Blog

The 149-day NBA lockout ended last weekend with the players tentatively agreeing to a 50/50 split of league revenues (actually 49-51% based on certain ‘targets’ being met) – down 7% on their existing cut. This equates to a $3billion loss for the players over the 10-year agreement term. However, the players union actually secured several significant concessions during the final round of negotiations, notably regarding annual raises and salary cap exemptions. As players executive director Billy Hunter commented, “The parties settled the litigation because the owners either gave in or sufficiently compromised on all of the open issues.”

They still have a long way to go before a deal is ‘inked’ (as is highlighted by the fact that the season still isn’t scheduled to start until Christmas day) but both sides now feel confident the season will go ahead after all.

It seems as though the alternative to a negotiated deal being agreed here had become so bad that the pressures eventually told and both sides were forced to make concessions they had previously viewed as ‘unthinkable’. As Hunter said, “It was in both our interests to try and reach a resolution to save the game”.

Deadline pressure such as this often results in people being more realistic about their own objectives and needs. It can force them to re-evaluate their ‘official’ position and move them towards a more collaborative approach, where they are happy to enter into constructive dialogue about the needs of the other side. Note that this needs to be a ‘real’ deadline though, and not just something that is manufactured as a negotiating tactic. This is probably why it took until the actual […]

If elections are like a deal process where the candidates negotiate for voters’ attention and favour then the US election should be a pretty interesting negotiation.

Most negotiations are resolved on the basis of meeting the participants underlying emotional needs. These are not to be confused with surface “content” needs like “price” or “quantity”. In an election like the US Presidential election the situation is no different. It will be the emotional needs of the electorate which have to be addressed rather than surface issues which dominate the media like “budget deficits” or “Iran”.

Sometimes voters have an “achievement” need to usher in a new regime of change, and certainly Obama benefitted from this sentiment last time – after 8 years of Bush, America wanted a new broom. Or sometimes voters may feel they yearn for someone who gives them a sense of “belonging”. Obama benefitted from this trend last time as well, with his inclusive approach and his internet strategy embracing millions.

On this occasion though, it may be a need for “reassurance” that dominates with the electorate – an anxious desire to be able to believe that everything is going to be ok. This would not be at all surprising given the extremely fragile state of the US and international economy. Emotional needs can be ranked, and people tend to satisfy their lower order needs like a need for “reassurance” before they attempt to satisfy higher-order needs like “belonging” and then “achievement”, so reassurance may well be the order of the day for the next US election.

So, who is the most reassuring candidate?

Obama has a bit of a deficit in this area at the moment, as people have spotted that there is […]

Where next for negotiations with the EU, after last week’s failed summit? Any assessment of prospects going forward must be rooted in an understanding of what happened at the summit.

In some ways, Mr. Cameron carried out a text book negotiation. The rule book says that if the other party to a negotiation will not allow you to get what you need in a negotiation then you should walk away. If the other side is going to be a “user” then walk away rather than being a “loser”.

There is a whiff of cynicism about the EU’s plans for a financial transaction tax which would hit the UK far harder than any other EU state. The UK Government feels this is a deliberate attempt to marginalise London’s role as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre. David Cameron used the summit to try to engineer a right for the UK to prevent such a tax by requiring unanimity of voting on matters concerning financial services – since the greater fiscal unity proposed by the Eurozone members and which the EU countries were asked to approve might well hasten the arrival of just such a tax. When France and Germany refused to countenance this and made it clear that there was no chance of the UK winning this point, Cameron played his veto card. This must have felt like a better option to Cameron than nodding through a fiscal union treaty without protection for the City, and then having to defend treaty change without a referendum to his howling right wingers.

A closer look at what happened suggests that maybe events could have unfolded differently. It is fine to make a threat in a negotiation (as Cameron did, by […]

Interesting vignette visiting Germany recently and out at dinner in Hamburg. A group of oldsters was having a smashing night out together – about a dozen of them. When it came to settling their bill I noticed that they all paid individually and they all paid in cash. A micro picture of course, but it struck me that this small example illustrates the German pre-occupation with being able to pay your way. None of these individuals wanted to increase their debt by using a card. Nor would any of them have dreamed of printing the money required to pay for their meal.

This is the real dilemma at the heart of any deal to “save the Euro”. Nevermind the histrionics around Cameron’s exercise of the UK veto in relation to greater fiscal union. It doesn’t matter what institutional fiscal changes the Eurozone introduces going forward. What matters is dealing with the present unsustainable level of Eurozone debt right now. Germany will neither underwrite such debt nor print money to address it. Unless some other mechanism is found to defray such debt (e.g. significant IMF money) the markets will continue to take a sceptical view of the likely survival of the currency…

I have often been asked recently whether it is possible for the Occupy Movement outside St Paul’s to turn their protest into a negotiated outcome? The answer is probably not, since some key ingredients for a successful negotiation are missing:

1. The Occupy protestors don’t appear to have a defined outcome in mind. Any effective negotiator will tell you that it’s important to set a goal during the planning stage of the negotiation, or at least a bottom line – otherwise it’s impossible to assess whether or not you have been successful. The Occupy protestors express a range of sentiments – including a desire to change the perceived amoral imperative which drives the banking and financial world and which they hold responsible for many of the western world’s current economic problems. However, there is not just one sentiment involved, and there is certainly no consensus around what the desired result of their protest should be. Recent woolly demands on the Corporation of London to remove “secrecy practices”, and establish a “truth and reconciliation commission” to examine allegations of corruption” do not seem to constitute a considered or practical outcome.

2. Equally the Occupy movement is not organised to the point where it has a representative authorised to negotiate, or even a negotiating team. Effective negotiations depend on there being one authorised representative who can speak for each side, or an organised team who share tactics and strategy. Occupy has none of these characteristics. One might equally say the same of the financial institutions which are the subject of Occupy’s attention. Who are “they”, and who would Occupy negotiate with on “their” side, were such intuitions minded to have a negotiation?

3. This really leads on to the […]

The movement in the dispute between Government and Unions over pension contributions is to be welcomed, but the way the negotiations are heading this still feels like an opportunity missed.

Some Unions, commencing with NHS Unions (including Unison), appear to have signed or be close to signing heads of agreement which allegedly provide that there will be no further strike action whilst the Unions consider the Government’s latest proposals. Other Unions appear to have joined the nascent consensus, including the GMB. Various teaching Unions have yet to sign up, though the Government is confident about their participation, and Mark Serwotka’s PCS is sitting outside the process altogether, with its leader calling for fresh industrial action and the Union consequently barred from the talks.

The initial optimism around these developments was immediately dampened by a spat caused by a rogue letter from Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles which appeared to impose fresh conditions, but this letter was hastily withdrawn by Danny Alexander and apparently will be replaced by a fresh letter.

So, let us assume some progress is being made. What can we say about the negotiation process?

1. The climate seems to have improved. Initially the Government seemed to have decided on the outcome of the issue on pension reform before engaging in a negotiation process. One of the consequences of this was that the climate was very hostile with Unions and their members feeling excluded from the outcome even though they are key stakeholders. In the wake of the strikes there does seem to have been a concerted effort to improve the climate so that at least it is now a “cool” climate – very objective and data driven. Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, talked of […]

Following the debate about Liverpool’s reaction to the Luis Suarez case, it may be worth observing that when you negotiate and lose, it’s often better to be gracious about it rather than sulky. There is usually another deal to be done at some later point on the same issue or some other matter, so it’s better to be patient and bide your time rather than be bitter and burn bridges.

It was an independent regulatory commission that found Suarez guilty having investigated Patrice Evra’s complaints of racist comments made against him. The Commission’s findings were pretty clear – suggesting that Suarez called Evra “negro” on no fewer than 7 occasions, and dismissing Suarez’s evidence as unreliable and inconsistent. However, there has been a strident reaction from Liverpool, claiming that “the FA and the Panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated …” And that the FA “chose to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their suppositions”.

This kind of peevish response may be the result of a genuine sense of grievance, but it comes across as rather graceless, and inappropriate when dealing with an issue as sensitive as racism in football. It also makes the club seem strangely reluctant to condemn racism. It’s very hard to believe that anyone in the Liverpool hierarchy is actually racist but the grudging acceptance of the findings create the impression that the club will allow racism rather than criticise their own player. This in turn puts the spotlight on the attitude of the club and its supporters to this issue. The furore around racist remarks alleged to have been made by a Liverpool supporter to Oldham defender Tom Adeyemi […]

The manoeuvring over the Scottish referendum on independence is going to show what happens when two “pushers” are involved in a negotiation. It looks as though Cameron is trying to push Scotland into an agreed early date for a referendum, and some say over what question is asked, in return for giving the referendum legal effect from Westminster.

“Push” behaviour is all about your own agenda and not about the other side’s agenda. It involves behaviours such as stating expectations, using pressures (and incentives) to get your own way, proposing with reasons, and testing and probing the other side’s position.

David Cameron does not seem to be a natural “pusher” as a negotiator, but he does seem to be driven by big ideas for which he will push. The saving of the historic Union between England and Scotland is a big idea for a man with an achievement drive. The move to “push” the Scots towards an early and decisive referendum on independence is an example of a “push” pressure tactic.

Alex Salmond is a much more natural “push” negotiator – in fact, it is probably his default behaviour. In asserting Scottish independence he constantly “states expectations” as to the Scots’ entitlement, which is a classic push tactic. Like many Nationalist movements, the SNP (and indeed Salmond himself) seem motivated by a desire for recognition, and are prepared to push for this agenda.

So, what happens when two pushers meet?

1. We can expect Salmond and the SNP to push back – as indeed has already happened. The Scottish Government has already announced that it wants the referendum to be held in 2014 – later than the UK Government has proposed. And he and other SNP colleagues […]

As the US Republican nomination race continues, the key issue remains which candidate can provide most “reassurance” for mainstream America. At a time of great economic uncertainty, and with the US’ role in leading world affairs under scrutiny, the Republicans need to find a candidate who can make a majority of the US electorate feel that everything’s going to be ok in the end.

Mitt Romney’s campaign to become the Republican candidate looks to be right on track following his recent win in New Hampshire. He managed to pull off a commanding victory in the New Hampshire primary, winning 39% of the overall vote and his strong message, to shake the country out of its economic doldrums, seems to be striking a chord with the public.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen various Republican candidates representing the more ‘extreme’ side of the party come to the fore in several of the State votes, only to fall away again just as quickly. With Rick Perry and Herman Cain having already fallen by the wayside due to well-publicised ‘blunders’, the most recent challengers to Romney’s position as leading candidate havebeen Rick Santorum (who surprisingly polled second Iowa), Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul (second in the New Hampshire vote).

The problem seems to be that aside from Romney, the other candidates are campaigning for policies that seemingly alienate large portions of US society. Rick Santorum, along with Newt Gingrich openly opposes same-sex marriage and Ron Paul strongly opposes abortion, even in the case of rape. Following his surge into second place in Iowa, Santorum proceeded to shoot himself in the foot by stating that marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, was a ‘hazard […]

As the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee approaches, there is mounting excitement around the Royal Family and the special events which are taking place. Amid the well-deserved plaudits and commendations for the marvellous job done by the Queen and Prince Phillip over the last 60 years, attention may also focus on the succession. The Queen, aged 85, is in remarkable health but cannot go on forever and Prince Phillip’s recent heart scare, at the age of 90, shows that even his resilience has its limits. This could give rise to a very interesting negotiation.

Who should succeed the Queen? Will it be the current rightful heir, Prince Charles, or will the Crown skip a generation and pass to his own son, Prince William?

The subject may be too delicate to raise around the dining table at Buckingham Palace, but a tacit negotiation must surely be going on. However selfless the Queen is, securing a smooth succession will be her priority – just as it has been for any Regent since the Middle Ages and earlier. For this reason she may want to delay the decision for as long as possible, feeling that if she steps down then this will inevitably provoke a debate about the nature of the monarchy itself, and whether it is still a relevant concept for a modern age. That said, there must also be a time coming when she feels she can no longer carry the burden herself – particularly if Prince Phillip were to be too unwell to support her anymore, or, worse still, if he was to die.

So, who would she choose to succeed her when the time comes? Both Charles and William may feel strongly that they should be chosen. Prince […]