. The outcome of the effect of such factors will be the ultimate determinant of the course of the conversation and decisions reached.The plan to stay focused is properly out-laid but, its success is dependant on the ability of the other conversation partakers to stay focused. If, for example, my brother gets emotional and personalizes the conversation; the definitely it will lose it course and objective. This is one of the possible outcomes that the plan might be unable counter. Therefore, it would be more effective to include plans that involve methods that can be used to bring back focus to a conversation when other engaged members lose it. The plan avoids personalizing the conversation while trying to put forth the company’s success as the major concern of the conversation. However, in trying to do this I have to avoid mentioning issues pertaining to personal professions and expertise. This in turn, may water-down my argument based on the fact that the company’s failure is as a result of incompetence on the current president’s side, which is a party, to the talks. The fact that the other parties may be unwilling to participate in the conversations may render my plan useless. The plan is to be effected if they accept to come to the table for talks. Therefore, the plan lacks a scheme on how to try and draw the involved parties in to the conversation in a free and willing manner through making them appreciate its importance. Therefore, there has to be a motivation plan for the talks (Al Switzler, McMillan, Grenny & Patterson, 2004).
References
Al Switzler, McMillan, R, Grenny, J, Patterson, K. (2004). Crucial Confrontations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishers.
“Crucial Conversations” (n.d). Crucial Conversation: Where are you stuck? That’s where a crucial conversation is waiting. Accessed on 29 April 2010 at http://findarticles.com/p/artcles.
Patterson, K. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Talking tools when stakes are high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishers.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
