Introduction
Negotiation is more than just a process of getting our needs met. How we negotiate can potentially determine our social, business, diplomatic and international outcomes, reputations and relationships.
It follows that poor negotiation practices such as ineffective communication patterns; inefficient bargaining; destructive tricks and tactics; nonconstructive processes that lack purpose; scant and limited information development; and adversarial posturing and positioning are extremely costly in terms of value-optimization, reputations and relationships in addition to lost opportunities.
Let us look at two quite recent landmark negotiation failures that cost the parties and stakeholders enormously due to poor negotiation practices, and what might they have done differently to improve the outcomes
Two Examples
New York State vs. New York Teacher’s Union The Negotiation Failure:
In 2010, New York State required its school districts to change their teacher evaluation systems to more effective ones. The school districts and their associated unions were tasked with unveiling their new systems by January 2013. New York City stood to gain millions in aid and grants if this deadline was met from which the school districts and teachers unions could ultimately benefit. The school districts and the New York United Federation of Teachers became involved in an intensely adversarial negotiation until on January 17th 2013, a catastrophic deadlock was announced and the governor of New York imposed a teacher’s evaluation system that neither party was happy with. The aid and grants never materialized.
The Poor Negotiation Practices:
There is historically very bad blood, enormous suspicion, negative perceptions and lack of trust between management and unions. To try to continue substantive negotiations on such a negative platform is doomed to fail. These negotiations were no different. The teachers unions and school districts saw themselves at odds and in competition with one another and were never able to bridge their differences to their mutual benefit. The poor negotiation practice was trying to negotiate the substantive issues without addressing the seriously eroded relationship between them.
A Better Approach:
Before effective negotiation can occur there should have been a productive exchange about each side’s perceptions of the other, their fears and concerns. This dialogue needed to happen in an environment of respect with each side deeply listening to each other and demonstrating immaculate understanding of the other (even if they did not agree). They should also have jointly explored the risks of not reaching agreement. Only then, might they have worked collaboratively to find joint solution to their conflicting needs on the issue of the new teachers’ evaluation system.
Time Warner vs. CBS The Negotiation Failure:
In 2013, Times Warner engaged in negotiations with CBS over licensing fees being charged by CBS to air CBS programs, particularly sports coverage to which CBS owned rights. Times Warner felt they were paying too much and wished to reduce them.
Read more —>
Negotiation is more than just a process of getting our needs met. How we negotiate can potentially determine our social, business, diplomatic and international outcomes, reputations and relationships.
It follows that poor negotiation practices such as ineffective communication patterns; inefficient bargaining; destructive tricks and tactics; nonconstructive processes that lack purpose; scant and limited information development; and adversarial posturing and positioning are extremely costly in terms of value-optimization, reputations and relationships in addition to lost opportunities.
Let us look at two quite recent landmark negotiation failures that cost the parties and stakeholders enormously due to poor negotiation practices, and what might they have done differently to improve the outcomes
Two Examples
New York State vs. New York Teacher’s Union The Negotiation Failure:
In 2010, New York State required its school districts to change their teacher evaluation systems to more effective ones. The school districts and their associated unions were tasked with unveiling their new systems by January 2013. New York City stood to gain millions in aid and grants if this deadline was met from which the school districts and teachers unions could ultimately benefit. The school districts and the New York United Federation of Teachers became involved in an intensely adversarial negotiation until on January 17th 2013, a catastrophic deadlock was announced and the governor of New York imposed a teacher’s evaluation system that neither party was happy with. The aid and grants never materialized.
The Poor Negotiation Practices:
There is historically very bad blood, enormous suspicion, negative perceptions and lack of trust between management and unions. To try to continue substantive negotiations on such a negative platform is doomed to fail. These negotiations were no different. The teachers unions and school districts saw themselves at odds and in competition with one another and were never able to bridge their differences to their mutual benefit. The poor negotiation practice was trying to negotiate the substantive issues without addressing the seriously eroded relationship between them.
A Better Approach:
Before effective negotiation can occur there should have been a productive exchange about each side’s perceptions of the other, their fears and concerns. This dialogue needed to happen in an environment of respect with each side deeply listening to each other and demonstrating immaculate understanding of the other (even if they did not agree). They should also have jointly explored the risks of not reaching agreement. Only then, might they have worked collaboratively to find joint solution to their conflicting needs on the issue of the new teachers’ evaluation system.
Time Warner vs. CBS The Negotiation Failure:
In 2013, Times Warner engaged in negotiations with CBS over licensing fees being charged by CBS to air CBS programs, particularly sports coverage to which CBS owned rights. Times Warner felt they were paying too much and wished to reduce them.
Read more —>
