Women Don’t Ask. Negotiation and the Gender Divide

Book Author: Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever
Report Author: Jason Howard

Book Summary
When Linda Babcock asked why so many male graduate students were teaching their own courses and most female students were assigned as assistants, her dean said; “More men ask. The women just don’t ask.” It turns out that whether they want higher salaries or more help at home, women often find it hard to ask. Sometimes they don’t know that change is possible – they don’t know they can ask. Sometimes they fear that asking may damage a relationship. And sometimes that don’t ask because they’ve learned that society can react badly to women asserting their own needs and desires.
The goal of this book is to explore the causes of the difference between men and women when it comes to negotiating for one self, using “asking” as a lens through which to examine how women negotiate life in the broadest sense. By looking at the barriers holding women back and the social forces constraining them, Women Don’t Ask shows women how to reframe their interactions and more accurately evaluate their opportunities. It teaches them how to ask for what they want in ways that feel comfortable and possible, taking into account the impact of asking on their relationships. And it teaches all of us how to recognize the ways in which our institutions, child-rearing practices, and unspoken assumptions perpetuate inequalities – inequalitites that are not only fundamentally unfair but also inefficient and economically unsound.
With women’s progress toward full economic and social equality stalled, women’s lives becoming increasingly complex, and the structures of business changing, the ability to negotiate is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Drawing on research in psychology, sociology, economics, and organizational behavior as well as dozens of interviews with men and women from all walks of life, Women Don’t Ask is the first book to identify the dramatic difference between men and women in their propensity to negotiate for what they want. This book tells women how to ask, and why they should.

Major Points Made By Author
Chapter 1 – Opportunity Doesn’t Always Knock
Are women asking less than men?
More women than ever participating in the workforce (76.8% of women 25 to 54 worked outside the home in 2000 vs. 64% in 1980) Likewise 38% vs. 22% in 1978 are self-employed
Women don’t ask, even when they know they should
Studies conducted by the authors and other institutions show starting salaries for students from Carnegie Mellon (male 7.6% higher than female salaries) Only 7% of female students negotiated and 57% of male students negotiated, even though all students were taught and told they should be negotiating.
Women are trained from birth that they should not ask or negotiate
Women believe more than men that they should work hard and their efforts will be recognized and they will be rewarded with what they deserve.
Is it necessarily a problem?
Equally qualified 22-yr. Old man and woman receive offer for $25K/yr. But man negotiates to $30K. Each receives 3% annual raise (which is unlikely given their differences in propensity to negotiate) by the time they reach 60, the gap will be more than $15K per year ($92K to 76K). With extra earnings over 38 yrs and a 3% compound interest rate, the man would have $568K more than the woman.
Molehills become mountains = negotiate
It’s becomes more than just about the money – the more we make, the more opportunity comes our way because society places value on the amount we make as a symbol of how successful we are and can be
Studies performed by the authors showed that women see fewer opportunities that are adaptable than men (i.e., turnips vs. oysters.)

Chapter 2 - A Price Higher Than Rubies
Reference Set Needs To Change
Women reference other women, and therefore don’t see that they are actually behind. They need to broaden their reference set and research both men and women (add both to their consideration sets) when looking to negotiate. Even though women are still paid less than men, they still feel as satisfied about what they are getting paid as men are.
Women expect less, primarily because they are not sure how to properly assess the work they are performing because they have been childcare providers and in other professions that have not had a lot of formal assessments.
Women, and anyone for that matter can get more for their situation when they question their low sense of entitlement, research appropriate goals, and get the kinds of support they need to ask for what they deserve.

Chapter 3 – Nice Girls Don’t Ask
Sociological and psychological reasons for why we stick to gender norms. Men are seen by society as needing to be assertive, dominant, decisive, ambitious, self-oriented. Women are seen as needing to be warm, expressive, nurturing, emotional.

Chapter 4 – Scaring the Boys
Society’s double standard for judging the effectiveness of men vs. the effectiveness of women.
How big a problem is women’s overly tough behavior? Are women scary when they are assertive and is this a double standard?
For women who want to influence other people, they need to be seen as likeable – their influence is also clinically proven to increase as their likeability increases.
How should women react; 1) Start their own businesses, 2) Women working in male dominated businesses and/or industries should try everything in their power to reduce their token status by recruiting other women into their fields and firms, working to build networks with other women, and helping women rise to higher levels within the organization, and 3) Choose wisely by seeking out firms where women are already doing what they want to do (environments where women are about 15%+ of the higher level workforce.)

Chapter 5 – Fear of Asking
Women clinically have a higher fear of negotiating, and an even higher fear of negotiating for themselves. Many women are seen as tough bargainers and strong negotiators for their companies. However, when it comes to negotiating for themselves, it becomes personal and they are less likely and less willing to negotiate.

Chapter 6 – Low Goals and Safe Targets
While we can point to sociological and historical reasons why women come up short economically and socially, negoatiation and negotiation skills also play a key role. Not only are women less likely to ask for what they want, but when they do they usually come away with less than men when they do decide to negotiate.
Example of Ivy League graduates negotiating salaries, men statistically proven to be able to negotiate a 4.3% higher salary vs. women accomplishing only a 2.7% higher wage, or a 59% difference in payout. Again, as before, over time this discrepancy, if carried out until retirement and with a 3% compound interest rate equates to a $2.1M gap.
The problem is that women are prone to asking for too little and concede too much or too soon. This comes from a lack of confidence in their negotiating abilities.
Goals, Goals, Goals
The way to correct this is by first establishing targets/goals before you negotiate. People who go into negotiations with more ambitious targets tend to get more out of the negotiation than those that don’t. This is because higher targets influence the first offer a person makes in a negotiation and they influence how quickly or slowly a person concedes from his or her own opening position.
The Power Of Optimism
Research shows women tend to think the pie is smaller than men and that men go into a negotiation estimating their piece to be a lot larger. There has not been a lot of research in this area, but what is known is that men tend to have a lower perception of risk than women when going into a negotiation and therefore feel that they have less to lose by thinking bigger.
The Power of Information
A woman’s lack of optimism can lead a woman to determine her own fate before a negotiation even begins – by not thinking the available pie is substantially large, she is less willing to get the information and references necessary to effectively negotiate a larger position.
Increasing Control
Aggressive goal setting when entering a negotiation has been found to be one of the fastest and most effective ways for people of any gender to increase their negotiating effectiveness. While this will undoubtedly help, for women, this may or may not raise their performance in a negotiation. The reason is that male managers are prone to entering a negotiation with a woman with a lower starting point and will also refuse to negotiate with women. Men will also not concede as much to a woman as they will to a fellow man and take for granted that the woman will most likely settle for less.

Chapter 7 – Just So Much And No More
Negotiations do not take place in a vacuum and as discussed above, gender norms play a very large part of how negotiations play out. It has been researched extensively how sales people will quote higher prices to women (and African Americans) than to white males.
In terms of influence networks, male “informational and influence” networks are setup mostly of men while women have more well rounded networks made up of both men and women.
In terms of networking and networks, it has been found that while both men and women gain from their strong networks, men gain considerably more from their weak networks than women and minorities from their weak networks.
A couple of things going against women in terms of their influencer networks are; 1) Men feel they need to explain everything around a woman’s successes and qualifications when referring her to someone else and will often decide to take the easier route when referring a male, and 2) Women tend to find themselves in a “structural hole” or a hole in which they associate more with those around them, making it difficult to bridge the gap to more influential and powerful players in the network.
One additional theory that abounds is that it is more acceptable for a man to use his network than it is for a women. For men, this is seen as being resourceful while it is seen as manipulative for women.
Women need to strive to move themselves into a position of political or informational power in order to break the bonds and to develop the necessary strong networks.

Chapter 8 – The Female Advantage
Women do have some advantages that can outshine men on negotiations, specifically as women focus more on integrative/cooperative negotiation techniques and relationship building. These can be a huge advantage when putting together more long term, difficult, strategic partnerships whereas men have an aggressive style that is better suited for the shorter term deals.
Where this breaks down is when a woman comes up against a very difficult negotiator using the competitive win/lose mentality. Unless a woman is skilled at principled negotiation and Negotiation jiu jitsu (Getting To Yes), she will be vulnerable and left frustrated from the experience.

How Are Major Points Applicable To Self

• Be very happy I am a man.
• Look for ways to reward star female employees so they feel appreciated and stick with the organization vs. losing them.
• Put in review processes and evaluation structures that lead to subjective performance reviews where women are treated as fairly as possible.
• Be open and honest with female coworkers and don’t do anything that goes against Title VII (where women are protected against being told they need to go get sensitivity training and/or wear more make-up and become softer.)
• Continuously focus on setting high goals and expectations when going into any negotiation.
• Develop and nurture an informational/influencer network, even if it includes weak and infrequent associations.
• Be careful to spot the political/informational networks women are building in order to increase their importance and influence. As such, where possible and beneficial, help them build such positional power. And, where not beneficial to the greater good of the organization dissipate the political power building.
• Successful women negotiators approach negotiations with the “Getting To Yes” approach – this approach therefore can work well in all situations, but especially when dealing with a female on the other side of the table.

How Are Major Points Applicable To Group

• Be very happy we are men.
• Put in review processes and evaluation structures that lead to subjective performance reviews where women are treated as fairly as possible.
• Be open and honest with female coworkers and don’t do anything that goes against Title VII where women protected against being told they need to go get sensitivity training and/or wear more make-up and become softer.
• Staff negotiations with men until you can put your female employees through rigorous negotiation training that has them raise their sights and goal setting.
• Be careful to spot the political/informational networks women are building in order to increase their importance and influence. As such, where possible and beneficial, help them build such positional power. And, where not beneficial to the greater good of the organization dissipate the political power building.

Recommended Other Readings

• Get Paid What You’re Worth, Robin Pinkley and Gregory Northcraft
• The Economic Emergence Of Women, B. Bergmann, 1986
• The Perception Of Risk, P. Slovic, 2000

The Effective Executive

Book Author: Peter F. Drucker
Report Author: Johnnie Young

Book Summary
In the course of seven chapters, Drucker presents the definition of what effectiveness is, who the executives are within any organization, how to become effective executives, what executives do to demonstrate effectiveness, and what is expected of executives by the organization. He uses situations and executives from a cross-section of various organizations and businesses, to include the medical field, government, and the military, to present argument to fortify his main points. In his conclusion, the author reiterates the process of how to achieve effectiveness and how to be an effective executive. I do not have critical counter argument to present against any of the points presented by Drucker in this book.

Major Points Made By Author

-Effectiveness can be learned
--Effective: “get the right things done”
--Executives in the organization are expected to be effective
--Imagination, knowledge, and intelligence contribute little to being effective.
--Why do we need effective executives?
---Use knowledge, skill, theory and concept, rather than physical force or manual skill to contribute to the organization.
---Add to the bottom line
--Who is an executive?
--Knowledge workers, managers or individual professionals, responsible for actions and decisions which are meant to contribute to the performance capacity of the organization.
--Not just at the top – but all echelons of the organization
--Four major realities over which executives essentially have no control
---His/her time – it belongs to everyone else
---Executives are forced to keep on operating unless they take positive action to change the reality in which they live and work
----Unless he/she changes it by deliberate action, the flow of events will determine what he/she is concerned with and what he does.
---Executives are within an organization.
----Effectiveness occurs when other people make use of what he/she contributes
----Forced in the direction of ineffectiveness
---Executives are within an organization
----Organization is an abstraction
----Effectively, the results occur outside the organization (business) with the customer
---Promise (benefits) of effectiveness
----Only area where hope exists to raise the level of executive performance, achievement, and satisfaction
----No such thing as “effective personality”
----Not dependant upon intellect, imagination or knowledge
----The only way to become effective is through learning
----Effectiveness is a habit learned through practice
----Five essential mind practices (habits) that need to be acquired to be an effective executive:
1. Know where your time goes
2. Focus on outward contribution
3. Build on your own strength, the strengths of others and the strengths of the situation
4. Concentrate on the few major areas where superior performance will produce outstanding results
5. Make effective decisions

-Know Thy Time (Know where your time goes)
--Effective executives attempt to manage their time and cut back on unproductive demands and consolidate “discretionary” time into the largest possible continuing units through a three-step process:
---Record time
----Keep logs to track time
---Manage time
----ID and eliminate things that need not be done at all
----Delegate tasks
----Don’t waste other people’s time
----Eliminate time wasters
---Consolidate discretionary time
--Time is the most limited resource
--Most of an executive’s time is spent on things that don’t contribute to the organization
--Relationships (customers, superiors, staff, peers) require huge amounts of time
--The higher your are in the organization, the greater the demand on your time
--To be effective, time should be disposed of in fairly large chunks (several hours)
--Most people are time-wasters (hence most people must be ineffective)
--Effective decisions require time

-What can I contribute?
--Effective executives focus on the contributions that they can make that will significantly affect the performance of the organization.
--Requires commitment to the organization and takes focus off of self
--Commitment to contribution satisfies organizational needs in three areas
---Direct results
----Economic: sales and profits
---Builds and reaffirms organizational values
---Builds and develops people for tomorrow
--Focus on contribution supplies the four basic requirements of effective human relations:
---Communications
---Teamwork
---Self-development
---Development of others

-Making Strength Productive
--Strength is the building block of performance
--Build on all the available strengths
--Strengths of associates
--Strengths of superiors
--One’s own strengths

-First Things First
--Concentration is the “secret” of effectiveness
--Effective executives do first things first and they do one thing at a time
--Prune yesterday’s successes to keep them from draining the organization
--Set priorities and employ self-discipline and flexibility

-The Elements of Decision-Making
--Only executives make decisions
--Effective executives make effective decisions
--Effective executives do not make a great many decisions – they concentrate only on the important ones
--Effective executives are not overly impressed with speed in decision-making
--Decisions must become work in order to be a decision
--Elements of the decision process
---Clear realization that the problem was generic and could only be solved through a decision which established a rule or principle
---Boundary conditions (definition of the specifications which the answer to the problem had to satisfy)
---Thinking through what is “right” (the solution which will fully satisfy the specifications with giving attention to compromise, adaptation, or concession)
---Action to carry out the decision
---Feedback to test decision validity and effectiveness

-Effective Decisions
--A decision is judgment of the best choice between almost right and probably wrong
--Effective executives start with opinions (unproved hypothesis) rather than facts to make effective decisions
--Thinks through the situation to determine what needs to be looked at, studied and tested
--Asks the critical question “What is the criterion of relevance?”
--Uses feedback to find the appropriate measurement before the decision is made – a risk-taking judgment
--First rule of decision-making: don’t make a decision unless there is a disagreement
--Reasons for disagreement: 1)safeguards against becoming a prisoner of the organization; 2)provides alternatives to a decision; and 3)stimulates the imagination
--The effective executive is first concerned with understanding rather than who is right or wrong
--Decision-making cannot be confined to a small group at the top

-Conclusion
--The author presented this book to be based upon two premises
---It is the executive’s job to be effective
---Effectiveness can be learned

How Are Major Points Applicable To Group

• Defines us as executives and provides explanation of what being effective executives really mean and what it requires in terms of self-discipline, self-development, contributions, and time management.


• Effective executives take advantage of individual strengths to build strong teams


• Sets the expectations for what will happen as we move up the corporate ladder

Recommended Other Readings

• The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People – Steven Covey


• Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done – Larry Bossidy/Ram Charan

Taken For a Ride: How Daimler-Benz Drove Off with Chrysler

Book Author: Bill Vlassic and Bradley A. Stertz
Report Author: Aaron Bartels

Book Summary
In April 1995, Kirk Kerkorian (Billionaire investor) and Lee Iacocca (former Chrysler CEO) tried to lead a leveraged buyout of Chrysler Corporation at $55/share for a stock trading at $40/share. Kerkorian thought he had Eaton (Chrysler’s CEO) and Chrysler management’s support. But the board responded stating that the company was not for sale. The company pursued an aggressive defensive strategy to prevent Kerkorian’s offer from gaining any traction by leading a PR campaign against Kerkorian, using its leverage with financial institutions to refuse to do business in the future with any bank that backed Kerkorian and listening to what Werner (CEO of Mercedes Benz) had to say about a joint venture to accelerate the international expansion of each company. Werner smelled an opportunity with the Kerkorian incident and felt the longer it drug on, the better the chance Chrysler would do something out of desperation. But Werner failed to engage Schrempp (Daimler-Benz CEO) who squashed the idea when he heard about it. With Mercedes out of the picture, Chrysler struck a deal with Kerkorian. Chrysler gave Kerkorian one board seat, agreed to buy back $2B in stock in 1996, $1B in 1997, and agreed to pay Iacocca ½ the amount due for options which were rescinded when Iacocca joined forces with Kerkorian a violation of his exit package with Chrysler. In exchange, Kerkorian agreed to not buy any more Chrysler stock, not start a proxy war, and not to say a single bad word about Chrysler to the press for a period of 5 years.
In mid 1997, automotive industry studies showed that at current rates, overcapacity in five years would be equivalent to 6 Chrysler companies. Therefore, the industry was primed for a race toward consolidation. In 1996, Schrempp successfully lead the integration of Mercedes into Daimler and had ousted Werner. With complete control over Daimler and Mercedes, Schrempp had determined Daimler was ready to pursue merger partners and that Chrysler was the best available partner. Based on what happened with Kerkorian, Schrempp knew the first contract would need to be friendly. York and Kerkorian had noticed that European automotive companies were trading at a multiple much higher than American companies. Diamler Benz kept jumping out to them as an opportunity for Chrysler to deliver value to its shareholders. York and Kerkorian took the idea to Eaton.
At the 1998 North American auto show, Chrysler was clearly off its game. In past auto shows, Chrysler had been the class of the field. But in 1998, it was clear that European companies like BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes had all the good stuff. Schrempp first reached out to Eaton at the 1998 North American auto show about a possible merger of equals. Chrysler made it clear at the beginning that the following points were non negotiable – the management team would be made up of executives of both Chrysler and Daimler and Chrysler shareholders would receive a premium over the current value of the stock price. Schrempp required the merged company be a German entity and slyly dodged discussions of the name until the end of the negotiation. Germans had a way of not commenting on negotiation points giving the Americans the impression that they had silently agreed to the point. But the Germans would re-surface the point when the time was right for them to get their way, frustrating the Americans by resurfacing points they thought had been agreed to. After months of work by many members of each team, Eaton and Schrempp one-on-one worked out the details of the final negotiation points with a calculator. The market reacted very favorably to the deal when finally announced, with the stock jumping 30% in the first few months.
Eaton made huge strategic mistake at the announcement of the deal when he stated he would step down first as CEO once the merger was complete. This immediately turned him into a lame duck and gave Schrempp and the German team an upper hand in all merger works going forward. The merger of equals quickly turned into the Schrempp takeover show as the Germans and their methodical approach to preparation, took the upper hand over the Americans in every aspect of the deal. The Americans were under prepared, outnumbered and clearly out of their element. Schrempp and the Germans were always a step ahead, planning their next move, while everyone else was still trying to figure out the last one. With the six hour time difference, the Germans were finishing lunch when the Americans were arriving at work making Stuttgart seem like it was always ahead of Auburn Hills. When speaking in public, Eaton typically spoke first about general broad issues about the economy and global integration while Schrempp would speak second talking about Daimler Chrysler hard issues, strategy, and making comments on the company’s performance outlook.
The six month earnings announcement by Daimler Chrysler was not what the analyst were expecting. The stock dropped almost 40% from its highs a few months earlier. The American’s were not only overwhelmed with the overpowering Germans, but were having to deal with succession planning at CEO (from Eaton to Stallkamp to Holden) and a economy that turned very weak in 2000. Holden did not last long as CEO as the Germans refused to accept that the 2001 economy, not Chrysler would drive Chrysler’s 2001 earnings. With Holden, out, a German, Zetsche was brought in to finally give Schrempp the control he wanted over Chrysler.
The euphoria of the Daimler Chrysler deal never materialized. In the end, it simply bound two companies into one and in the end gave the Germans control over an American icon.

Major Points Made By Author

• The Perfect Storm – There’s only one way to survive the perfect storm. Don’t go there! Don’t be at that place in the ocean where the three storms come together. Think ahead. Heed the warning. Be somewhere else.
• Know who you do business with – Eaton and the Chrysler executives/shareholders never knew what Schrempp and Daimler-Benz true intentions with Chrysler were. Schrempp – “Me being a chess player, I don’t normally talk about the second or third move. The structure we have now with Chrysler was always the structure I wanted. We had to go a roundabout way, but it had to be done for psychological reasons. If I had done and said Chrysler would be a division, everybody on their side would have said: ‘There is no way we’ll do a deal.’ But it’s precisely what I wanted to do. From the start structure, we have moved to what we have today”.
• Preparation, Hard Work and Vision Matter - There is no substitute to preparation, hard work and having a vision of where want to go. The Daimler executives and the Germans bullied around the Chrysler executives and the Americans. The Germans worked together as a team, were always more prepared and rehearsed. The Americans worked independently per their own agendas, and were often walking in on German meetings already taking place. The Germans acted like they were in control and were.
• Don’t Underestimate the Political Environment - When trying to get initiatives accomplished in corporate environments, it often matters more who owns the idea, how engaged they are in the idea development process, and what the idea means to their future, not necessarily how much merit the idea may have for the company’s future. When Werner engaged Chrysler about a joint venture in 1995 without engaging Schrempp, Schrempp squashed it, tearing the deal apart point by point. However, when Schrempp decided to purse Chrysler 2 years later, it was a great idea. The difference between the deals is what was in each for Schrempp. Had Werner gone forward with the deal with Mercedes, Schrempp would have lost power as CEO of Daimler. With Werner out of the way, Schrempp had sole control over Daimler Benz and had the opportunity to build his empire by acquiring Chrysler.
• When negotiating, whoever lays the ground rules, sets the stage for the rest of the discussions. Ground rules can be biased toward one side and can therefore shift the balance of power. The Germans set the field for the negotiations with the Americans over Chrysler and took control of the discussions from the start.
• Don’t reveal your hand too early in the process. Eaton announced he would step down as joint CEO of Daimler Chrysler as soon as the merger was complete. This announcement gave Schrempp all the power and control through the integration of the companies.

How Are Major Points Applicable To Self

• Have a plan on where you want to go
• There is no substitute to being prepared. Which every party is best prepared will typically win
• Remember Kotter’s 8 steps when tackling change projects
• Remember to consider the political scene
• Know/watch your partners, but know/watch your enemies even closer
• When it comes time to make a deal, the fewer participants, the more progress that can be made.
• At the end of the day, a deal really boils down to a couple key points. The sooner these can be set out on the table, the sooner have a chance to make the deal happen.

How Are Major Points Applicable To Group

• See Above

Recommended Other Readings

• The Perfect Storm

A Civil Action

Book Author: Jonathan Harr
Report Author: Greg Alexander

Book Summary
A Civil Action is a true story of an epic courtroom showdown. Two of the nation’s largest corporation’s stand accused of causing the deaths of children. Representing the bereaved parents, the unlikeliest of heroes emerges: a young, flamboyant Porsche-driving lawyer who hopes to win millions of dollars and ends up nearly losing everything-including his sanity.
A Civil Action is the searing, compelling tale of a legal system gone awry- one in which greed and power fight an unending struggle against justice. Yet it is also the story of how one man can ultimately make a difference.

Major Points Made By Author
The author makes several points in the book about the inner working of our legal system and in essence this is what the book is about. For example, personal injury lawyers are basically commission based sales people which is something I did not know prior to reading the book. They accept cases or decline them based in whether they think they can get a settlement out of the defendant. They prepared the case, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions, of which they put up themselves, and strike a deal with their client that says if they win they get 30-40% of the settlement plus expenses. These lawyers have a very high risk tolerance and take on cases at great personal risk. Another example of the inner workings of our legal system is that the companies being sued pursue a time strategy. This means they realize the lawyers are assuming the costs to pursuer the case and make some judgments on when they think the firm will run out of money. After they have a time frame in mind they go about a legal strategy to push everything to that time limit in hopes the lawyers just simply can not go on and either walk away of accept a very small settlement just to recover some of the expenses.

The book was highlighted by Fortune in the negotiations section of our list because in essence the entire legal profession, at least the civil portion of it, is one giant negotiation. Each party pursues information to better their negotiation stance and create leverage over their opponent to extract a maximum outcome. They use the other players in the legal process as pawns to this end. Judges, jurors, key witnesses, expert witnesses, legal clerks, clients, scientific researcher, etc are really only there for one thing and that is to help build the negotiation position of either side.

The pursuit of the truth does not happen. It is the pursuit of the settlement of lack there of that is the driving factor.

How Are Major Points Applicable To Self
There are several points made in the book while telling the story that really struck me. Not in any order of importance they are as follows:

• Risk and reward are directly correlated in every part of life. The main character in the book Jan Schlichtmann, was/is an extremely wealthy lawyer who earned every dime he ever made by taking on huge risks. His story was one of life in corporate America with a safe job, safe income, and an otherwise normal existence. This was not satisfactory for Jan or his group of associates. Yet, what separated Jan was his courage to take on the risk and go after what he wanted which was wealth while doing good. In his view, anything other than that was simple getting by and a waste of a life. This is applicable to me in that I need to get a better understanding of my risk/reward ratio and make sure that I am being true to it. I think a lot of people wish for things but never actually think through what it will take to get them and answer the question of what are they willing to risk to obtain it.
• Success can not be had unless 1,000% of a person is committed to obtaining it. In the story Jan had many contemporaries who had achieved a level of success that was significant but anywhere near what Jan had achieved. The difference was that other lawyers spread their risk across many cases and played the odds. They figured out the financial ratios of winning and loosing some cases and matched their expenses to it, always coming out ahead. Jan did not do that. He took three cases per year and would work exclusively on one case at a time not moving on to another case until the current case is settled. An all or nothing position. This is why he never lost a single case. He did not play the odds. He bet the farm on one deal at a time. Quote:” Being in trial, Schlichtmann once said is like being submerged in deep water for weeks at a time. The world above became a faint echo. War, scandal, and natural disaster may occur, but none of it seems to matter. The details of the case occupy every waking hour and usually intrude into dreams as well.” The great success stories whether in business, sports, politics, religion, etc. all have this in common. The person in pursuit of their dreams achieves them because their entire life is consumed with this singular focus. Everything else is removed and rendered insignificant.
• Big stakes are the only thing worth going after. If you believe in the two previous points, risk/reward ratio and singular focus, and are willing to live this way then it better be for game changing results. Why would one risk so much and live so dedicated for an incremental gain? The main character applied his unique legal approach to billion dollar cases with the greatest potential. I think people, me included, spend considerable time pursuing incremental improvement in life. This is a waste of time. The one commodity we all have a definitive amount of is time. We are all born, grow, mature, and die. There is no getting around this. How we use the few precious moments we have here on this earth determines the progress made? It take just as much time and effort to go after incremental gain as it does for revolutionary gain. Therefore, logically, it make zero sense to pursue incremental gain. I never really looked at it this way until I read this book.
• The only true way to measure whether or not the payoff is a big enough stakes is to measure how absurd the general view of it is. Each profession, society, family, or whatever has some kind of herd mentality. For some reason, over the years, conventional wisdom was developed and it has become understood by all that pursuit of something inside of the conventional wisdom make sense. However, things inside of the conventional wisdom are almost always incremental gains. They do not concern themselves with big stakes. Jan used as a gauge on what cases to take how many people he spoke to about it that told him he could not win. In looking at a case, if enough people told him now way and recommended running from it then he took it. If when looking at a case the majority of the people he spoke to suggested taking it and could offer views on how to win it then he passed. He believed the sure thing was an incremental gain and he was not after the incremental gain. The best things in life are those hardest to get. He wanted the very best life could offer and realized he could only get them by taking on the hardest possible cases with the lowest odds of victory.
• Game theory in negotiations works best if you follow the four points above. Take big risks, commit yourself 100% to them, big stakes make the fight worth it, and be a contrarian and don’t follow the herd. This allows for the exercising of the number one tactic in game theory, unpredictability. According to the game theorist, the more unpredictable you can be the better and I agree all the way. In A CIVIL ACTION the main character was a game theory master. The corporations he went after could not understand why he would take a case, could not believe it was his only case and he bet the farm on it, and that this approach flew in the face of conventional wisdom. This made him very dangerous but no one could understand him. He was unpredictable before they even met him. This dramatically improved his negotiation position and I believe in some of the cases he won prior to even showing up. The corporations where scared to death.
  

How Are Major Points Applicable To Group

• My recommendations for the group would follow the recommendations I have made for myself above. First, I would calculate the risk/reward ratio you have for yourself. I would ask yourself the following questions: how much of my net worth am I willing to risk, how long can I go without a paycheck, am I willing to dramatically reduce my life style if I had to, can my relationships withstand the massive strain something like this might put on them, how much do I care about what people in my life think about my decisions, am I the kind of person who before jumping into something I need to have a plan b, am I willing to start all over again if I fail?
• Second, have I calculated and fully understand the differences between incremental gain and game changing gain? Do I understand that the amount of time needed for both is roughly the same? Am I pursuing something that if I achieve it results in a truly worthwhile life changing effect? Are the stakes big enough considering the risks I am willing to take?
• Third, I would try and figure out what 100% commitment meant to me. It means different things for different people. According to our protagonist in A CIVIL ACTION it means only one things and that is complete submergence. Everything else in life does not matter. Singular focus taken to the point of dysfunctional. Personally, I have been there before, particularly during the late 1990’s at EMC. Health, fun, friends, family, etc all took a back seat to maximizing what I thought to be a once in a life time opportunity. This involved 7 days work weeks for a few years. This period of my life changed my course forever and looking back on it with the benefit of hindsight I am glad I did it. To me, the pay off was worth it. I emerged from it with a reward in proportion to the sacrifice. Would I do it again? I am honestly not sure. I think so if it thought the reward was worth it. However, I truly believe that unless 100% commitment I put into something then success will not be had. My recommendation is to figure out what 100% commitment means to you.
• Fourth, take an inventory if you are following the herd and playing by conventional wisdoms rules. If you are, then incremental gain is all you will ever receive. Revolutionary gain only comes from swimming against the current, taking a hard right when everyone else if going left, buying when others are selling and selling when others are buying, etc. Being unpredictable with yourself and those around you in most situations is a great strategy.

Recommended Other Readings
The subject of this section of the list is negotiations. The best book on this subject I have ever read is “YOU CAN NEGOTIATE ANYTHING “by Herb Cohen. It was written several years ago, is short, and its lessons are implementable. According to Herb, the three critical inputs in any negotiation are power, time, and information. Who has the perceived power and how can this be changed? Who has better information? Who is under what time pressure and what are the consequences? This is a must read for anyone interested in becoming a better negotiator.