The Art of Negotiations:
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick
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 ‘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.
No comments:
Post a Comment