Cracking the "Genetic Code" for Effective Negotiations

Cracking the "Genetic Code" for Effective Negotiations By Dr. Ravit Oren, VP of Human Resources, Of Tov Group When you think of a worker's union in an organization alongside management - the immediate association is of a fight between two groups with conflicting interests. The way to achieve a desirable agreement between the parties is usually a nerve-wracking ritual including grumbles, moans, demands, quoting data back and forth, again and again across the table – and this is the best case scenario; strikes and sanctions in extreme cases, all of which have already become part of the usual process of negotiations. In general, employees tend to organize when they feel that they cannot achieve on their own what a professional union can achieve for them by its mechanism and political, economic and social influence. Now, try to imagine the two sides, the employees' union and management, conducting themselves not as rivals but as partners. Discussing issues put forth in good humor, from the view point of a common goal - business growth, reaching new heights for employees and the company's aims. Sounds strange? Not necessarily. Like it or not, organizations find themselves required to negotiate with unions and their representatives. While around the world the trend is of weakening unions, the labor system in Israel, even before the establishment of the State, has always been based on a model of cooperation and negotiation between three parties: employers, employees and the State. In the past year we have seen a growing trend of unions entering companies where organized labor had never stepped foot, high-tech companies like Ness Technologies, SAP and Comverse, insurance companies and accounting firms such as Ernst & Young. Just last week we learned that employees of Strauss Group's distribution center in Acre established an association for the first time and a union. The common denominator: workers were convinced that a collective agreement would provide them organizational protection, advantages and benefits far beyond what the law requires. It seems as if with the establishment of a workers' union, the newly defined relationship with management is immediately characterized as confrontational. "We're not going to give up," is sounded on a regular basis by both parties. Disagreements, disputes regarding interpretation of clauses in agreements, enforcement of new rules and norms by one of the parties without the knowledge of the other, violations of the balance between the parties in the form of sanctions or strikes lawfully or otherwise - all these factors shock the system, balance and stability that existed before the conflict. Management, for its part, remains entrenched behind closed doors hoping that the union will not break them down, all the while making efforts to continue to manage the company as previously done. The surroundings: no clear predictions for the future. And the reality? Continues to be complex and challenging, requiring resources and attention, simultaneous to what is happening internally, and to the voices heard from the other side of communication channels, of both management and the union. At some point entering a chronicle trajectory, that includes the transfer of drafts of collective agreements, declarations of labor disputes, rulings of the Labour Court, workers assemblies, difficult discussions and more. Often the feeling on both sides is that "there's no one to talk to". Eventually, the struggle ends – it is final and inevitable - as the two sides compromise midway. Shortly thereafter, the "post-negotiation compromise" receives official approval. So if the companies are able to reach a compromise after negotiations, why should it be discussed? Well, often the results they come by are only a fraction of what could have been achieved by both parties through cooperation, pacified negotiation and joined forces - actions that would generate better results for them both, not to mention preventing the mental fatigue of all participants in the process. The union's message should be that it is not against the employer, on the contrary: the union wants to be aware of the decision making process that determines where the company is headed, to have a voice and be heard, "in the field" and as a body who wants to preserve the workplace and advance it. Management also needs to view unions as partners and not opponents, and deal with them transparently. Following are some steps for couple's therapy for relations between management and unions in order to advance their relationship from a rivalry to a partnership, based on tips for success in negotiations from the book "Getting to YES". In their book Yuri and Fisher offer an approach called "negotiations based on principles " that leads to Win-Win agreements that maximize the potential of negotiations for the parties. 1. Separate the people from the problem: We are not computers or robots. We are emotional beings who sometimes have different views and in many cases fail to disconnect emotionally from the essence of a problem. Before discussing the main reasons for gathering, all participants need to see themselves as acting in partnership to attack the problem rather than attack each other or view the other side's interests as insignificant. The human aspect of negotiations could be beneficial or lead to disaster, and labor relations in which a relationship of trust, understanding and respect develops may cause all new negotiations to be more effective. 2. Focus on needs and not viewpoints: One of the basic techniques is to put ourselves in the other's shoes. We can be tough negotiators for our interests, but if people on the other side feel that the attack is a personal threat, they might become defensive and stop listening. Therefore, listen with respect, be kind and emphasize how important it is to meet their basic needs. We cannot expect the other side to listen to our interests and discuss the options we offer if we do not take into account their interests and show that we are open to listening. 3. Invent options for mutual gain: Unfortunately, there is no way to have it all. People placed in an argument are convinced that they have the answer and that their view must win, and are deaf to new ideas. Since the end product of negotiation is a single decision, they are afraid that free discussion will only delay or complicate, and in search of the best singular answer, one might impede a more prudent process of decision-making where several possible solutions are available. When we insist on a single solution, our creativity is blocked. Listen to new possibilities and new ideas so that we and the other side can choose from them later on in cooperation. People usually groan when mention is made of negotiations towards a collective agreement. It does not have to be this way. It should not be this way. But the change that will bring about a better way has to start somewhere - why not with us?