New York State vs. New York Teacher’s Union
The Negotiation Failure:
In 2010, New York State required its school districts to change their teacher evaluation systems to more effective ones. The school districts and their associated unions were tasked with unveiling their new systems by January 2013. New York City stood to gain millions in aid and grants if this deadline was met from which the school districts and teachers unions could ultimately benefit. The school districts and the New York United Federation of Teachers became involved in an intensely adversarial negotiation until on January 17
th
2013, a catastrophic deadlock was announced and the governor of New York imposed a teacher’s evaluation system that neither party was happy with. The aid and grants never materialized.
The Poor Negotiation Practices:
There is historically very bad blood, enormous suspicion, negative perceptions and lack of trust between management and unions. To try to continue substantive negotiations on such a negative platform is doomed to fail. These negotiations were no different. The teachers unions and school districts saw themselves at odds and in competition with one another and were never able to bridge their differences to their mutual benefit. The poor negotiation practice was trying to negotiate the substantive issues without addressing the seriously eroded relationship between them.
A Better Approach:
Before effective negotiation can occur there should have been a productive exchange about each side’s perceptions of the other, their fears and concerns. This dialogue needed to happen in an environment of respect with each side deeply listening to each other and demonstrating immaculate understanding of the other (even if they did not agree). They should also have jointly explored the risks of not reaching agreement. Only then, might they have worked collaboratively to find joint solution to their conflicting needs on the issue of the new teachers’ evaluation system.
Time Warner vs. CBS
The Negotiation Failure:
In 2013, Times Warner engaged in negotiations with CBS over licensing fees being charged by CBS to air CBS programs, particularly sports coverage to which CBS owned rights. Times Warner felt they were paying too much and wished to reduce them.
Time Warner decided that they would beat CBS into submission, threaten and force them by blacking CBS out of millions of homes across the US in the summer of 2013 – a busy sports season!
The result was that Times Warner lost over 300,000 subscribers in a matter of months.
The Poor Negotiation Practices:
The mistake that Times Warner made was that instead of engaging CBS in an authentic negotiation with the necessary dialogue and exchange, they declared war by blacking CBS out of their subscribers’ homes. This made CBS defensive and were less likely to capitulate than not.
Furthermore, Times Warner did not think carefully about how their actions might impact other stakeholders such as their subscribers and shareholders. They were impulsive in their negotiations.
A Better Approach:
Negotiation is the process of seeking joint solutions to conflicting needs as opposed to snatching your needs at the expense of your counterpart’s. Times Warner did not give much thought or credence to what CBS’ needs might be. Had they engaged in some productive dialogue and exchange, they might have learned a lot of crucial information from which to then to co-design an acceptable deal.
Additionally, when considering your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) that you may need as a point of leverage -as in this case where Times Warner blacked out CBS programming from Time Warner customers – think very carefully about the potential pro’s, con’s, risks and opportunities. Had Time Warner done that, they would most likely have realized the risk involved and pursued a different approach.
