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.

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.

Negotiating for Europe #5 – Discipline at the Close

Beware Last Minute Nibbles.

During the end game, there were some public declarations that a deal was close and that there were just a few minor details to sort out. I suspect that these declarations of being nearly there were made more out of habit and in hope than in all seriousness. It is common for many negotiators and hagglers to try to push for concessions in the end game by bringing up small demands whilst dangling the prospect of a deal. The hope is that the incentive of reaching the deal, especially after long and protracted sessions, may be so inviting that unconditional  concessions will be easy to secure. Most often it is Buyers who use this successfully when dealing with Sellers who just want to secure a deal. Trades Union negotiators use it when they know a Management team is under pressure to get the deal and get back to work.

The tactic may have worked in previous rounds of these Greek Debt negotiations, but this time, after all that has passed, this was not going to happen. As Trust has been lost, it has been important to make sure that all the required conditionality was in place and was going to be “honoured” if an agreement was to be reached and to work.

The German position, as reported by Paul Carrel of Reuters, was made clear by Ralph Brinkhaus, deputy parliamentary floor leader for Merkel’s conservatives:

“The more money is handed out in one stroke, the less leverage one has to stop payments if the reform process in Greece does not pan out as planned and as promised.

“A lot of trust has been lost in recent months,” he said, adding that aid should only be provided in return for Greece delivering reforms.

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-senior-german-conservative-sees-open-questions-on-greek-bailout-2015-8?r=US&IR=T#ixzz3igZYLg7g

The lesson in the end game is to make sure that all concessions are traded against the agreement of specific conditions. That if a last minute concession is being sought it is traded on agreeing the deal and bringing it to a close. The concession being traded should be small and conditional that the deal is now done. And if trust is a problem, it should be agreed on the basis of everything being clearly understood and how it will all be implemented and what the penalties will be incurred for failing to honour the accord.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - #2 - Kicking The Can Down The Road - Deadlocking

How to Deadlock the Negotiation -

1. Argue and keep arguing - whilst arguing you are not making concessions or even proposals. In fact you are not negotiating (attempting to secure an agreement). You keep the position in stasis by playing the argument game. Negotiations appear to be ongoing, but the reality is deadlock. This is used for many reasons - for example: to buy time - encourage concessions as the other parties surrender through frustration - allow deadlines to be overrun - appear to be fully engaged in the negotiation when not - grandstand to the audience (audience as in noise to listen to)
2. Unrealistic Proposals - making proposals that one knows to be unacceptable are designed to create argument - deadlock. It allows one to push the onus to the other side and make them responsible for lack of progress. It is high risk, but often tried. If the other side sees it for what it is it is matched by an equally unrealistic response. There are elements of this behaviour operating between the Greeks and Germans as I write.
3. Appeal to higher authority - referendum - seek the view of the electorate and use their answer to deadlock further.The danger is two can play at this game. Another matching game to deadlock the process or bring people to their senses.
4. Making an agreement but then take it away for approval / ratification and then finding all sorts of problems with it. Kicks can down the road, but attempts to set up opportunities to amend the agreement. Lots of this going on.
   

These techniques are used often by parties who:

• May not know what they want.
• Do not know what is likely to happen if they go through with threats or agree to something they do not fully understand.
• Have nothing to lose.
• Know it costs less to deadlock than to negotiate / make concessions.
• Find that by using frustration tactics they get rewarded - especially if some parties are keen to “get a deal”.
• Want to appear to be negotiating by being at the meeting, but have no intention of allowing progress.
• Think that winning the argument is negotiating - it is not.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - How not to Negotiate

Gift One: Preparation

1. A few lessons in How not to negotiate.
1. Being Unprepared hands control to those who would seize it. The lack of a clear idea of what the consequences of Grexit might be make it difficult, or even impossible, to have clarity of purpose or objective. Why has this not been done? Daring to think the unthinkable is a negotiator's skill (but not a politicians).
2. Two wrongs do not make a right - Remember where you start from. How good was the agreement that created the situation? Was the last agreement respected and honoured? Had either party carried our any diligence to check the integrity of the relationship?
3. What is the relationship like? Can it be repaired / improved through the processes of negotiation? How important is the relationship? Does it matter?
4. Membership qualifications were not met although the rules for membership are clear. The consequences for turning a blind eye were always clear to see. This should have meant that all parties should have been working to resolve this looming crisis years ago. However, it would appear that eviction from the Union is not catered for. (Another unthinkable).
5. No should mean No. But what does No mean in the Eurozone and European Union?
6. Poor strategy, but all too common! It goes like this: "Let’s see what the other side come up with and then make our minds up / decide what to do". Or: "We will listen to what they say and then tell them it is not enough" A typical buyers gambit but often leads to a game of slow surrender. It allows the skilful negotiator to set the agenda; it can signal to other side that you do not know what you want; it may signal that you are ready to negotiate when you are not (make concessions / surrender / change the rules / disunity).
7. Be realistic! - Objectives need to be realistic. Proposals need to be realistic (unless being used to cause deadlock). Can the terms be met? Would you meet the terms if you were sitting on the other side? If the objective is agreed, will it be honoured / implemented? Can you trust the other side? Can you trust yourself?
8. Objectives that are more about avoidance may be part of the problem. Avoid "giving in"; Avoid being seen / perceived as losing; Avoid evicting a member state; Avoid losing face; Avoid taking a "haircut"; Avoid being seen as weak by one's own electorate; Avoid giving in (set some other party up). The list goes on.

Negotiating Lessons from The Past

It is an interesting time to be working as an Industrial relations specialist and negotiating expert. The pendulum is swinging back towards another period of unrest as relations between “Management” and “Union” become increasingly strained. There is a fear that we might be returning to the 70’s. This is most unlikely, as today’s economic situation is very different. However, what we are witnessing are reminders of past lessons.

Issues of the moment in the current round of disputes include:

• Forced changes in contractual pay and conditions

• Pay freezes and reductions in benfits and conditions of employment

• Reductions in pensions , closure of schemes, major deficits in funding of schemes

• Job security (insecurity)

• Bullying and competitive management behaviour

• A challenge to industrial democracy and a perceived attempt at union busting

Many of these disputes have declined into attacks between personalities. Some are taking on new issues as situations grow worse and objectives become blurred. This is leading to deadlock followed by blame being directed across the table.

So what is going on?



1. Leadership Issues

 If a company suffers a strike it is the Management’s responsibility. It is part of the negotiating landscape. Both sides are responsible for allowing issues to escalate to the point where one side or the other has to take this level of action. An unwanted strike will be a failure of planning, communications, management of expectations, realism, sensitivity, understanding and more importantly, leadership.

If any of the current levels of dispute have not been anticipated by the managements involved, then both the dispute and the management are “out of control”.

Too often we see objectives which are unclearly specified at the outset become further distorted as a dispute escalates. Managements who pursue single inflexible strategies fail, even if the objective is reasonable and fair. Macho, confrontational behaviour to be seen as a strong tough leader creates intransigence, deadlock and out of control confrontation. 70’s behaviour. When both sides indulge in this behaviour they cease to represent the interests of those on whose behalf they act.

2. Listen to The Language

A key role for the Manager as Leader is to look after the interests of those they manage. It is the Manager who should be communicating company positions, explaining the challenges ahead, clarifying offers on the table and ensuring their employees understand. If this key channel breaks down, or is not trusted, then management leadership is failing and the vacuum invites others in who will have different agendas.


Engage with employees as employees. When a company starts to talk about “Union Members” rather than “Our Staff” or “ Our Employees”, it signals a breakdown in relations. The conflict is  described by personality not issue.

When the dispute is over, relationships will need to be rebuilt and then strengthened.


Key Negotiating Lessons:

Objectives need to be absolutely clear.

You should always review the impact on relationships. For management, internal relationships are critical; for investors they may be irrelevant.

Beware – Improved staff relationships will most likely be both an objective in itself as well as a strategy for managing change. Ask yourself:

• What kind of staff relationships do you want to have following the outcome of the negotiation?

• How quickly do you want to implement change?

• What will be the impact on your own employees if you pursue the current strategy?

• What is the best way to achieve widespread support? For objectives and strategy? To rebuild?

• Do you want the Management to represent the best interests of your staff or do want this to be taken over by others? Who do you want them to trust most?

• Listen more talk less