The Lessons we learnt in the 1970s

 Trades Unions exist to protect, defend and negotiate for the rights of their members, the levels of pay,  the security of jobs and fairness in treatment. In many parts of the UK, based on the history of many decades, employees felt they were always going to be exploited and so were always ready to take up the fight. Being employed did not mean security. Employers with their Head Offices miles away in London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, etc. could make closure decisions at any moment. The strength of united mass action was a last resort weapon, but one that often brought about results and so was used more and more.

For those expecting the worst, action to keep pay high was to keep redundancy benefits high;  as would be the costs of closure, so acting as both a deterrent and benefit. 

During the 70s we saw the targeting of government funded initiatives to create employment with state assisted factory building, state supported recruitment.  These plans were targeted by extremist left wing activists to cause disruption - targeting trade union positions and encouraging demarcation. We witnessed major investments in the North West for Liverpool (overspill), Manchester and also in the West of Scotland. New Towns, Overspills and Industrial Estates with ready made factories. These were plagued by organised disruption made worse by poor managerial leadership - particularly in sites where the company directors were based far away in London or overseas. 

However, union members are employees (now colleagues) first and members second. The people responsible for protecting the jobs, employee rights and levels of pay should be the managers of the employees in their teams and the Boards of Directors who have the management, direction and sustainability of the business in their trust. Organisations which learnt to look after their employees as valuable members of the business, benefitted in increased loyalty, improved positive culture, reduced staff turnover, loyal commitment and able to offer enhanced job security and good working conditions.

Businesses that understood these were able to develop successful, efficient, rewarding and enjoyable enterprises. The role of the shop steward became redundant in the functions of representing members, as supervisors became advocates for their colleagues. Unions focussed towards insurance, safety, health, legal representation and political campaigns.

Companies which learnt to lead and manage effectively were companies which balanced the needs of customer, employee and shareholder, were building sustainable, socially responsible and profitable futures. Political meddling, poorly thought through economic strategies, blindness to blatant foreseeable consequences were less of a problem. The change in overall attitude was noticed by overseas manufacturers who began to see the UK as an opportunity rather than a problem, particularly for Japanese motor and IT companies.

Key was the lesson for managers to get down on the shop floor - talk and ,more importantly, listen to each and every member of the workforce. Understand needs, priorities but also educate: Needs of the business, the market, the strategies for survival, growth and long term sustainability.

Beware The Quiet Negotiator

 Beware – Just because someone is at the negotiating table it does not mean that they are there to negotiate.

So why are they sitting there?

• To weigh up the other party / parties – look into their (your) eyes and see what level of confidence shows.
• To discover what the (your) real issues and priorities are; so use the meeting as part of the dialogue phase.
• To work out the probable tactics and strategies that might be used on both sides.
• To learn more about the other (your) negotiator’s motivations, values, experience, skills.
• To be seen to be “negotiating” to satisfy the audience (gallery) and so give an appearance of reasonableness.
• To waste time by making unreasonable demands – create arguments – tie up key people and resources on the other side – buy time to make moves outside the room – gather more intelligence from other sources – use the delays to make other deals with other parties. Argument causes deadlock and halts progress.

Remember when we negotiate it is to get something or to avoid something. The others objective may just to gather information - ours may be not to give anything away.

Published by

Scott Roberts Negotiating

Teach Me How to Lie like an Englishman

Quite often on my international courses I am requested to; “Teach me how to lie like an Englishman”. This used to bother me, as I was somewhat surprised that the English had this reputation. But as this request became more frequent it caused me to think about it.

As many of you know, I have been working in international negotiations since the early 1980s. My work has taken me to all parts of the world and for clients in many types of public and private organisation. In the last 15 to 20 years, it has been increasingly noticeable that people are lying more often during negotiations and one must wonder why?

Well, as I teach on my courses – we need to ask ourselves:

What are we doing, or failing to do, that is making the other party do this?”

And

Why do many nationalities think the English are economic with the truth and do it better?

There will be many reasons, which include:

·      They get away with it most of the time.
·      A belief that everyone does it.
·      It is only a small lie.
·      No one accuses them of lying to maintain the relationship, save them from embarrassment – save face.
·      They do not realise that they are lying.
·      If they tell the truth, they will not get what they want.
·      Standards of morality no longer exist or are of no importance.
·      Right and Wrong are not taught effectively anymore.
·      Lack of Conscience.
·      Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. It's your fault if you fall for it.

However, what has led to this state of affairs? Has it always been like this? What if anything should be done? The reasons are many and include:

·      Parenting, the home culture, the visible behaviour between parents.
·      Modern teaching, learning and training techniques.
·      The avoidance of “difficult” situations and people.
·      Current attitudes towards morality.
·      The pressure to “get the deal”, almost at any cost.
·      The incentives of bonus or commission corrupting honesty.
·      Denial of responsibility.
·      Behaviour of role models.

The evidence for these behaviours we see every week during our courses when people are conducting negotiations. The rule seems to be if you are able to get away with it - all well and good. If they find out that you have profited from the lie that is the other side’s tough luck.  And if the lie gets called out - they know you are lying - what happens then?  Well, never mind - you live to fight another day. But the cost may be that you cannot be trusted to negotiate honestly with that party ever again.


And it is this thought that influences my answer to the original request. What reputation are you trying to achieve for the long term? Someone to be trusted, relied upon and good to work with. Professional Negotiators are trusted.

Trust In Negotiations.

 Last year I included the following as part of one of my Blogs - It is even more valid today.

Trust:

Trust is built up over time between parties. It becomes established as agreements are honoured exactly as agreed – not just once, but every time.

Trust is a major part of a relationship, a corner stone.

Trust allows each side to “know” how the other party will act, not just an expectation but a promise that will be fulfilled. 

One can expect (and be right) that secrets and confidences will be kept. The parties know if the trust is ever broken it can never be repaired.

Deals will be delivered to the letter – exactly as agreed, not distorted, misinterpreted, reneged upon or ignored and forgotten.

If changes have to be made they will be discussed and agreed in advance.

The parties know the value of trust (and the cost of losing it).

In Business: 

Trust is very difficult to maintain because:

• Employees are for ever changing.
• Market and economic pressures do not remain constant.
• Greed for profit / commission or bonus have a negative impact – relationships are expendable when there is a quick profit to be made.

When an individual does not understand complexity, consequence, sustainability and the long term, they do not understand trust, relationships, integrity and partnership.

#Negotiating Lessons from #Brexit Experience - Lesson Five - Deadlock

-->

The UK Westminster Government have been in deadlock, even stasis, for many months; a situation of its own making and repeated at various levels. This state of affairs means that we may have participants involved who do not know how to move forward: do not understand how deadlock works, how to analyse it and seem unable to listen or take advice and so are caught in the headlamps of stasis. Whatever the case, it is not good for the reputation of Parliament, the reputation of MPs, the knowledge and experience of Government Ministers and their advisors – both Permanent and bought in.

Problem One – Deadlock should always be under control – Your control. It is a very useful tool or weapon depending on the nature and style of the negotiation. Even if one has not set up the deadlock, one should see it coming and be able to manage it.

Deadlocking is useful

because:

·      The cost is cheaper than having to negotiate.

·      The political cost is often cheaper than moving to another tactic / strategy (e.g. General Election) – but only if there is a way out.

·      It buys time to work out new strategy or tactic and review objectives – after all they more no longer be realistic or achievable.

·      It provides time to sort out Negotiator / Negotiating Team if they are not up to the job – have personality issues with the other side – have lost credibility.

·      It applies pressure of time and silence on the other party which may force movement.

·      It allows one party to frustrate and irritate the other – although this is a risky game.

·      While in deadlock one does not have to negotiate. Remember, negotiators often will create long and varied arguments designed not to persuade but to deadlock. These tactics keep the other party engaged – give the appearance of a negotiation but are in reality a means of stopping the process.

·      Threat of not negotiating and deadlocking may not be real but is worth suffering than changing a deal and may be rewarded by the other side backing off.

The current deadlock besetting the UK is under the control of the EU.

Why? Because:

·      They have done a deal with the UK and to renegotiate is a precedent. To recognise a change in PM as a reason for renegotiation is a precedent. The value of the unity of their 27 is higher, far higher, than the UK being in a mess.

·      They do not want the UK to leave the EU and whilst deadlock keeps UK as a member state it suits both EU and Remainer factions.

·      Maintains a Status Quo

·      Buys time for moves by Remain parties to frustrate, build strength, undermine Leavers.

·      Allows time to use persuasion to rehearse arguments of the benefits of EU membership

·      Maintains the unity of the EU amongst the 27 members.

·      Enables “Business as Usual” during deadlock period

·      International business will reposition their assets within the EU to avoid the uncertainty thus benefitting EU states

·      Provides time for a change in the Commission, EU Parliament etc.

·      Causes UK Leavers to “think again”.

·      Keeps the strategy of “While the UK has not left there is the chance they will remain.”

To break out from the Deadlock the costs to the other party (EU) have to be escalated so that the advantages of negotiating or getting on with the leaving process outweigh the costs of maintaining the status quo. The position that the EU is blocking is to allow the UK to negotiate new trading relationships right now which might give it an advantage and demonstrate the value of being independent and fully sovereign outside the EU. Having been a member for so long and an architect of this rule makes the current situation very ironic.

But of course, until the EU has set up the new appointments to the offices of the EU it will not be ready to change anything. At present it will not want to move anyway as:

·      Precedent – Maintaining the 100% solidarity of the member states is a priority. EU will do nothing to disturb this.

·      Face – Ensuring the Union is seen to be strong, united and the 4 pillars remain non-negotiable.

·      Concessions – Until the EU knows exactly what the UK wants from the EU in the long term it is unable to assess trading options. It only desires one thing (the UK to remain). Until the UK actually leaves, the current situation suits the EU.

·      It will be happy to take on the UK over outstanding debts, duties and contributions as the EU institutions and advisors all benefit from legal process.

At the moment the EU has to do nothing as the UK indulges itself in this stasis; primarily because of the internal problems besetting the Conservative Party. However, to the outside observer what has been learned?

·      The UK does not appear to have a clear long-term objective for itself which unites its citizens. EU membership or isolated independence are strategies without a coherent objective.

·      In not knowing clearly what the ultimate objective is, it is difficult to negotiate.

·      Without clarity of objective it is not surprising that outsiders are not clear how committed the UK is to anything.

·      There is no vested interest helping the UK to determine the way forward or selecting the right leadership.

When there is no clear set of objectives or goals to provide clarity of direction, then one must look at what must be avoided (the direction from which to retreat):

·      Break-up of the United Kingdom with Scotland leading the way for independence, followed by a “me too” campaign to unite Ireland as a common market.

·      A breakdown of the British economy leading to serious damage to our lead service industries and consequences to tax raising.

·      Loss of status as a Global Player.

It is a time for professional negotiating. The UK leaving the EU is not the problem – It is the need for experienced leadership to navigate the negotiating process with confidence. Far greater negotiations lie ahead which are being damaged already by the performance of the current players.