GJA's List & Miscellaneous Ramblings
Now, for something totally unrelated to outsourcing.
Like just about everyone these days, I use the Internet in my daily, non-professional life and occasionally, I come across what I think are great sites (and not so great sites) for various reasons.
Below is list of those sites that I can recommend or with which I have major issues:
The opinions regarding these sites are solely mine and based on my personal experiences; you may not agree with my opinion and you should feel free to disagree with me (and start your own website with your preferred list):
GJA’s BLOG
In addition, I will also use this page to BLOG about other business or social encounters that frustrate me in my daily life with the hope of influencing a change in some human behaviours.
July 19, 2011 - Don't Poison the Atmosphere by Your Negotiating Style
I recently finished a deal for a client in 5 weeks, starting from the time we received the proposed new Master Services Agreement right up to the time it was executed. And, the kicker is that both parties were happy with it. (Any IT counsel reading this will probably recognize that 5-weeks is an extremely short time-frame to do a deal between any two parties, let alone two Fortune 500 companies. (Obviously, this begs the question of whether I was too efficient, as some of my counterparts at big firms have often chided me about but, that’s just me: I don’t believe in creating billable hours.)
In previous attempts to put in place an MSA between these parties, they ended up frustrating each other by negotiating too much. Those past negotiations stretched-out over many months and resulted in a legal agreement that both parties used only for very specific work between them. It limited the business that these parties did with each other and both parties hated it.
In the above case, the "bad agreement" was the result of an outside counsel hired by the other side who insisted on grandstanding at the table - with the net result being a lose-lose situation for both parties. Due to this counsel's patently one-sided positions, my client's in-house counsel appeared inflexible because he had to say “NO” to many of these positions.
Look, I have written about this issue in the past - along with several other outsourcing authors - but, some lawyers just can't see the forest for the trees. Well, I won't stop commenting on these situations when I run across them - so that business people learn to distinguish good counsel from bad counsel!
In the case of my negotiation, we did a few things differently. We changed the playing field by insisting on a small group of negotiators for each side - two on ours (my business principal and I) and three for the other side, one of whom was the “boss” of the other two. We also decided, early on, that all of our changes to the client’s proposed form of agreement would be “surgical”. (For those that negotiate legal agreements for a living, you will know that this is much harder and more time-consuming than substituting your preferred language.)
Now, as mentioned above, we ended up getting the MSA done in 5 weeks - and we are still “talking” to each other. In fact, we have arranged a celebratory dinner, which included the negotiators (which is a rarity).
In any event, for those who know me, I am not the self-promoting type and I prefer to let my work do the talking. In this regard, here's the report that a senior executive of my client gave to my instructing in-house counsel about the negotiation
"In particular, I want to extend a very special thanks to George for the tremendous effort he put in to get this MSA done in exactly 5 weeks (to the day) from when we received it from [the target client]. George worked very hard to be extremely responsive at all times and his style at the negotiation table was excellent. When I met with [the Lead Negotiator] ([the target client's] head of global sourcing); she reports to ([the target client's] general counsel), she couldn’t stop saying enough nice things about working with George, his style, his approach to laying out issues, and even his approach to disagreeing with [the Lead Negotiator]! She said George always took the time to explain [my client's] perspectives and he even helped [the Lead Negotiator] at times overcome the concerns she had about language [my client] needed in the agreement."
The net-net is that there is always a reasonable path to getting an reasonable agreement done and it starts by checking your ego at the door (which is difficult for any “Type A” individual - like me - at any given time) and involves good listening skills and “on the fly” solution generation.
As always, I write these blogs to generate debate – so please ping me or call me with any comments or questions.
May 9, 2011 - Beware of Autobahn Auto Salon (in Vaughan, Ontario)
Here is an e-mail I just sent to TMS about my experience with Autobahn Auto Salon (www.autobahnsalon.com) and, in particular, its owner, FRANK DUARTE.
Dear TMS,
I am writing to you to let you know that one of your selected merchants (Autobahn Auto Salon) who donated a gift certificate for the silent auction - for the TMS 50th Anniversary Gala - has reneged on it.
I came from very humble beginnings and have faced great adversity – including ignorance, prejudice, and pre-judgment – to get where I am today by speaking out and taking action in difficult or unpopular situations.
For those who know all the facts of the situation involving Vanessa, Sheree and Kayla Watkins, they know that I had to act for the sake of the 15 other team members, who, regrettably, have been lost in the media frenzy of “Kayla's story.”
And, for those who know me as a person and as a lawyer, they know that I am a direct, fair and principled person - and no “spinning” in the media of my character will ever change that.
Although I am savvy enough to understand that most people form quick-opinions based on what they read in the print media or see on the daily news, I was, nevertheless, surprised by the extent of the ignorance out there. Whatever happened to not judging a person until “you walk a mile in their shoes”?
In any event, as a lawyer, it is second nature to me to question what I read or see and investigate to get to the facts before passing judgment. I can assure you, based on what has been written to me and about me, that this is not the case with most people, even so-called professionals - including the talk show hosts on Toronto morning radio programs.
And, even though the “judgments” and commentary about me have been disproportionately harsh and unfounded, I accept both as a by-product of today's media and the Internet community - in a free and democratic society. I consider this a great lesson in human nature that I can discuss in the years to come with those who are closest to me.
In any event, I would like to make sure to have my side of the story “on the record” (so to speak) now - so that I can look back at this event in my life in the years to come, judge my actions in the situation and revisit the reactions of various critics, the responses of which I have saved as a teaching tool.
First of all, the issue with Kayla Watkins was one of several agenda items to be discussed at a November 14, 2010 parents meeting regarding the state of our hockey team as of that date. (I bet no one really picked up on this point from the print, radio or television media.)
Second, the events leading up to the November 14, 2010 meeting had everything to do with a very poor team manager in Vanessa Watkins, who, by that time, had managed to alienate most of the parents on the team with her negative attitude towards everything. That attitude was also evident in Kayla towards her teammates - a fact that was never explored by the media, because it does not make for a good story.
And, despite Kayla’s portrayal in the media, I think that her former teammates have a different perspective of her, based on their first-hand experience with her. The net-net regarding this team as of November 14, 2010 was that the environment was so bad that many players did not want to play-out the rest of the season because of one player - another fact “ignored” by the media. (In my interview with Robert Cribb, the Toronto Star reporter who first reported this “story”, I advised him of this fact but, he chose to ignore it because, in my view, he had already decided the slant of the “sensational” story that he wanted to write.)
Third, several parents on the team, including me, had approach the coach, Paul Macchia, with our concerns about the team, including the fact that several did not want to play on it anymore. We practically begged the coach to address these issues - as coaching matters - but, he did nothing. Unfortunately, Paul's nature is to “do nothing” and this was (and is) a major part of the problem. And, many think that this should have been the end of the issue – except that “do nothing” in the circumstances was not acceptable. (All Paul had to do was listen to the parents and then say, politely but firmly, that he would make any decisions about Kayla as the coach. The problem is that we got mixed signals: he agreed to shorten the bench on PPs and PKs but, he didn’t – which confused the heck out of us.)
As an aside, during several media call-in shows on December 22 & 23, I heard people debate whether parents are entitled to request a meeting in the context of a Canadian “rep hockey” team. My view is that it all depends on the situation. In the situation of this team as of November 14, 2010, we most certainly did – because the manager and the coach, to whom we raised concerns and issues about the team prior to the meeting, did nothing and the team was splintering apart.
At the time that the meeting with the coach and the manager was requested, there was about 20 games left in the season, which was plenty of time to salvage it - which, by the way, has nothing to do with winning or losing - but, rather, just playing out the season in an environment where the team members actually want to come to the rink, have fun and be together.
After Kayla's departure - this is exactly what has happened. The team, while still struggling in the wins and losses department, is having fun again. (I know that people don’t want to hear this but, I am going to say it anyway: the reason the team is having fun now is because the negative elements on the team have left. It’s that simple. It’s unfortunate that it had to be that way but, yes, it’s that simple.)
As another aside, why didn't Robert Cribb “investigate” the other side of the story - Kayla’s teammates – before publishing “Kayla's Story”. In my view, it is because it would not have made for an interesting or controversial story! In fact, Cribb implied to me in my interview with him on December 20, 2010 that he would do a follow-up on both sides of the story and that he was only rushing to interview me because he had a 5 PM deadline on that day. Well, as everyone knows, the story ran in the Toronto Star on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - which means that Cribb had time to investigate the complete story but chose not to. Cribb claims that he intends to do a follow-up now but, who, in their right mind, would trust his integrity now. In any event, I will leave it to the reader and Cribb's peers to ask “why” he chose to publish half a story.
Fourth, the issue with Kayla had nothing to do with my son - or any other member on this team - complaining about ice time to the coach or my “delusions” about whether my son would make the NHL. (The latter point was particularly funny to me because for those who know me, they know what a realist I am about everything. So, for the more ignorant people out there, let's be clear that the issue with Kayla has nothing to do with “little Johnny not getting enough ice time or getting to the NHL.”) I am not sure how people drew this conclusion but, it may have been from the coach's cryptic quotes in the Toronto Start article regarding which Paul told me: “I feel what [Cribb] wrote does not reflect the way I said it to him.” (Hey Paul, welcome to media interviews and the dissembling that occurs after them! This is why I tape such interviews.)
Fifth, up to November 14, 2010, the team manager, Vanessa Watkins, had organized two parents' meetings during which there was no agenda, nothing was accomplished and no follow-up actions were identified or taken. Many parents, including myself, were upset at the time wasted during these meetings and I suggested that a meeting agenda be drafted for the next meeting.
Now, let's turn to my actual agenda that people are “appalled” about.
Before exploring the specific points on it, there are two things that people should know. First and foremost, it is quite “normal” to draft an agenda to set out the discussion topics for a prospective meeting and to distribute that agenda to meeting participants prior to the meeting. It is absolutely bizarre that the media and the masses took issue with this normal-course action - and it made me realize that the vast majority of people who commented on me and wrote to me about this point are truly, ignorant. (I will discuss the content of the agenda below but, I just can't believe that people were appalled that I actually took the time to draft an agenda for the November 14, 2010 parents meeting. So, I have to ask the painfully obvious and rhetorical question: “Why wouldn't I draft and circulate an agenda of the items that I intended to discuss at a meeting?”)
OK, now let's look at the content.
The first agenda item was “Interim Budget Report”.
This was a budget report request for the period from the beginning of the season to November 2010, which Vanessa Watkins, as team manager, was required to provide. (As parents, we pay a lot of money for our kids to play rep hockey and we are entitled to know where it is being spent.) I had personally requested this from Vanessa at least twice before the November 14 meeting and she had ignored my requests. She finally delivered a “report” at the November 14 meeting. (And, by “report”, I mean a piece of paper with numbers written on it organized in a very poor way. It was, by no means, a typical budget report.)
Many parents, including myself, asked questions about this “report”. In particular, I asked about certain discrepancies between budget revenue and expenditures which Vanessa could not explain at the time of the meeting. (The major discrepancy is that the report seems to indicate that one player had not paid the team fee as of November 14, 2010. To this day, this discrepancy has not been explained.)
We moved on to the second agenda item after Vanessa agreed to follow up. (By the way, she never did follow up.)
As an aside, Vanessa Watkins, as team manager, had fiduciary responsibilities for the budget and remains responsible to explain any discrepancies in it. I followed up with Vanessa after the November 14 meeting but, she left the team shortly thereafter and has not, to date, followed-up with me. If there is a real investigative reporter out there, then, why don't you ask parents about Vanessa Watkins’ “management” of the Downsview Beavers minor PeeWee team in 2009-2010 and some budget issues experienced in that year with this same manager? Then again, the budget discrepancies last year and this year are probably just a coincidence, right? Well, you are entitled to fill in the blanks with the most likely scenario!
The second agenda item was “Hockey Canada Policy Regarding Separate Dressing Rooms for Mixed-Gender Teams Starting at “PeeWee” Level.”
Many of the boys had complained to their parents about several “near misses” in the dressing room where, during the process of taking off their hockey equipment, their boxer shorts had almost come off. This was embarrassing to many of them and they were very uncomfortable about dressing and undressing in front of Kayla.
As more parents discussed the matter, a few of us did some quick research and I wrote to the Manager of Hockey Operations of the GTHL about our situation and he advised me about a rule for this exact situation - starting at the PeeWee level.
The rule is as follows:
HOCKEY CANADA CO-ED DRESSING ROOM POLICY
- The lesser represented gender shall depart the dressing room not more than 15 minutes after the game/practice unless otherwise indicated (to stay longer) by the coaching staff.
- The gender in the majority shall not begin changing, helmets, gloves and skates excepted, prior to the departure of the lesser represented gender.
- When necessary, due to facility limitations, dressing and showering shall be done in shifts with the gender in the majority dressing and showering first. Once the room with shower facilities has been fully vacated the lesser represented gender may use the shower facilities.
It is the belief of Hockey Canada that these provisions adequately address issues of team unity/camaraderie and provide for the modesty/privacy of all participants.
As a courtesy, I approached Vanessa about this rule before the meeting and she told me that she was aware of the rule but that she chose not to enforce it because of Kayla. I was surprised and appalled that she already knew about the rule - but consciously chose her daughter's interest over the interests of the 15 other team members.
I advised her that her decision to hide this rule from the team was wrong and that I would be raising it as a formal agenda item at the next meeting.
The bottom line for me was that Vanessa Watkins was playing fast and loose with the budget and ignoring the OHF and Hockey Canada rule regarding co-ed dressing rooms - because it suited her daughter's interests.
As a parent on this team, this did not sit well with me because there were 15 others on the team who were being ignored. In addition, as a lawyer trained to spot unfair suspicious actions, Vanessa was a giant red flag to me - in so many ways - and I was not going to ignore her for the rest of the season.
The third agenda item was “Kayla Watkins - Player Ability Limitations & Suggested Options”.
This is the “media darling” of issues that people have seized upon to hurl their insults at and pass judgment on me.
Again, I am OK taking the bullet for the team because that's what I have been trained to do in difficult situations but, for those of you who are interested in why this agenda item was on the agenda, please keep reading.
As a lawyer, drafting of agendas is second nature to me, as is clear, concise and to-the-point drafting. Obviously, the media has “spun” my agenda to suit its needs but, the agenda was drafted to the minimum length needed to raise the issues slated for discussion - period. There was no other intent - period.
Any spinning of the words on that Agenda by anyone has been done consciously and in retrospect in order to sensationalize it. (That's a risk that all authors take but, that's why you have to question what you read - especially by some reporters in certain publications. I believe that rational people do question what they read but, many don't and they render “snap-judgments” about the author.)
The net-net is that the media articles that I saw and the clips on the talk shows that I heard only included the “juicy tidbits” of the agenda that make for a controversial story. What most media articles and the reports left out were the following parts of the agenda:
“I recognize that this item is a very difficult topic to list on this agenda and to discuss as a team; however, I also recognize that team morale (kids and parents) is suffering because this situation has not been addressed to date
It is now 14 games into the season and I have noticed that Kayla's play has not improved. It is at the point where many of the team members do not want to play on this team if this situation is not addressed.
I believe that this situation must be addressed immediately - in the best interests of team as a whole - so that we can preserve the balance of the season (about 20 or so games).”
The agenda then goes on to suggest two options regarding Kayla that the coach could implement so that the team could accommodate her playing abilities:
Option 1: Move Kayla to forward and play her on a regular shift but, not on any special teams (i.e. on power plays or penalty kills) - ; until her skating and shooting improves; or
Option 2: Keep Kayla on defense but, play her every other shift but, not on any special teams (i.e. on power plays or penalty kills) - until her skating and shooting improves.
Both of these options were suggested because, in my discussions of the issue with several parents and outsiders (some of whom had coached competitive hockey), they were suggested as acceptable ways to manage a weaker player's abilities.
Obviously, it was up to the coach to consider these options and decide whether to reject them or implement them but, nevertheless, the above options reflected a consensus view of the then-current situation.
The agenda then went on to say that if Kayla was not amenable to these options, “the coach should find Kayla a new team to play on - commensurate to her skill level - for the balance of the season and the manager should be refunded the pro rata portion of the fees she paid for the entire season.”
Unfortunately, at the November 14 meeting, instead of discussing all of the issues at bar in a rational and delicate manner so that the coach could arrive at an action plan, Vanessa Watkins, the team manager, allowed her mother Sheree to attend the meeting and to turn it into a “circus”.
Sheree ranted and raved and called the “boys on the team” (i.e. all of them) “useless”.
Sheree threatened us that she would “spin” this issue into a discrimination issue - which she has done - with the help of the media.
As an aside, has anyone bothered checking with the parents of this team regarding Sheree's comments about the kids on the team (whom she called "useless") and how they felt about Sheree's and Vanessa's behaviour at this meeting?
Therefore, instead of having an adult discussion with the manager and the coach about a difficult and sensitive issue, both allowed the meeting to degenerate into another fiasco.
To top things off, nothing was done or said by the coach after the meeting.
Neither the manager nor the coach issued any communication about the meeting; they simply ignored it. I discussed this with many parents and I said that “I was done” trying to help the situation. (As the saying goes, the rest is history.)
Kayla's “Public Humiliation”
Now let's turn to the “public humiliation” that Kayla says that she suffered.
First, this was very much a private team matter.
The only people that publicized this situation were Kayla's family - and you really have to ask yourself why? Why would a mother or a grandmother parade Kayla out to the media. To me, the reason is clear: because Vanessa and her mother wanted to try to embarrass me, primarily, and the team, secondarily. (I address the former below.)
For anyone who knows Vanessa Watkins, it should be clear that she wanted a final platform on which to stand. She was exposed as a very poor manager of this team and she did not like this - and particularly me - so she used Kayla as a pawn in a public chess match. This was a choice Vanessa made, not me.
Second, (and this is really disturbing to me), the media articles that I read suggested that Kayla had “come across” my agenda when going through her mother's e-mail. Come on, people, even the ignoramuses out there can't be buying that BS.
What kind of a mother allows her 12-year old daughter to read her e-mail and particularly this particular e-mail?
Apart from the fact that I am a lawyer and my e-mail communications are highly confidential (and I protect them as such), I also communicate with my wife and teachers (and other professionals) via e-mail (and by other means) on a confidential basis about sensitive topics involving our kids. I may discuss the issue of the e-mail with my children in an appropriate way if it concerns them but, I don’t let my children read the e-mails. (For example, a teacher may call with an issue at school and express concern about a child’s behaviour and strategies for dealing with it. Would you play the voice mail for your child? Or, would you address the issue of that voice mail with your child in an appropriate way?)
The fact that Vanessa or Sheree Watkins showed Kayla the e-mail should speak volumes about whether either was looking out for the best interests of the child.
As an aside, I think one person who wrote to me commented that I was “blaming the mother” for Kayla reading the agenda. He is absolutely right: I do blame the mother for showing her daughter the agenda. The agenda was an adult agenda and if Vanessa Watkins did not understand that fact, then, she has bigger problems as a mother beyond this issue - and I truly feel sorry for her.
Obviously, the point of the agenda item involving Kayla was for Vanessa Watkins, as team manager, and Paul Macchia, as coach, to address the issue directly with Kayla - in an appropriate manner - but only if their intent was to take action.
On the other hand, if they had decided to say to the parents “Thanks very much for your views but, the decision regarding Kayla's play is a coaching issue and we have decided to keep Kayla on the team “as is”, that would have been fine too (and they would not have had to discuss the situation with Kayla).
This course of action by Paul and Vanessa would have been OK because it would have allowed the balance of the parents to make decisions about the rest of the season with respect to their children: do we play it out, do we try to move, do we leave, etc.
The fact is that nothing was done and nothing was said following the November 14, 2010 meeting. Vanessa and Kayla just didn't show up for the next game and even after that, Paul never addressed the situation in a communication to the team.
We, as parents, learned, indirectly, that Vanessa and Kayla had moved on and that Kayla was playing on another team and that she was, apparently, happy. (By the way, all of the parents that I discussed this with are happy for Kayla (as am I) - because we know it was the right decision.)
Look, based on what I have read in the media, I understand that it is easy for others to judge me or the agenda itself in isolation to make me the “bad guy” but, the fact is that team morale was at a very low point and many of Kayla's team members did not want to play with her any longer. She was negative towards them when they tried to help her - because she had an attitude of entitlement as the “manager's daughter”.
In addition, team members and their parents were speaking about Kayla's play behind her back. For those who know me, they know that I don't like to hide from situations; I confront issues and deal with them directly and openly.
In the context of all of the gossiping that was destroying the team, I did not think it was fair to Kayla - or to the rest of the team - to continue to play out the balance of the season in a dysfunctional environment, which is what this team was up to November 14, 2010.
And so, I requested a meeting and drafted an agenda of the topics to be discussed at that meeting, including proposals for keeping Kayla on the team.
The issue with Kayla has never been about gender or about winning or losing and it is regrettable that Vanessa and Sheree Watkins have used this situation – with the help of the media – as a platform to mask the real issue. Their behaviour was not something anyone could control - and they have to live with their actions.
Of course I am sorry if Kayla actually read the agenda or felt “humiliated”. As a child, she could have been spared all of this if Vanessa and Sheree Watkins had made certain decisions and took off their blinders about her qualifications to play for this team. They are ultimately responsible for Kayla's feelings because one of them chose to share my agenda with Kayla, which neither had permission to do with anyone outside of the team, and especially not with any child.
As an aside, stop for a moment and think about this. If your child was the topic of this Agenda, would you share the agenda with him or her or would you manage the situation and explain the situation in a way that would least hurt your child? I know what I would do but, again, the visceral reaction of the masses is to blame me as the drafter. I understand; I don't agree but, I understand.
Captain's log, Stardate Oct 19, 2010.
I am almost finished with a recent outsourcing deal out West and I can tell you that it just keeps getting worse out there - in terms of the outside, client-side counsel disorganization.
For the collective $2000/hour run rate of this counsel tam on the other side, one would think that it could at least run an orderly negotiation. It has been just the opposite and it has not gone unnoticed by many of my client's senior people.
When my practice slows down, I will get back on the lecture circuit to warn both sides of the table about self-serving counsel and their processes.
Enough said for my first blog.
