Please answer the following at the bottom of the case. Thanks To negotiate whether an employee should be retained or not, the CHRO can design the following line of judgement: Who: Attributes of the person being evaluated, whether they fit in with the core values of the organization or not. What: Skills of the person, i.e., specialized skills that can make a difference to the organization’s revenues should be considered. Where; The geographical region in which they work and whether they are required there or not need to be evaluated. Why: Major cause for retention should be value-addition or potential for continued value addition to the organization. How: Instead of using standard Key Performance Indicators (KPI), customized packages for valuable employees based on their unique contributions to the organization are a good place to start. “KPIs are intrinsically linked to a firm’s strategic goals and are used to help managers assess whether they’re on target as they work towards those goals (John, 2017)”. Since Netflix aims only at retaining A employees, managers at all levels should dedicate time to developing more A employees to keep adding value to the company. As we see, the types of power the CHRO has for instance, with the positional power she can direct the company as per her own methods due to her designation. this power is very crucial as there are no HR policies in place, there must be a central figure who functions as the model figure to direct the HR functions of the company which usually work as per the model HR policies. Then the information power is where the employees coming in can expect to learn and look up to her as she has an in-depth understanding of the processes and clear about the path she wishes to take Netflix towards (Patty, 2014). The Reward power adds to coercive power as Sharon has the power to retain a well performing employee as what is been envisaged by the company and with her power to take disciplinary action against anyone who isn’t performing to the expectations, Sharon can strike the right balance of maintaining the best of talent. Sharon’s people centric approach with her social power helps her exercise the above powers in the negotiation very smoothly as she can identify and select the best employees through negotiation and the incoming employee doesn’t feel out of place. Aiding to all these powers is her charismatic power which makes the employees listen to her, follow her advice or fear her for what she is rather than just her designation and hugely helps during negotiations as her exercising of any power doesn’t come across as being impersonal or arrogant but a necessary action. If an agreement is not reached, the CHRO should look outside for eligible candidates. BATNA stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. “BATNA, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement term was introduced by Roger Fischer and William Ury in 1981. They proposed that, when negotiating a business agreement, we should work out, in the meantime, an alternative solution to the one currently discussed or agreed with the second party to the contract. This approach should secure us against signing an extremely adverse agreement or when the negotiation is unable to reach an acceptable goal by realizing an alternative approach (Seweryn, 2007)”. For this case the employees may choose to move to another organization where their specific skills will be valued more than at Netflix. ZOPA Zone of Possible Agreement for the CHRO is a probably an increase in perks or incentives that a valuable employee demands to stay back. Netflix still seems to be working in a startup mode where the organizational culture is quite dynamic. Here every individual is expected to take ownership of his/her task and work independently for the best of the company and contribute constantly. This of course is how every company wishes of their employees but Netflix when it says it wants only the best of talent they are expecting them to start functioning and contributing from day one with not much emphasis on training or orientation which are usually part of the HR policies. They even seem to be very indifferent of the employees leaving their company. When they say they don’t want to put additional efforts in working with the remaining 3% and giving a chance for them to adjust to the new company and culture and that they would simply remove the people who they feel are not a right fit after hiring, shows their apathy towards humans as employees but just considering them as mere machines to do a task. From what I have gathered so far about this case and the materials involved I have found behind all the organization’s policy decisions lies with Sharon who happens to be the Chief Human Resources Officer. her decision is very important and the company wants to recruit only talented individuals in each department and expect A grade performance from each department they don’t believe that much in HR policies but they prefer to retain employees by negotiation (The Woman Behind the Netflix Culture, 2015). The Company Chief Human Resources Officer Sharon is very talented and good at identifying top performers and talented employees. She does her best to retain talented employees by engaging in a severance negotiation. As discussed in the case, if an employee wants to leave the company, they retain that employee by negotiation. for example, Alice is an asset for the company as she has great knowledge of Excel, Sharon can reward Alice to stay back with Netflix to take advantage of her knowledge. Through negotiation, the company can retain good employees for organizational growth instead of investing in new recruitment and their training. An overview of the case being discussed is as follow; The Company Chief Human Resources Officer Sharon is very talented and good at identifying top performers and talented employees. She does her best to retain talented employees by engaging in a severance negotiation. As discussed in the case, if an employee wants to leave the company, they retain that employee by negotiation. for example, Alice is an asset for the company as she has great knowledge of Excel. According to business dictionary.com, effective negotiation can be defined as bargaining process between two or more parties seeking to discover common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve conflict (Negotiation, n.d). Fisher and Ury point out that, “That a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient, and which improves the parties’ relationship.” The appropriate phrasing can be obtained through four principles of negotiation. There are: Separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than options, generating a variety of options before setting on an agreement and Insisting that the agreement be based on objective criteria (Cutts, n.d). The two case specific negotiating positions that will determine the decision to be made by Alice Jones are: For the case of Alice Jones problem, she might consider ZOPA integrative negotiations. As noted in the description, she is going a 52-week compensation package plus other benefits for the work she is doing. Her problem is relocating her family to where she has gotten the job, but she still has contrasts in the way she is to obtain a better decision. ZOPA integrative negotiations will help her to consider relocating her family to a new geographical location and take care of it using the benefits that she gets within the period of the 52-week assignment. In integrative interests on a certain scenario, let’s say when searching for a job, the recruiting manager can decide to use the negotiation integrative if the two parties qualify for a job. In such a scenario the recruiting manager is supposed to create inscribe other qualifications in the job. In so doing, the parties can now find themselves having to qualify in the two different job descriptions. The objective criteria to be used in measuring distributive elements of the negotiation can be based on the performance or on the best qualified candidate in the competition. Therefore, the best performer or the most qualified candidate will pick in the case in of distributive negotiations (Marzec, n.d). Communication in negotiation focuses on such issues like substantive, offers and counteroffers, procedural issues, the interpersonal negotiation relationship and intangible issues. Overt communication in ZOPA negotiation takes place when: the parties involved lack the skills to make the change, individuals involved in the negotiation are ready changing, and parties involved in the negotiation are conscious. That is, there actions demonstrate their resistance For example, when hearing a proposal from the executive that would be risky from a human resource perspective, overt communication can make someone elicit behaviors in the response like, one not knowing how to adjust to new skills needed for the employees, the employees will be to change with the varying demands in the proposal and the employees will be busy doing their new assignments as assigned directly by the executive. Tacit knowledge is important in different situations including: In innovation, this is an elusive skill. I must experiment my employees if they have skill which is crucial in the advancement of a firm, and train employees through copying the good leadership skills from the best leaders Other examples where tacit communication can occur include incidences like imparting skills of skills, skills in sales, instilling body language of communication to employees, triggering intuition knowledge among employees, creating a sense of humor in employees, and finally train employees on how to use emotional intelligence. It is important to use tacit communication in the above situations because it will not be sufficient to administer through any other type of communication. Using tacit and overt communication is very important to an organization because they both increase employees work output. For example, tacit communication is good in the advancement of firms because of the innovation skills instilled tacitly in the employees. On the other hand, overt communication provides one on one platform for a boss to know how he can improve an employee’s output. However, tacit communication is the best method to employ because it greatly improves overall expansion of the firm with the use of tacit knowledge. Sharon is the head of corporate sustainability. In her meetings, she argues that the use overt and tacit communication leads to a highly motivated, organized, enthusiastic and self-motivated individual. She also adds that, excellent interpersonal skills and the ability to direct, manage, motivate and influence people at all levels, both internally and externally with a comprehensive knowledge of social etiquette and protocol. Sharon has carefully observed the blind spots in the use of tacit and overt knowledge in her negotiations. She has even explained it critically to her audience on how other work benefits like allowances should be spend innovatively to avoid wastage of resources. Alice Jones has also behaved the same way when she finally decides to relocate her family to cut extra expenses of travelling to meet her family on weekly bases. Sharon focuses on avoiding blind spot occurrences in life by insisting that people should strive to know their needs and know how to balance them through provision of alternatives. For example, if two people are looking for a job and then they find that available vacancies are very competitive, then they should be going for training to increase their chances of earning the job. Therefore, in the event they will be called for an interview they will have an upper chance of getting it. The contrast principle, also known as contrast effect can be defined as the situation when one experience two situations or things in succession; one’s perception about the second situation or thing is influenced by the first situation or thing (Cole, 2012). This principle of contrast holds special value in negotiation. If during negotiation, if one party offers several options to the other party to resolve conflict. Amongst these several options the second party perceives that one option is better than other option and agrees to accept it. To create a win-win situation, this contrast principle can contribute in a powerful way. While presenting multiple offers, by increasing the number of odds that one wants out of the negotiation and giving the best option that will create a win-win situation for both parties. Both the parties will select the option that is in best interest for them. Regarding a potential negotiating tactics, they are a few tactics that Sharon will have to avoid during the process “The written word which doesn’t leave room for negotiation, outrageous behavior, and the bait and switch tactic should be avoided (Dolan, 2017)” will help her stay on track and be better prepared. I would recommend Sharon Slade to use in the negotiation meeting with Alice Jones are as follows: Setting the stage for agreement: Before entering a state of negotiation, Sharon should prepare a stage in a manner that the agreement that is in best interest of Alice as well as NETFLIX is reached. For instance, by giving her warning that if Alice will not improve her performance, she will be fired. This will create a perception for Alice that it is better to take up another offer rather than being fired. Authority: Second potential negotiation tactic that Sharon can use in this case is Authority. As Sharon is company’s Chief Human Resources Officer, she can be authoritative while negotiating with Alice. i.e. Being a bit bossy and telling Alice about the effects and side effects of all the options and telling her with authority that which option will be best for her, Sharon can manipulate the thinking of Alice, and make her choose the option that will reach an integrative (win-win) outcome. Both the gambits “Gambits are moves to gain an advantage for negotiators (Kaupins, 2010)” suggested above holds different values. The importance that the mentioned tactics holds are as follows: Setting the stage is important before entering negotiation is important as it creates a likelihood of other party selecting the option that we want them to pick from multiple offers made to them, and Being authoritative creates a sense of perception in other party during negotiation that we are at the ruling position. And hence it is in the best interest of other party to agree to our terms and conditions. Each gambit could increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation session because both the options create the environment where Alice is motivated to choose the option amongst the multiple offers made to her that is in best interest of the company and for her. This rather generates a win-win situation for both the parties. During negotiation, every party in conflict is striving to win and gain the agreement that is in best of their interest. Therefore, to create a win-win situation, is the best way to settle conflict and reach an agreement. All the parties must be satisfied, this is the prime importance of negotiation. Example:The hansei process occurs constantly and consistently. At Toyota, for example, even if a project is successful, there is still a hansei-kai (reflection meeting) to review what went wrong. According to Jeffrey Liker, author of The Toyota Way, if a manager or engineer claims that there were not any problems with the project, he or she will be reminded that there is always room for improvement. In other words, they have not objectively and critically evaluated the project to find opportunities for improvement, or they did not stretch to meet (or exceed) their expected capacity. Please answer the following using the example and case above. Thanks Question: Reflecting on the above case, using the Hansei process and example presented as a guide, Identify two things you would do differently if you were involved in a similar situation at Netflix in the future. Explain your rationale for the items you have identified and what your different approach would be.