The Risks of Poor Negotiation Practices

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 —>

The Greenland Purchase That Wasn't (or The Artlessness of the Deal)

Introduction
Last month, President Trump made a seemingly impulsive decision to buy Greenland. He put out word of his intention which was met with a definitive, unequivocal and final message from Queen and Country of Denmark that “Greenland is open for business, not for sale!” That brief two-way volley was the extent and the death of those negotiations. The President’s approach lacked grace, finesse, and dare I say skill, and brought to mind images of a “bull in a china shop”.

Negotiation is seldom a quick event, but rather a journey with some twists and turns until the final destination is reached. A solid negotiation structure needs to be carefully constructed before a productive and optimal outcome can be ensured.

How then, might have these negotiations been approached differently in a way that would better have accomplished the interests of the United States?

Why Greenland
In early preparation for these negotiations, the first question that needed to be asked, understood and articulated is: “What specifically are the United States' interests in Greenland?”

Greenland lies within the Arctic Circle and is situated where the Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Sea meet. Due to climate changes and massive ice melts, new shipping routes have opened up between the Bering Straits and the Atlantic Ocean through the Arctic Sea. This gives both China and Russia quick and unfettered access between Eastern and Western hemispheres, of which both are taking advantage militarily and economically. Although the U.S does have the Thule air force base within one thousand miles of the region, a U.S. interest might be to have a stronger presence in the area where east meets west to help balance Chinese and Russian footprints and influences there.

A second important interest of the U.S in Greenland might be its rich supply of rare earth elements such as terbium, dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium and natural uranium. These rare earth elements are widely used in technology, military, electric cars and wind turbines.

Read more —>

RISKS OF IMPOSING DEMANDS IN NEGOTIATIONS Lessons from Kashmir for our own Negotiations

Introduction
In recent news, Prime Minister Modi of India imposed direct rule over the Indian part of Kashmir, which for the past seven decades enjoyed semi-autonomous governance. It is unclear however, as to what prompted New Delhi to make this apparently unprovoked move towards Kashmir.

As a negotiation analyst, I would posit that this was a reaction to a perception that a solution to the Kashmir dispute would be imposed, if not for an immediate and decisive action on the part of New Delhi.

Allow me to explain:

The Etiology of India's Direct-Rule Decision
Last month when President Trump met with Pakistani Prime Minister, Imram Khan, he said; “If you would want me to mediate or arbitrate [the Kashmir dispute], I would be happy to do so”. This was after he claimed that he had been asked by Indian Prime Minister Modi to “mediate or arbitrate”.

This claim that Modi had invited Trump to mediate caused a major storm in the politics of India. Government officials strongly denied that Modi had ever requested or would ever request mediation from Trump.

India and Pakistan have resolved their differences through third-party mediation in the past. For example, in the Indus Rivers dispute over water distribution in the Indus system of rivers between India and Pakistan. This dispute resulted in the Indus Waters Agreement mediated by the World Bank and is still in effect today. Another example is the Rann Kutch boundary dispute between India and Pakistan, successfully mediated by British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Why then, such vehement opposition on the part of India to mediate the Kashmir dispute.

Read more —>

American Foreign Policy from a Negotiator's Perspective

Introduction
With the North Korean negotiations in retreat, the trade war with China raging, the Iran Deal unraveling, and the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada still not ratified, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations.

This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies.

A useful framework with which to begin this inquiry is to explore the three different approaches to negotiation and dispute resolution. They are: power- based; rights-based; and interest-based.

The Power-based Approach
The term “Power-based negotiation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, because when power is used in a negotiation environment, it is usually not used to negotiate a resolution, but rather to impose. The more powerful party imposes and enforces their demands on the weaker party, using threats, intimidation and force, often because they can.

A familiar example of using power as a negotiation tactic is the imposing of sanctions on North Korea to enforce America’s demand for total, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization. Another common example is military action.

Although there are certainly situations which call for a power-based approach, for example where there is an immediate existential threat, it should nevertheless be used with great caution and restraint in other situations. Often parties, when subjected to a power-based approach will be resistant, defensive, resentful, and will perceive themselves as being bullied. This approach, when used exclusively, very seldom produces the desired acquiescence.

The Rights-based Approach
Another approach to the resolving of disputes is a rights-based approach. One party believes he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong, or one party feels she is innocent while the other is to blame.

Read more —>

Protecting Yourself Against a Nefarious Negotiator

Introduction
In Venezuela in recent months, the opposition led by Mr. Juan Guaido has been working assiduously to remove President Maduro from office. Many western countries, including the United States recognize Mr. Guaido as the legitimate leader of Venezuela while Russia and Cuba recognizes Mr. Maduro.

As part of this effort, and likely engineered by the United States, secret negotiations between the opposition and President Maduro’s inner circle were taking place to plot a coup to depose Maduro and to install Guaido. The premise was that this inner circle including top military leaders would support the coup.

A key figure in Maduro’s “inner circle” that was negotiating with the opposition was General Padrino Lopez, one of the most powerful men in the country with sweeping influence over the armed forces. The United States and the opposition firmly believed they he, among other powerful key figures, were strong supporters and negotiating partners with whom to work out a plan to overthrow Maduro

These talks produced a 15-point plan for a peaceful handover of power that would be implemented by the military. Under the deal, Mr. Maduro would be allowed a dignified exit from the country. In fact, Washington believed that these talks were so far advanced that an aircraft was already waiting on the runway at the Caracas international airport to fly Maduro to Cuba.

Then suddenly, without warning, this negotiated agreement collapsed and President Maduro remained in power with full support of his armed forces with no signs of any breach whatsoever.

It turns out that the apparent conspirators on the Maduro side led by General Lopez were in fact double agents with no intent to ever negotiate a coup with the opposition. They were nefariously mining for information to channel back to President Maduro to help him crush any attempt to overthrow him.

Although this example is borrowed from a political landscape, we face similar nefarious negotiators in our business negotiations too.

Read more —>