Who holds the Aces in your deal?
Good example of the dynamics of bargaining power at a recent “Speed Awareness” Course I attended in Ealing. This course is run by the Police for those who have committed minor speeding offences – just a few miles over the limit. If you go along you are spared 3 points being added to your license.
There were 20 attendees and 1 presenter. At these kinds of events a tacit negotiation always goes on between the presenter and the audience for the audience’s attention. Even if she had been a black belt in karate she could not have prevented us from all getting up and walking out of the door if we had wanted to, so we held the advantages of scale and size in the negotiation with the presenter for our attention.
However, she had a couple of aces too. She had lots of expertise, and she also had the power of the Police behind her – having “law, rules or regulations” on your side is always a good source of bargaining power.
So I would say this was a negotiation where each side held 2 aces. Result? A win/win deal. She worked very hard to keep our attention and we responded by being as good as gold for the whole 4 hour duration of the Course.
It’s always worth working out at the outset who holds the aces of bargaining power in your negotiation. He who holds the Aces normally calls the tune in a deal, so if the Aces are evenly divided a harmonious result like this one is a likely outcome.
West has answers to the wrong question on Iran
As ever, you can only get a negotiated agreement if both sides to an agreement want to negotiate. There is no sign currently that Iran wants to negotiate. Therefore it is likely to be fairly futile for the West to concentrate on answers like structuring the process (eg by holding talks in Iran-friendly Turkey) or focusing on the content of a deal (eg by insisting that Iran should swap potential nuclear rods for technology).
This discussion will only get anywhere if Iran wants to negotiate. All efforts should therefore be focused on persuading Iran that it has more to gain from negotiations than it has to lose. However unpalatable it may sound, this means addressing some of Iran’s needs in the conversation.
Iran has a desire to belong to that senior club of nations that exercises nuclear power. It also has a need for respect – indeed the 2 needs are intertwined. The real issue for the West in the negotiation is therefore how to meet those needs without Iran actually developing nuclear weapons. Re-phrasing the question in that way may enable the West to make progress.
This is a response to the Wall Street Journal Article ‘West, Iran Take Hard Lines for Nuclear Talks’
Cornered Hunt reaching for the Sky
What is the Government’s need in the negotiation with Newscorp over its acquisition of the remaining shares in BSkyB? Firstly, the Government is anxious it will lose respect in the eyes of the electorate if it is seen to be kow-towing to Mr. Murdoch. In negotiating terms this is a “respect need”.
Equally, it needs to be seen to be acting sympathetically to Mr. Murdoch so it can continue to have his support. In negotiation terms this is a “belonging need”.
The delay in the publication of Ofcom’s report may be attributable to the Government struggling to reconcile these 2 conflicting needs.
This may result in some fudge which makes it look as though the Government is acting strongly and independently whilst not really harming , Newscorp’s interests. A referral to the Competition Commission would fall into this category.
Alternatively, it may be that the Government simply has to choose between these two conflicting needs.
In the hierarchy of negotiating needs, a “belonging need” will always require fulfilling before a “respect need”, so if it has to choose, if the Government has to choose, it’s more likely that satisfying Mr. Murdoch will come first.
