Blog

Once again strikes are in the news – but are they just an old fashioned pressure tactic in negotiating terms?

It’s not just in the public sector that strikes over reforms to pension plans are taking place. Unilever is facing a rolling wave of strikes as Unions mobilise against reforms of its final salary pension scheme.

Unions such as Unite, the GMB and Usdaw have said the stoppages will hit production of a number of leading brands and products including Marmite, Flora, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, and PG Tips.

The strike action commences in the same week that strikes have been announced at tax offices and the National Gallery. The strikes at tax offices – timed to disrupt the January 31st self-assessment tax deadline – are directed at alleged privatisation of work at call centres and Inquiry offices. The strikes at the National Gallery are all about staff cuts.

From a negotiating point of view, strikes are a pressure tactic. This is a form of “push” behaviour – all about “my” agenda rather than “yours” in the negotiation.

There is nothing wrong with using “push” behaviour as long as it is used at the right time, and in the right way, when it can be most effective. Here’s some pointers on how to best implement ‘Push’ behaviour:

1. Don’t use pressures too early in a negotiation, or the other side won’t feel pressurised. If they are used near the end of a negotiation when the other side feels it has something to lose if the deal isn’t done, then pressures are far more likely to be effective. These strike actions feel like they may be coming too early in the respective disputes.

2. If pressure tactics like strikes are applied too early in […]

Poor old Ed Miliband is under a lot of pressure right now with Unions questioning his policies and even his credentials to continue as Labour leader. Len Mcluskey of Unite suggested last week that Labour is on course for electoral defeat and warned of a leadership coup. GMB General Secretary, Paul Kenny, warned that backing the pay cap policy for the Public Sector could have profound implications for GMB affiliation to the Labour Party (and its funding). The ever- combustible Bob Crowe of the RMT added “Ed Miliband has just jammed Labour’s self-destruct button into top gear”. Colleagues have piled in with criticism as well, with Lord Glasman saying Miliband has ‘no strategy, no narrative and little energy’. A recent Sunday Times Poll revealed that 49% of labour supporters feel he is doing a bad job.

From a negotiating point of view a political leader is in a constant state of negotiation for positive attention and good will, with both his own party and its members (and of course the electorate). In any negotiation it’s crucial to have sufficient bargaining power at your disposal – enough “aces” in your hand. If you don’t then, consciously or otherwise, you will not feel confident in that negotiation and the other side will pick up that sense of vulnerability and instinctively start to push you around. From Ed Miliband’s point of view he is a bit short of bargaining power at the moment…

Stuck in the Middle

The Tories and Lib Dems have pitched their coalition tent in the centre ground of British politics. This makes it difficult for Miliiband. If he agrees with the Coalition (as on Public sector pay) he sounds weak. But how can he […]

Looking at the increasing tensions over Iran, a game of brinkmanship seems to be playing out.

Iran and the West seem to be swapping moves calculated to put pressure on the other. Pressure tactics are fine in a negotiation as long as they are used constructively and selectively. When pressure tactics are the only tactic deployed then the negotiation becomes quite attritional, and getting an edge over the other side becomes more important than finding a solution that suits all parties. On any analysis the situation in Iran requires a negotiation in which the parties focus on the needs and interests of each other. The most effective negotiators “fuse” the interests of the parties to create currency for both parties. However exclusive use of pressure tactics by “users” tends to result in both parties ending up as “losers”.

Here are some of the pressures that have been applied over the last few months;

Sep 04 – Iran announces that their first nuclear power plant is ‘online’ , sparking increased UN concern.
Sep 28 – Iran claims they will be sending ships near U.S. waters.
Oct 11 – US says it has broken up a ‘terror plot’ by agents linked to Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington using explosives.
Nov 21 – Iran is hit by fresh sanctions by the West (US, UK and Canada) over concerns about their nuclear programme, backed by a UN report. Hillary Clinton speaks of a “significant ratcheting-up of pressure” on Iran.
Nov 24 – Iran arrests 12 people for ‘CIA spying’.
Nov 29 – Iranian students storm the UK embassy, throwing around papers and replacing the British flag with an Iranian one.
Nov 30 – UK retaliates by warning […]

As David Cameron and Barack Obama met last week to discuss, amongst other things, the unfolding crisis in Syria and what their possible next steps might be, it seems a good time to pause and consider whether negotiation can still play a role in a potential solution here.

Obama has been keen to stress that military action in Syria would be premature and could lead to all out civil war. There is an even more worrying concern that this could turn into a conflict which destabilises the whole region with evidence that the Sunni rebels are backed by their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Equally, Iran’s support for the Syrian regime has been well publicised and this could extend to active military support should the West intervene.

So what are the alternatives to military action? Unfortunately, it is impractical to consider negotiation at the moment. As a rule, when only one side wants to negotiate, it’s hard to conduct any meaningful discussions and this seems to be such a situation. In his own mind, maybe Assad still believes (as Gaddafi did before him) that he can win by sheer application of power alone. Or maybe the stern example of his father who ruthlessly held power before him inhibits him from contemplating genuine negotiations. Or maybe he just can’t see a negotiated way out of the current crisis, since any negotiation would involve a diminishment or removal of his powers which would leave him and his allies highly vulnerable.

What then are the options available to the West which might bring Assad to the table and/or force a regime change?

1. Encourage Russia and China to stop blocking UN action

These two […]

The Bill to reform the National Health Service has finally received Royal Assent, but the debate about the National Health reforms is a good example of not choosing the right negotiating behaviour for the type of negotiation at hand. Every negotiation calls for different behaviours, depending on the subject matter, the stage the negotiation has reached and the personalities on the other side.

In the case of the National Health reforms, the Government has been negotiating with both health care professionals and with the public at large. The Government has been deploying arguments based on reason – about the need to use resources more efficiently and take medical decisions away from bureaucrats in hospitals and back towards medics. The Reforms have proposed to abolish NHS Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities and transfer their £60-£80 billion of commissioning of health care funds to “clinical commissioning groups” principally run by GP’s, as well as the establishment of “Monitor” as an economic/competition regulator. Primary Care trusts would be amalgamated into “foundation trusts” and NHS hospitals would be allowed to earn much more of their income from private patients – up to 49%.

Lack of Emotional Argument

However the NHS is an emotional subject. It is an emotional subject for GP’s and Health care professionals such as Nurses, most of whom enter the profession on a vocational basis. It is also an emotional subject for the public at large, with the NHS forming an iconic part of Britain’s social welfare heritage. The Conservatives are not trusted with this social welfare agenda precisely because (maybe unfairly) they are perceived historically as addressing it in pounds and pence rather than as an emotionally-based priority. The Government also got off to a […]

One area of negotiating research revolves around the game of “chicken”. This involves hypothecating what would happen if one car driver hurtles towards another at great speed down a single track. The first one to swerve to avoid destruction is “the loser”. Both parties in fact have an incentive to swerve to avoid the risk of mutual destruction if they both continue. However, if I swerve and you don’t I also run the risk of losing face and losing the game. This outcome is less damaging than the mutual smash which happens if neither of us blinks, but sometimes participants choose to carry on into a smash anyway. This is because swerving risks making us look like a bit of a sucker if the other person doesn’t swerve.

Does the outcome of the Rednapp/Levy discussions illustrate an extreme example of the game of “chicken”? Let’s consider the positions:

– Harry adopts the position that he will not stay unless he is offered at least two years
– Levy digs his heels in over a one year contract.

Each knows that if they don’t back down then there is a risk that the relationship ends – which is potentially bad for both of them and the club. Yet they choose to keep on their adopted path, refusing to blink in case the other side blinks first.

The result? A mutual smash. Rednapp leaves, but where does he go? There is no other top 6 club option available to him in the UK. Will he really be happy coaching in the Middle East? Possibly not, however much he is paid. Meanwhile Levy has to replace a popular manager who has been one of the most successful in Spurs’ history. This […]

The threat of public sector strikes has now widened from protest over pension reform to protest at the proposed public sector pay freeze. The coalition government has frozen public sector pay for two years, calling it vital to help drive down the budget deficit. Ministers say the pay-freeze will save the government £3.3bn a year.

The TUC voted at its annual Congress to support a co-ordinated strike action if talks over the public sector pay-freeze break down. Unison boss Dave Prentis said ministers had “declared war on our people” and vowed to lead a “fightback”. Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, said that a “sense of urgency” was needed:
“The way to really push the government is to follow up the day of demonstration by mass co-ordinated strike action across the public and private sectors.” Ed Miliband has said that he will attend the Trade Union march against the government’s austerity strategy planned for that date.

At the same time, a spokesman for David Cameron said there will be no compromise on the public sector wage freezes or pension cuts:
“We have put in place some changes in pensions and we do not intend to reopen these talks. We have put in place a public-sector pay freeze for two years and we do not intend to reopen that decision either. Strike action would benefit no-one.”

Positions not Motivations

The negotiation feels very positional and therefore very fixed. On this basis it’s not possible for either side to win except at the expense of the other. However, the most effective negotiations arise when each side focuses on the motivations of the other side – why they want the things […]

The first televised debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama has thrown up a welter of analysis.

Most pundits seem to agree that Romney performed better than the President without delivering a knock-out blow. Experts have argued that Obama ‘s low key performance was the result of a variety of factors; from unassertive body language (a reaction against criticism from some corners of the media that he had been ‘too confrontational’ during a speech the night before?), to lack of recent practice in the white heat of live political debate, to complacency in the face of an opponent who can normally be relied on shove his foot firmly in his mouth at some point.

From a negotiating point of view it was interesting to watch the different negotiating tactics deployed by the candidates. This, after all, is a negotiation for the hearts and minds of the US electorate. One of the keys to successful negotiation is to select the right negotiating behaviour to influence the person you are dealing with. Every individual is different, and has different traits and patterns of thinking. So, different negotiating behaviour is normally called for in each deal. If you select a behaviour which resonates with the way that the person on the other side routinely interprets the world, then you have a better chance of influencing them.

Working with the Social Norms

Of course, this creates a problem when you are trying to influence 250 million people at once. In these circumstances it pays to work with social norms which are apparent among that group – typical behaviours or patterns of thinking which are by no means displayed by everybody but which are typical of the audience you are addressing. […]

The proposed sale of 316 RBS and Nat West branches to Santander has fallen through after more than two years of negotiations. This is a good example of the importance of “closing the deal” when you get the chance. Closure is a fluid moment, and if you take too long you can miss the moment and find the deal collapses on you.

RBS was originally ordered to sell the branches by the European commission as a condition of it receiving “state aid” at the height of the financial crisis, when RBS became state owned. An agreement to sell the branches was signed in August, 2010, and at that time the parties said that it would take them 15-18 months to complete. However, the IT task of separating out the 1.8 million RBS customers affected by the sale from the rest of the RBS database has seemingly proved beyond them, even though many of those customers had already been allocated new sort codes and account numbers, and, as RBS CEO, Stephen Hester, put it “Much of the heavy lifting has already been done”. Nonetheless, after two missed deadlines for completion, a recent Accenture report apparently noted that it would be the middle of 2015 before the transaction was in fact ready to complete. Santander seems to have concluded that the deal was going to take too long and has pulled the plug on it.

This turn of events is not surprising. If you wait too long to close a deal, any number of factors can cause a problem with completion. The other side can get deal fatigue, or buyer’s remorse, or key characters on the other side may leave. The other side may identify alternative competitors […]

If you want to make a bid successfully in a negotiation, the other side has to believe that you mean what you say. Partly that is a question of bidding effectively by clearly addressing the motivations on the other side of the table. Partly it is a question of marshalling your bargaining power so that the other side feels that your bid has enough weight to be convincing.

The institutions of the Eurozone have been in a long running negotiation with the financial markets. The objective has been to persuade the financial markets that the Eurozone has a credible plan for dealing with its indebtedness. That way, investors can safely continue to buy government bonds, rather than starve governments of further investment, or pricing their investment at such high interest rates, that the debt collapses beneath its own weight. If a collapse occurs in any country then that country can no longer realistically remain part of the Euro.

I have written a number of blogs on this subject lamenting the uncertain series of previous “bids” made by the Eurozone institutions to persuade the markets that it has a credible strategy to cover Greece, other struggling countries like Portugal and Spain, and the Eurozone generally. Previous efforts to create bail-outs and/or guarantees have seemed piecemeal and unconvincing – it’s almost as though the Eurozone institutions feel that the process of discussing potential proposals is more important than the answers created. This buys them enough time that an actual answer may appear from somewhere else.

Sometimes these interim measures have bought a temporary respite, but usually once the financial markets have digested the announcements, they have given the proposals the thumbs down and so the crisis has […]