The art of negotiation

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump scored a negotiations victory when over 1,000 Carrier Corporation jobs in Indiana were saved. Christmas will be especially meaningful for these affected families.

All of us have been negotiators at one time or another — whether it be with salespeople, spouses, kids or others. Yet few of us have the expertise and experience of this worldwide businessman.

Years ago, I was a union negotiator for the counselors, psychologists, speech therapists, nurses and program specialists at a medium-sized school district. At that time, several issues were on the table, including student/counselor ratios at the junior high and high school levels.

In some schools, the ratios were as high as 750 students to one counselor. For these folks to do their jobs within the standard of care, ratios of around 1:400 were a minimum requirement. Academic experts in this field have recommended no more than 1:350. Several counselors asked me to bring this issue up during bargaining sessions.

These were my pre-law school days, and quite frankly, I was as naive as the others on my side of the table. Opposite of us were school administrators — mostly district office personnel, along with an attorney who seemed to enjoy the art of derogation.

“Certainly,” I thought, “The district will want to help these struggling counselors by authorizing the personnel necessary to provide comprehensive and effective services for the children of our community.”

But their answer came quickly. They were not interested in looking at the problem. Our impression was that the district had other projects in mind, and services not mandated by the state were hardly a high priority.

Although the union contract addressed counseling ratios, it was done in an ambiguous way. It was designed to “look good” but actually said little. However, the contract did state (probably an error on their part) that counselors would be hired as needed for an employee/student ratio “goal.”

Management got around this “error” by arguing that the objective applied to the entire district, not individual schools. This was obviously a fallacy, as the socalled “goal” at that time was being met with much higher ratios.

The discussion died and remained unresolved. Looking back, I realized mistakes my team and I had made in the process. Here are two examples:

When negotiating with anyone who has the upper hand, your needs and those you represent are secondary at onset. To get what you want, advantages held by the other side must be considered in your plan. Here’s an example to illustrate my point:

There’s a 20th century adage that’s a parody on the theological “Golden Rule.” It goes something like this: “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.” In other words, the weaker party needs to frame arguments within the self-interests of those who hold the cards.

This can be done in a variety of ways via facts, logic, emotional appeal, incentives and even intimidation. It is getting the message across to the other side that doing things your way will make life better for them.

Another missed approach was the control of time. Those who are more anxious about an issue are at a strategic disadvantage. Attorneys often use this concept in civil cases.

For example, I’m the defendant. You’re the plaintiff. The preponderance of evidence is on your side. You want my money now. I want this situation to go away, but patience is in my corner. The longer my legal team can delay legal proceedings, the more likely you will settle for a lower amount.

In the world of negotiations, it’s true that situations often can be just a give-and-take approach to reach mutual compromise. Perhaps all related activities come to this conclusion in the final phase.

But to reach this point, it’s not just a mere “kumbaya” activity. Instead, it is a clever insight into the needs of your opponent in order for your overall objectives to be systematically achieved.