Amidst all the controversies of the Trump administration, we students of negotiations have been given a number of heretofore rare opportunities to observe and analyze actual negotiations that take place in the political world. We have many instances of seeing presidents negotiate in public, but little idea of how negotiations play out when these actors are not on stage. We have recently had the opportunity to compare the public part of a negotiation (“Mexico will pay for the wall”) with the actual negotiation that followed.
On August 4, 2017, The New York Times published the transcript of telephone conversations that took place earlier this year. The first transcript was of a conversation between President Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. President Trump has stated many times in public that Mexico will pay for the wall. This strong public position has a number of purposes, some of which are to “anchor” the negotiation towards an extreme end and also to intimidate an opponent. By being so public with this anchor, the President has signaled his resoluteness, since it is hard to back down from publicly-stated positions without losing face, looking very weak, and causing future extreme anchors to be ignored.
In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Professor Jeffery Born answers questions about his recent research that examines the impact that tweets from President Donald Trump have on a Semi-Strong Form (SSF) Efficient Market.
Q: Which tweets by Trump did you investigate?
A: We focused on tweets by President Donald Trump, which mentioned publicly traded firms (n=10) from the date of his election on November 8, 2016, to his inauguration on January 20, 2017. Fifteen tweets were separated by enough time for the stock market’s response to the information to be considered independent.
Q: Why did you look at these events?
A: In real time, there were many in the press who reported that the President-elect’s tweets were driving the firm’s stock price in a significant fashion. None of the press reports contrasted these movements against the same day movement in broad market averages, nor did the press report how risky the firms were (compared to the broad market). Failing to control for movements in the broad market and risk limits the conclusions one can draw the firm responses.
In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Assistant Professor Keith Smith highlights the importance of strategic survey design and the impact it can have on data-informed decision making.
Quality marketing and management decisions are increasingly driven by the data available to managers. Data is everywhere though, and the volume of data managers have access to has grown to colossal proportions. Furthermore, the quality of that data is often in question. Quality decisions require quality data, and how managers can obtain high quality data from their customers should be forefront in their minds.
Often, customer insights are obtained from customer surveys. Survey research methodology is widely used in marketing, and it is important for both marketing managers and marketing academics to follow stringent guidelines to ensure that meaningful and valid insights are attained.
In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Associate Professor Bert Spector examines President Trump’s recent inaugural cabinet meeting as an example of how leadership personality and meeting style can impact overall organization function.
In the first few minutes of President Donald Trump’s inaugural cabinet meeting, the President seemingly encouraged all participants to, one by one, offer their allegiance, loyalty, and gratefulness for the opportunity to serve his agenda. They used words like, “privileged,” “deeply honored,” and even “blessed.” The President smiled broadly and nodded, and then compared his accomplishments to the monumental first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term in the midst of the Great Depression. It was a bizarre spectacle – a president seeking and receiving adulation from his handpicked top governmental advisors.
But it was more. It was a display– televised for all to see – of how not to construct an effective leadership team to oversee a large, dynamic, complex organization.