The Art of Negotiations:
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick

Recently, as I negotiated a particularly difficult service contract with an organization, I was reminded of the issues that surround the art of negotiations. Some organizations believe that by ‘walking softly and carrying a big stick’ (West African proverb used by then President Roosevelt) that they are getting the best of both worlds in the realm of negotiating a deal that works for an organization and all factions involved in the negotiations. Some attempt to obtain a win-win situation while others settle for less ‘than the best’ in order to maintain status quo over the course of any contract.

The ‘Walk Softly…’ ideology is a form of political dominance in the field of negotiation. Each faction participates in various forms of control and actions that are designed to intimidate through the perception that the power practicing the ideology can enforce its political will upon the other organization. Yet, is this an accurate method of negotiating peacefully? How can an organization have forward movement when each side is mired in the conversations of the past? The big stick ideology is a behavior that occurred over the history of the organization and has become a negative pattern of interaction internally and externally. This affects the brand of both organizations causing damage in the court of public opinion.

Negotiation is not about crushing one’s opponent, the ‘winner take all mentality’. Rather it is about creating an opportunity to collaborate for the welfare and rights of the negotiating parties while keeping an eye on the fiscal bottom-line. Many organizations forget this one key factor: You will be working with the other party after the negotiations are completed. There is a relationship within most negotiations that must be maintained.

In reading recent events in the various professional athletic representation organizations, one particular organization has taken this ideology to an extreme in order to garner support for individual and organizational agendas. This ideology seems to be the method of attaining control over the masses involved in the final agreement or disagreement of new bargaining unit contracts. The negotiating organization is creating fear and angst in order to maintain the support of the individuals and groups associated with the organization. The big stick in this case is the running up to Capitol Hill for photo opportunities and meetings while clearly stating that there is a potential loss of benefits for the retired population by the major sports organizations to include disability and other benefits. The threat is to the actual beneficiaries not the representative organization (the representative organization will still be paid even if the members are not). Yet, is this a reality? Is the umbrella employing organization, a reported $6B industry, so daft as to believe that they will be able to retain public support for their sport if they harm the benefits of the retired and active athletes? I think not.

President Teddy Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis.” During the times that Roosevelt was president there were years and years of chaotic actions that seemed to cycle back to the original issues. Very rarely did an issue get completely resolved; rather only shades of the issues were resolved while the more painful issues were put back in the closet never to be seen until chaos is needed to distract from the issue that was most pressing. In many organizations this is still the method used to hide from a final resolution.

Is it truly necessary to carry a big stick? Or could it be that it is time for the parties to take their big sticks and put them back in the closet. That by negotiating honestly while developing trust between all interested parties a final resolution may be attained? Yet, that would be too easy would it not? Sometimes the simplest solutions are right before us.

The Winning Edge: Overcoming the 'Divide and Conquers Strategy'

What is ‘Divide and Conquers’?

The Divide and Conquers Strategy, also known as “Divide and Rules Strategy” is used in the arenas of sociology and politics. Divide and Conquers Strategy was used widely by the Roman and British empires. Both super powers played small tribes and groups against one another in order to control their lands and territories. Divide and Conquers Strategy is a staple political and organizational tool used by one power to break down another power into smaller, more manageable pieces; all the while planning to take control of those pieces one by one. Organizationally, it takes a very strong, or perceived strong, power to implement the Divide and Conquers Strategy. In order to break up another power, the Conquerors must have access to strong political, military, and economic bases.

How can we unite?

As part of the divide and Conquers strategy, the larger organizations will often work to keep smaller powers from uniting. They will offer olive branches to keep smaller organizations in line or offer support in order to stop the unification of the smaller groups into a more powerful larger group. The use of this principle is common in business and organizations when an adversarial role has arisen and there are years of battles behind and ahead of the group. The larger, more powerful organizations have an easier time of managing the chaos of the dysfunctional relationships with the smaller groups when the larger group prevents small powers from linking forces than to break them apart once they have aligned. There is strength in numbers.

Within organizations attempting to unite, there are often feuds and back-biting situations that arise. When a leader of a smaller group perceives that they are not being heard or they feel threatened by the activities of another group chaos will be created. Chaos that is to the advantage of the larger, more powerful umbrella organization. Instead of uniting for the cause, the smaller groups spend a great deal of time in the back rooms creating chaos that works to the advantage of the larger, more powerful group. A seed planted with enough malice will grow to the point that it can destroy the potential change efforts by the smaller organizations thus giving power over to the larger organization.

Leaders who utilize Divide and Conquers Strategy may encourage or foster feuds between smaller powers. By fostering a feud and creating chaos, the larger organization does not need to work as hard to obtain buy-in. People are fickled when it comes to who they support and the history around the issues. This kind of political maneuvering requires a great understanding of the people who are being manipulated. In order to foster feuds, for example, one must understand the political and social histories of the parties intended to take part in the feuds. Remember, a whisper here, a poke there, will start a feud that will be hard to manage when the larger organization begins to manipulate.

It’s about CONTROL!

Have you ever stood in a room full of people and felt completely alone? Each individual in the room has an agenda or reason for being in the room; yet, the reasons do not seem to mesh and the group lost its effectiveness the moment they walked into the room. Standing alone in a room is part of the divide and Conquers algorithm. This is part of the divide and Conquers strategy. There is a lot of money at stake in the majority of power plays and the divide and Conquers strategy includes methods to control the funds and resources of the smaller, Conquered parties.

For example, a powerful leader may encourage a less powerful leader to make unwise financial decisions in order to drain the smaller power’s resources. This is often successful if the leaders of the smaller powers have inflated egos and delusions of grandeur. The smaller power loses face with the constituents, thus providing the power and resources back to the larger organization. It is important to note that this form of Divide and Conquers strategy is only effective if the smaller power allows itself to be influenced by the larger power. Many of the organizations involved in the change efforts do allow gossip and innuendo to influence them about the larger powers.

Everything you need to win as you step around the divide and Conquers strategy: Creating the Win-Win solution.

Often individuals within smaller groups attempt to unite to resolve issues not being addressed in the larger, more powerful group. Each person wants what is best for the organization, yet, there is not one clear picture of what is actually best nor has an agenda been created to unite the groups that are transparent and shared with all constituents. Instead, many individuals utilize hearsay as modus operands and believe whatever is being said. It becomes part of the organizational change climate that is utilized by the larger, more powerful groups to manipulate and continue controlling the less powerful groups. It blocks the creation of a win-win situation. When the smaller organizations continue to fight the larger organization can continue to ignore those painful issues in the smaller, less powerful groups.

The win-win solution is based upon the needs of the smaller organizations while considering the larger organization’s needs. It presents the larger organization the opportunity, once the smaller organizations unite, to hear one voice in the crowd of many. It provides to foundation of advocacy. Sometimes, the one voice needs to stay in the background and continue to marshal the troops as the change process continues while the louder voices of reason approach the larger organization pressing for change.

The win-win solution is a multi-step process that involved organizational change within the various groups to create a united organization. It does not matter WHO represents the group as a unit; rather, is there representation that is geared towards the needs of the organization. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. What is the track record of the organization that will represent me?
2. Who are the leaders of the group? What are their terms in office? Is there diversity in the group?
3. What is the level of education and experience within the group and the leaders?
4. Is the leadership constituent centric or personal-centric? Basically are their reasons for working with the group grounded in personal agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of the group?
5. Just because someone has work experience in a particular industry; does not mean that they are qualified to lead a group through the change process. It may take many instead of one to lead the change.

The key is to get the constituents on your side. The following segment discusses HOW to get support for your programs and issues.

Get Constituents on Your Side

In order for your organization to create the vehicle for change, you must get constituent buy-in outside of the chaos that will be created due to the ‘divide and Conquers’ of the larger, more powerful organization. IGNORE IT and move ON. Begin to create that win-win campaign for change through the development of a grassroots campaign that utilizes a combination of exceptional strategy, innovative tactics, and precision execution. Through the additional use of advocacy education, recruitment, and activation models your campaign will ensures that you have significant numbers of high-quality, committed grassroots supporters on your side. Through the grassroots supporters the tactics should include:

• Creation and Leveraging of the outreach team selected by the majority vote of the constituents to engage and educate advocates, turning them into issue champions;
• Creation of one state-of-the-art, interactive website that attract advocates and earn their ongoing support of active and retired organization members;
• Organizing and supervising advocate teams;
• Building online and on-the-ground communities that foster recruitment and forward movement towards organizational change.
• Create organizational transparency that includes open review of financial and organizational records and structure.

How this is accomplished:

Tree toppers: Those identified and highly active, influential advocates.

Grassroots outreach: Bring together a large audience of supporters presenting the same material at each meeting, in the same format.

Technology Infrastructure: Utilize sophisticated management and communication tools available within the smaller, independent organizations to leverage and effectuate change.

Online Campaigns: Leverage interactive technologies through a secure site to create the vehicle for change.

For more information about organization change and strategic change management visit us at www.hwassociates.us.