Interweaving Trust In Communication Project - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the Interweaving Trust In Communication Project. Answer: Introduction Conflicts are a part of every organization across the globe. Every time two or more people tend to work together to accomplish any goals, it is only natural that they disagree over certain issues which leads to conflicts (Kremenyuk). These conflicts must be effectively identified and addressed by all the concerned parties to make sure that they do not adversely impact performance. This case throws light upon the conflict going on between the National hockey league (NHL) and National hockey league players association (NHLPA). They have been aiming to work upon the collective bargaining agreement which expired in 2004. Both the parties have a different stand on almost every issue. Despite repeated attempts both the NHL and the NHLPA are finding it difficult to reach an agreement. This is hampering the player performances, the value and brand positioning of the game as well as the league. This report throws light on the negotiation issues faced by the two organizations, barriers to the negotiation and the role of power and trust in the negotiation. Negotiation issues The issues given below are discussed in the case study: Collective bargaining agreement The collective bargaining agreement signed between the two parties wished to discuss two important issues. Firstly being the salary cap on players salaries and secondly the introduction of a linkage between league wide salaries and league wide revenues. Unfortunately both the parties were not able to reach a grey ground in order to establish the same. Difference in interests Another issue faced in this negotiation is the difference of interests between the two parties. The players felt that the owners did not understand the game and hence did not share the same passion towards hockey. On the other hand, the owners felt that the players did not pay attention to earning higher revenue for the team. The players believed that they were the main attractions putting the fans on stand. While the owners opined that players were merely a small part of the hockey ecosystem but they were the ones investing money. Barriers to negotiation Every negotiation process is faced by certain barriers which delay or hamper the parties in reaching a solution (Korobkin Russell). Three important kinds of barriers are psychological, structural and tactical. All three of them were a part of the negotiation process of NHL and NHLPA. Psychological Psychological barriers occur frequently in negotiations due to a lack of trust and unclear power roles between people (Clohisy, Denis, Michael, Yaszemski Lipman, page 60) Due to such a long duration of negotiation both the parties are now egoistic and resistant to change from their stands. Their emotion towards the situation is really strong. This is making it even more difficult for either of them to step down from their current stands even though they have come a long way from their original positions. Players feel that the league does not feel so strongly about the game rather the owners are only concerned about the revenues that are generated. In the 1992 strike, the players had come out victorious whereas in the lockout of 1995, the financial health of the league as well as curbing the growing salaries of the players is the main concern and the owners had won that negotiation. However, in the years to come, the players were the real winners. This made the owners look weak and incompetent. As despite the lockout, players salaries sky rocketed owing to smaller supply, higher demand and intense bidding. The distrust among the players towards the owners is also not unknown. The players often blamed the owners for not disclosing the real revenue and expenses of the game. Trust issues lead to bigger conflicts (Lande). Even after the owners got all their books audited, the players did not trust the numbers shared by the NHL. Structural The biggest structural barrier is the barrier of time (Chambers, John, Carsten Dreu, 15-26). Every game that is not played is potential loss of money. There is also immense confusion about who should be attending the meetings. Initially only Bettman and Goodenow were negotiating whereas now other members are involved. It is also structurally unclear if both the parties have had a lot of meetings or if most of the meetings were simply informal telephonic conversations (Zentner). Another structural issue in this negotiation is the conversations with the media. On one hand, the owners were completely restricted by law to speak to media and discuss any minute detail about the same. On the other hand, players were not restricted to interact with the media. In fact they were encouraged by the team to show unity while answering to the media. Lastly, another structural issue is that the procedure of voting among the owners also changed in the middle of the negotiations to suit their purpose. To ratify a new CBA, earlier only majority votes were required but now this has been increased to three quarters of votes. At the same point of time, Bettman is given the power to lock out the players as soon as the old CBA expired if deemed necessary. Tactical The possibility of developing meaningful relationships between the two parties in order to achieve a common goal has been completely eliminated in the process of negotiation. It is rather obvious that the owners sole goal is to enhance revenues while the players aim is to be able to play. Tactical barriers are created by the negotiators own accord (Rhode, Alexander, Schnbohm Jacobus). Firstly during a dispute, the owners expressed to modify 19 additional aspects of the CBA. Thought they were small points, it added to unnecessary confusion and led to further distrust between the two parties. And secondly, during a particular step in the negotiation, owners out rightly refused to accept any change in the offered proposal and denied the owners request for a further negotiation. Role of power and trust in negotiation Power and trust both play an incredible role in any negotiation process. Trust leads to a smoother negotiation process while power results in effective negotiation (Kong, Dejun, Kurt, Dirks Donald, 196-201). In the case study, we can clearly see abundant distrust showcased by the players in the owners. The animosity between both the parties has led to unproductive and lengthy negotiation process so far. The owners tried to establish a greater power when they put tremendous efforts in sabotaging the formation of the union. However, once the union was formed and the demands of players increased the latter depicted greater power owing to better knowledge of the game. During most of the negotiation process, both the parties used hard ball tactics as well as threats in order to fulfill their demands. Every time a negotiation takes place without trust, it is bound to be highly unproductive as there is no transparency between both the parties (Kong, 1235-1255). In this case, the owners are often seen adopting the take it or leave it strategy which leads to hurt egos and no practical results. Negotiations must go forward with a spirit of the need to achieve similar goals. Only then can they lead to substantial results. Else they end up wasting time and opportunities. Both the parties have come a long way from their original stands. The owners had agreed to extend the salary cap to $42.5 million per team and the players had offered a very generous 24% rollback of their salaries which the owners kindly restructured to take more money from better paid players. However, they are yet not able to reach a grey ground only because of this difference between their respective powers and lack of trust towards each other. Conclusion Conflicts are a part of every organization. They basically imply any disagreement between two parties which is led by a clash of opinions, views, thoughts or goals. The case focuses on conflicts that have occurred between the national hockey league as well as the national hockey league players association. The case throws light on the role of trust and power in any conflicts. Trust encourages openness and transparency and clarity of power creates a respectful environment to negotiate in. Both the parties are facing various structural, tactical and psychological barriers of negotiation which is making it difficult for both the parties to reach a conclusion. No doubt that both NHL and NHLPA have come a long way from their original stands but they have still not been able to achieve a grey ground. However it is largely recommended that both the parties must work towards creating transparency and building trust as well as clarity of power among each other which is expected to help both o f them reach a common ground (Cheung Tak, 169-187). The lockout is simply causing a loss of revenue for the players, association, sports arenas as well as television sports broadcasters. References Chambers, John R., and Carsten KW De Dreu. "Egocentrism drives misunderstanding in conflict and negotiation."Journal of Experimental Social Psychology51 (2014): 15-26. Cheung, Sai On, and Tak Wing Yiu. "Interweaving Trust and Communication for Project Performance."Construction Dispute Research. Springer International Publishing, 2014. 169-187. Clohisy, Denis R., Michael J. Yaszemski, and Joanne Lipman. "Leadership, Communication, and Negotiation across a Diverse Workforce*: An AOA Critical Issues Symposium."JBJS99.12 (2017): e60. Kong, Dejun Tony, Kurt T. Dirks, and Donald L. Ferrin. "Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research."Academy of Management Journal57.5 (2014): 1235-1255. Kong, Dejun Tony. "Narcissists negative perception of their counterparts competence and benevolence and their own reduced trust in a negotiation context."Personality and Individual Differences74 (2015): 196-201. Korobkin, Russell.Negotiation: Theory and strategy. Wolters Kluwer Law Business, 2014. Kremenyuk, Victor A.International negotiation. Analysis, approaches, issues. Jossey-Bass, 2002. Lande, John. "Moving Negotiation Theory from the Tower of Babel toward a World of Mutual Understanding." (2017). Rhode, Alexander, Avo Schnbohm, and Jacobus van Vliet.The tactical utilization of cognitive biases in negotiations. No. 80. Working Papers of the Institute of Management Berlin at the Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin), 2014. Zentner, Aeron. "Breaking the Ice of Negotiation Barriers: A Case Study Analysis of the 2004-2005 NHL Dispute." (2015).