Improve Your Web Income

PQ Profiles for two separate companies, Company A (PQ = 110) and Company B (PQ = 83.5), are shown in Figure 5. Note that the companies’ average partnering quotient is 96.75 (180 is highest; 30 is lowest).

Given the significantly higher partnering quotient of Company A over Company B (26.5 points higher), coupled with their shared inability to trust, the two companies will have to take a number of steps to increase the likelihood of their partnering success. Given that both companies have relatively higher scores on Self-Disclosure and Feedback, they may want to hold a facilitated meeting to discuss issues, concerns, and strategies to address the issues indicated by the
disparate scores on the other attributes.

The two widest gaps between their profiles are in Win-Win Orientation and Comfort with Interdependence. The two companies may want to start by discussing what each means by “win-win” and “interdependence” so they can then put a plan into place to demonstrate those behaviors to each other, resulting in an increase in their ability to trust each other. By getting a clearer understanding of exactly how Company B feels that it will “lose” as well as how it will “win” in the partnership, the two companies could significantly improve the overall sense of mutual gain for both parties—not just Company A. The gap between their scores on Comfort with Interdependence also needs to be better understood. Company B tends to be more comfortable operating independently. This could cause some potential issues down the road when agreements are made and broken because the people at Company B chose to do it “their way.”This can cause mistrust and create win-lose outcomes in conflict resolution and problem solving.

In terms of Future Orientation, there is the potential for conflict between Chris and Janice. Chris is very traditional in her approach to problem solving and planning for the future, preferring to use past experience as a benchmark for future behavior. Janice meanwhile is more future oriented and would want to explore and try new ways of solving tasks or accomplishing goals. Since Chris’s orientation is based on past experiences, trying new approaches would probably make her uncomfortable and somewhat resistant to setting up opportunity for conflict. However, when it comes to making change, both Chris and Janice are uncomfortable with it. The other three team members are close to each other on Future Orientation and will have a more balanced approach to dealing with issues and may combine both past experience and innovative ideas to solve problems or plan for future events.

On average, Comfort with Change is the lowest of the team’s Six Partnering Attributes. The team must be careful not to allow this deficiency to impede its ability to move forward with new ideas and concepts.