IIFT 2019

Read the passage and answer the questions.

A few years ago I was on my boat with one of my employees, a great guy named Keenon; I was supposed to be giving him a pep talk and performance review.
“When I think of what we do, I describe it as uncovering the riptide”, I said.
“Uncovering the riptide,” Keenon said.
“Yes, the idea is that we - you and I and everyone here - have the skills to identify the psychological forces that are pulling us away from shore and use them to get somewhere more productive.”
“Somewhere more productive,” Keenon said.
“Exactly,” I said. “To a place where we can...”
We had talked for about forty-five minutes when my son Brandon, who runs operations for the Black Swan Group, broke out laughing.
“I can’t take it anymore! Don’t you see? Really, Dad, don’t you see ?” I blinked. Did I see what? I asked him.
“All Keenonis doing is mirroring you. And he’s been doing it for almost an hour.”
“Oh,” I said, my face going red as Keenon began to laugh.

He was totally right. Keenon had been playing with me the entire time, using the psychological tool that works most effectively with assertive guys like me: the mirror. Your personal negotiation style - and that of your counterpart - is formed through childhood, schooling, family, culture and a million other factors; by recognizing it you can identify your negotiating strengths and weaknesses (and those of your counterpart) and adjust your mindset and strategies accordingly. Negotiation style is a crucial variable in bargaining. If you don’t know what instinct will tell you or the other side to do in various circumstances, you'll have massive trouble gaming out effective strategies and tactics. You and your counterpart have habits of mind and behaviour, and once you identify them you can leverage them in a strategic manner. Just like Keenon did.

There’s an entire library unto itself of research into the archetypes and behavioural profiles of all the possible people you're bound to meet at the negotiating table. It’s flat-out overwhelming, so much so that it loses its utility. Over the last few years, in an effort primarily led by my son Brandon, we've consolidated and simplified all that research, cross-referencing it with our experiences in the field and the case studies of our business school students, and found that people fall into three broad categories. Some people are Accommodators; others—like me—are basically Assertive; and the rest are data-loving Analysts.

Accommodators think that as long as there is a free-flowing continuous exchange of information, time is being well spent. They will yield a concession to appease or acquiesce and hope the other side reciprocates. The Assertive type believes time is money. For them, getting the solution perfect isn’t as important as getting it done. Assertives are fiery people who love winning above all else, often at the expense of others. Analysts are methodical and diligent. They are not in a big rush. Instead, they believe that as long as they are working toward the best result in a thorough and systematic way, time is of little consequence. Their self-image is linked to minimizing mistakes. Their motto is as much time as it takes to get it right.

A study of American lawyer-negotiators found that 65 percent of attorneys from two major U.S. cities used a cooperative style while only 24 percent were truly assertive. And when these lawyers were graded for effectiveness, more than 75 percent of the effective group came from the cooperative type; only 12 percent were Assertive. So if you’re not Assertive, don’t despair. Blunt assertion is actually counterproductive most of the time.

Remember, your personal negotiating style is not a straitjacket. No one is exclusively one style. Most of us have the capacity to throttle up our non-dominant styles should the situation call for it. But there is one basic truth about a successful bargaining style: To be good, you have to learn to be yourself at the bargaining table. To be great you have to add to your strengths, not replace them.

Read the passage and answer the questions.

Much debate surrounds which kind of political system best achieves a functioning market economy with strong protection for property rights. People in the west tend to associate a representative democracy with a market economic system, strong property rights protection, and economic progress. Building on this, we tend to argue that democracy is good for growth.

However, some totalitarian regimes have fostered a market economy and strong property rights protection and have experienced rapid economic growth. Five of the fastest-growing economies of the past 30 years - China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong- had one thing in common at the start of their economic growth: undemocratic governments. At the same time, countries with stable democratic governments, such as India, experienced sluggish economic growth for long periods. In 1992, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s leader for many years, told an audience, “I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe that a country needs to develop discipline more than democracy. The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conduct which is inimical to development.”

However, those who argue for the value of a totalitarian regime miss an important point: If dictators made countries rich, then much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America should have been growing rapidly during 1960 to 1990, and this was not the case. Only a totalitarian regime that is committed to a market system and strong protection of property rights is capable of promoting economic growth. Also, there is no guarantee that a dictatorship will continue to pursue such progressive policies. Dictators are rarely benevolent. Many are tempted to use the apparatus of the state to further their own private ends, violating property rights and stalling economic growth. Given this, it seems likely that democratic regimes are far more conducive to long-term economic growth than are dictatorships, even benevolent ones. Only in a well-functioning, mature democracy
are property rights truly secure. Nor should we forget Amartya Sen’s arguments where he says that states, by limiting human freedom, also suppress human development and therefore are detrimental to progress.

While it is possible to argue that democracy is not a necessary precondition for a free market economy in which property rights are protected, subsequent economic growth often leads to the establishment of a democratic regime. Several of the fastest-growing Asian economies adopted more democratic governments during the past three decades, including the East Asian economies of South Korea and Taiwan, Thus, although democracy may not always be the cause of initial economic progress, it seems to be one consequence of that progress.

Read the passage and answer the questions.
Japan presents an interesting case study of how culture can influence competitive advantage. Some scholars have argued that the culture of modern Japan lowers the costs of doing business relative to the costs in most Western nations. Japan’s emphasis on group affiliation, loyalty, reciprocal obligations, honesty, and education all boost the competitiveness of Japanese companies. The emphasis on group affiliation and loyalty encourage individuals to identify strongly with the companies in which they work. This tends to foster an ethic of hard work and cooperation between management and labour “for the good of the company.” Similarly, reciprocal obligation and honesty help foster an atmosphere of trust between companies and their suppliers. This encourages them to enter into long-term relationships with each other to work on inventory reduction, quality control, and design - all of which have been lacking in West, where the relationship between a company and its suppliers tends to be a short-term one structured around competitive bidding rather than one based on long-term mutual commitments. In addition, the availability of a pool of highly skilled labor, particularly engineers, has helped Japanese enterprises develop cost-reducing, process innovations that have boosted their productivity. Thus, cultural factors may help explain the success enjoyed by many Japanese businesses in the global market place. Most notably,it has been argued that the rise of Japan as an economic power during the second half of the twentieth century may be in part attributed to the economic consequences of its culture.

It also has been argued that the Japanese culture is less supportive of entrepreneurial activity than, say American society. In many ways entrepreneurial activity is a product of an individualistic mind-set, not a classic characteristic of the Japanese. This may explain why American enterprises, rather than Japanese corporations, dominate industries where entrepreneurship and innovation are highly valued, such as computer software and biotechnology. Of course, obvious and significant exceptions to this generalization exist. Masayoshi Son recognized the potential of software far faster than any of Japan’s corporate giants; set up his company, Soft bank, in 1981; and over the past 30 years has built it into Japan’s top software distributor. Similarly, dynamic entrepreneurial individuals established major Japanese companies such as Sony and  Matsushita. But these examples maybe the exceptions that prove the rule, for as yet there has been no surge in entrepreneurial high-technology enterprises in Japan equivalent to what has occurred in the United States.