Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA (view source)

Revision as of 08:14, 23 February 2024

3 bytes removed , 23 February

→‎Confidence

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,464

edits

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 {{Drop|Y|our form should}} also inspire confidence, not fear, in your own negotiating team. It is a fact of life that negotiators these days have less combat experience and expertise than they once had. To do a good job they must be comfortable with their tools, not scared of them. They should ''understand'' the templates they use and the products they govern. They should go beyond the contract’s formal articulation to grasp the underlying commercial drivers of the relationship.<ref>JC is well aware that, among [[management consultant]]s, this view borders on the heretical.</ref> If they do, they can help you identify the parts of the contract that aren’t achieving what they seem to be.
-A negotiator who [[fear|''fears'']] her material will hide behind the formal rules you give her to manage it. She won’t be drawn to discuss anything live — if she doesn’t understand the form, why would she put her vulnerability on show? — so will hide behind her keyboard, contributing to the familiar experience of electronic trench warfare: she will lob long, bulleted issues lists over no-man’s-land and into the enemy’s advanced positions, or escalate that way internally to risk departments. When they land her missiles — missives? — will hiss and sputter, being passed about for days, before eventually being lobbed back, appended with yet more more bullets and annotated in [[BLOCK CAPITALS]] or a fetching {{Fontcolour|#FF00D4|'''hot pink'''}}. This impasse can go last, as it did in Ypres, for years. You could write [[strange negotiation|war poetry]] about it.
+A negotiator who [[fear|''fears'']] her material will hide behind the formal rules you give her to manage it. She won’t be drawn to discuss anything live — if she doesn’t understand the form, why would she put her vulnerability on show? — so will hide behind her keyboard, contributing to the familiar experience of electronic trench warfare: she will lob long, bulleted issues lists over no-man’s-land and into the enemy’s advanced positions, or escalate that way internally to risk departments. When they land her missiles — missives? — will hiss and sputter, being passed about for days, before eventually being lobbed back, appended with yet more more bullets and annotated in [[BLOCK CAPITALS]] or a fetching {{Fontcolour|#FF00D4|'''hot pink'''}}. This impasse can last, as it did in Ypres, for years. You could write [[strange negotiation|war poetry]] about it.
 Reverence to and intimidation by your own contractual form is madness, of course. While we should not be surprised, in our [[High modernism|high modernist]] times, that our overlords fetishise the [[Substance and form|form over substance]], ''deference'' to a contractual form that is plainly suboptimal is no cause for celebration. A confident negotiating team ''engages'' with the form rather than deferring to it. This is the negotiator’s version of “[[jidoka]]”: the “human touch” that makes the machine sing.