Introduction
Effective bargaining or compromise among interested parties can be achieved through negotiations. They occur in international politics and economics but also happen in ordinary life, such as when a person negotiates their future salary at a job interview or when a couple settles a disagreement. Indeed, negotiations do not always result in a win-win situation. Negotiations can fail for a variety of reasons, including the indebtedness of their subject matter and the blunders of the parties involved.
This essay examines the misunderstandings that prevent parties from settling their differences during negotiations. The research will examine the root causes of unsuccessful business negotiations and present actionable insights that can improve the performance of chief executive officers and other high-ranking company leaders. It will review the most recent round of discussions between News Corporation and PointCast to see who exactly bungled things. Negotiations often fail since neither side plays its role diligently and can empathize in most instances.
Company Negotiations
Exceptional leaders around the world, like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison, appear to have a natural ability to take charge whenever the need arises. There are also outstanding negotiators whose natural abilities as mediators make up for their lack of training. Nonetheless, business leaders should be conscious that people who are born to negotiate are extremely uncommon.
More importantly, every organizational leader can enhance their negotiating abilities with practice and preparation. That is why it is important to spread the word about courses that help people hone their negotiating expertise. It is crucial to keep in mind that numerous potential dangers in negotiations could result in major disappointment, frustration, and lost opportunities. The executives of an organization can increase their chances of success in negotiations by familiarizing themselves with the most common causes of failure.
In a contemporary incident in 2008, the Chief Executive Officer at Yahoo!, Jerry Yang, was removed from his position after negotiations with Google and Microsoft fell apart. It was clear from Yang’s actions that he was less interested in negotiations than in playing ‘difficult to convince’ during the sessions. He kept insisting that they should increase their financial resources without comprehending how tenuous their situation actually was. In other terms, parties who ignore preconceived notions, groupthink, influence, and authority during negotiations can ruin a bargain that appears to be financially sound.
Company negotiations are critical to progress in business but need to be understood. A business’s long-term health can take a serious hit if its representatives fail to secure a favorable contract or negotiate one that is less than optimal. In addition, if a corporation is unable to negotiate, its competitors will have an opening to obtain an advantage. To succeed, they need to only out-negotiate the competing organization.
Organizational leaders should develop strong negotiation skills if they want their businesses to thrive. CEOs should aim to be at least as good as their rivals in all areas of the business that truly matter, such as in the art of negotiating. That calls for a market-leading strategy, and the successful implementation of any company plan demands insight, forethought, and persistence.
Causes of Failed Negotiations
Attributable to the complexity of the task at hand, negotiators need to be well-versed in human psychology and social dynamics in order to be effective. Relationships between negotiators are challenging due to the fact that they constantly have competing interests but need to work together with the other parties to find a mutually accepted solution and avoid costly deadlock. Hence, the success of any negotiation is heavily dependent on the parties’ capacity to look out for their own best interests while also listening to and comprehending their opponents’ motivations. This section will discuss a comprehensive examination of the toll that poor preparation, empathy, emotion management, and relationship building may have on negotiations.
Insufficient Preparation
Although improvising is necessary for negotiations, a spontaneous argument rarely leads to a positive outcome. Lack of preparation is cited as the primary cause of a failed negotiation. Taking the time to plan for a negotiation helps ensure that needs and wants are met and that negative outcomes are minimized. Uncertain goals, limited choices, apathy for adversaries, and external influences contribute to a lack of readiness. Negotiators need more clarity on their goals in the talks, which directly results from their unclear interests. To achieve success, it is crucial to understand the other party’s goals and priorities. As a result, negotiators have little chance of success if they do not clearly identify their objectives and those of their rivals before the next argument.
Goals that are too broad prevent effective planning in any negotiation endeavor. Constrained options, in which negotiators limit the number of viable alternatives, are other sources of inadequate preparedness. Limiting negotiators’ options forces them to ignore potentially abundant choices in favor of those they have been told to pursue.
When one group fails to account for another’s strengths and weaknesses, it is engaging in disregard for opponents. Talks are certain to fail if negotiators cannot gauge the other side’s motivations and interests. Precedents, expert opinion, and established industry practices are all examples of external influences that might impact the planning phase. Stakeholders should be familiar with the standard practice of negotiations in their field in order to be well-prepared for arguments; otherwise, the talks will fail. As a result, the preliminary phase of discussions is decisive.
Many failed negotiations happen outside the zone where a compromise may be reached. In essence, this means that both sides enter the negotiation table full of optimism and eagerness despite overwhelming data suggesting that an agreement is impossible to reach even under the best circumstances. Such negotiations typically take place when one or both teams are desperate for a deal but ill-equipped to handle it. They do not realize until much later that there are simply too many roadblocks between them for any meaningful negotiation to be worthwhile. Doing homework ahead of time will help organizational leaders avoid spending time in fruitless talks. A company should not get into formalized negotiations without a clear and achievable strategy.
Lack of Compassion
Even if both sides of the negotiation are well-prepared, the talks could still end in failure if one side makes critical errors at the table. The inability to sympathize is one of the mistakes that could be made during negotiations. Negotiators tend to believe that there is a single, best course of action that all parties involved should evaluate. Nevertheless when that is the case, stakeholders fall prey to what is known as the hazard of one story. What this means is that there is no one correct answer that will make everyone happy.
Values and interests vary from one side to the next, and what one finds essential may be of little importance to the other. To avoid falling into this trap, negotiators should focus on gaining an accurate picture of the other party’s interests rather than making assumptions about their motivations or trying to impose their agenda. Likewise, the chances of success of the discussions are diminished if the parties just consider their own interests and fail to take into account the priorities of the other side.
The inability to empathize has several links to the comprehension of the motivations of opponents. In addition, it considers the impact of extraneous factors on the bargaining power of the parties involved. Negotiators frequently stand in for a larger constituency when conducting business. When they reach an agreement on a point during negotiations, they will have to justify it to their colleagues who were not there. It is highly improbable that negotiators will only be able to reach an agreement if they pay attention to the external restrictions that put pressure on the other side. Likewise, talks are doomed to fail if one side considers the other an inferior opponent. When one side of a negotiation takes advantage of the other’s deficiencies in order to gain an advantage, this results in negotiating in bad faith. Therefore, it is vital for the success of the talks that the negotiators are able to put themselves in the shoes of the opposing party.
The Inability to Control Emotions
Emotions are another component that might influence the outcome of a negotiation. According to the 70/30 rule, a speaker’s emotional intelligence matters more than their intellect when it comes to determining how well a conversation goes. It suggests that giving a rationale for an agreement is crucial during negotiations but that controlling one’s emotions is of far more importance for a successful end. Anger is a normal feeling that should be managed when communicating with adversaries. Depending on the context, rage can help or hurt negotiators. Only really powerful negotiators can use anger to their advantage and win over their opponents, allowing them to demand concessions from them. Low-power individuals, however, are incapable of rational thought or accurate value assessment when angered. As a result, they need help to maintain concentration and provide the other side with comprehensive solutions.
Some negotiators can afford to use foul language at times, and even if they do reach an agreement, they are less pleased with it than their less angry colleagues. Furthermore, low-power negotiators’ anger results in fewer compromises and increases the danger of damaged relationships with their opponents. Anger is a tool of influence in negotiations and should be used sparingly and in small doses.
As a result, the connection between the parties at the table could be irreparably damaged if negotiators let their anger get the best of them. It is not just anger, though, that may ruin a negotiation. When one side of a negotiation finally gets what they wants, the happy participants may start showing it before the talks are over. Duper’s joy is harmful to relationships since it often leaves opponents feeling like they have been defeated. Consequently, in the culture of negotiations, it is considered rude to celebrate a win in front of the other side.
Relationship-Building Gap
Negotiators might blunder by failing to establish rapport with their opponents; this mistake is more systemic than the others because it extends beyond a single argument. There is a common misconception that each negotiation is a new agreement. In most cases, however, talks take place over the course of several meetings between the various parties involved. As a result, it follows that negotiators run the danger of not only obtaining bad effects from the present round of discussions but also losing out on key stakeholders in the future. This happens if they fail to create excellent ties with the opposing party.
When dealing with stakeholders, it is important to know how to tell a trustworthy one from a shady one. People are more likely to form lasting professional relationships with those who are resilient in the face of adversity and humorous.
Similarly, using humor during negotiations is a great approach to relieve tension and strengthen connections. Yet, the negotiations and ties could be ruined if some members of the opposite side find it insulting or improper. Laughing at oneself is safer in these situations because it avoids offending others and demonstrates resilience in the face of adversity. Hence, if the parties involved in the negotiations do not establish themselves as trustworthy and instead insult one another, the talks could end in failure.
Lack of rapport is a critical and frequent cause of failed negotiations. It is important for the parties involved in the negotiations to find a point of agreement early on. Building relationships and working towards a common goal is always more beneficial in business and life than acting only out of self-interest. When two parties have a lot of chemistry, it is simpler to work out their differences because there is a climate of mutual interest and respect that fosters understanding and adaptability. Furthermore, when companies establish strong rapport during negotiations, they find it simpler to work out a comprehensive implementation strategy after the agreement has been finalized.
An Illustration of a Failed Attempt at Negotiation
Throughout 1997, PointCast Network Inc. was the most talked-about new venture in Northern California. Christopher Hassett, the company’s founder and Chief Executive Officer, was dubbed ‘the most popular person on the Internet.’ Hassett received CNET’s Newsmaker of the Year award, which had been given to industry titans like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison in the past. PointCast’s groundbreaking ‘push technology’ was featured on the covers of magazines and newspapers such as ‘The Radical Future of the Media beyond the Web.’
Following weeks of rigorous negotiations, PointCast rejected a deal of $450 million from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, one of the greatest telecommunications firms in the world. The media said that PointCast, a corporation with almost no revenue, ought to be priced at $750 million, and others argued that Hassett began to believe the hype and seek additional money with the backing of his board. All those engaged hoped their company would become the next Netscape, and that concept left them wanting. Rather than the previous $450 million, News Corporation then offered $400 million with incentive terms that would increase the offer to above the earlier amount if PointCast reached its financial expectations.
News Corporation left the negotiating table after PointCast turned down their offers. PointCast’s push technology was quickly rendered obsolete as competitors like Yahoo! developed better solutions. When PointCast finally went public in 1998, its valuation was just half of what News Corporation had offered at the time. Even worse, under the rules of an IPO filing, the company should reveal every risk to the public. PointCast canceled its IPO after disclosing information that drove off numerous investors, including that clients had fled due to poor performance. The board had already ousted Hassett by that point, but the business never returned to its previous state. Ultimately, PointCast was purchased by Idealab in 1999 for about $8 million. PointCast Network Inc. paid a hefty price of $442 million due to failed negotiations.
Recommendations for Successful Negotiation
Stakeholders should know the best methods for holding negotiations so that disagreements may be resolved successfully. As a first step, the side entering into negotiations should articulate its best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). An ideal scenario for a negotiated settlement is a plan of action that parties involved will implement if talks fail to produce an agreement. Having a clearly defined BATNA gives stakeholders a “plan B” in the event that negotiations fail. Additionally, BATNA establishes bounds beyond which negotiators will not budge in pursuit of a satisfactory agreement and what offers will cause them to walk away from the table. BATNA provides negotiators additional leverage by letting them hint at an alternative during negotiations and showing the other side that they can walk away from the table if no agreement is achieved. For this reason, it is crucial to define the BATNA in advance of the negotiations.
News Corporation and PointCast apparently each had their BATNA in the case of the failed talks. However, Hassett was not prepared to accept a settlement in which News Corporation did not attain the hyped price of $750 million. When a deal could not be achieved, the News Corporation’s best option appeared to be to organize another summit later. It seems that BATNA similarly influenced PointCast, but that Hassett’s refusal to accept the offers was the trigger for News Corporation to resort to its best choice. Both sides could have done better at the negotiating table if they had come up with more compelling BATNAs to persuade the other to reach a specific agreement.
Finding common ground is another technique that might help in negotiations. The Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) is the conceptual region in which the BATNAs of the parties to a negotiation intersect. This suggests that an arrangement can be made within the ZOPA, but outside of it, the parties are unable to establish common ground and form an accord. Negotiating effectively requires first pinpointing the ZOPA, which might shed light on whether or not it even makes sense to begin conversations.
In addition, the parties are more likely to change their goals to align with those of their opponents if the negotiating teams are conscious of the areas where they might come to an agreement. Making compromises with each other is recommended, as talks that solely help one side could backfire in the future. As a result, determining the ZOPA is crucial, and doing so needs insight into the adversary’s motivations.
Evidently, neither News Corporation nor PointCast fully grasped the other’s motivations and values. As a result, it became clear that their priorities lay outside the scope of the ZOPA, and negotiations broke down. The failure of the negotiations may have been prevented if the teams had first learned about the other party’s priorities and the boundaries each had established for themselves. PointCast may have seen that News Corporation made a reasonable offer to safeguard its success and profitability.
Hassett, knowing this, could have proposed a lower and phased payment of funds in return for a gradual easing of their position.
Separating stances from interests and communicating both to the other party is another helpful tactic in any negotiation. A viewpoint is a clearly articulated request, while an appeal is a driving force behind that request. Negotiators are less successful at coming to terms if they convey their perspectives without explaining their interests. Considering Jerry Yang could not reach an agreement during negotiations with Google and Microsoft, it is reasonable to believe that he was vague about what he needed. As a result, the other side was unable to see through to the true motivations at play and make any necessary concessions.
Conclusion
Many negotiations end in failure because parties involved do not come to the table well-prepared, fail to show enough empathy for the other side, let their emotions get the better of them, or do not form a working relationship with the other side. Discussing the breakdown in negotiations between News Corporation and PointCast, it became clear that misunderstandings over each side’s priorities were to blame. The parties may have reached an agreement if they had strengthened their finest alternatives, located the sector of probable settlement, and provided their opponents an explanation of the rationale behind their claims.
Bibliography
Afriyie, F. Appiah, Legislative Authority of US Unilateral Economic Sanctions Against the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK), 2 JSPS. 570, 571-580 (2019).
Jeanne M. Brett & Tyree Mitchell, Searching for Trustworthiness: Culture, Trust and Negotiating New Business Relationships, 31 Int. J. Confl. Manag. 17, 32-37 (2020).
Kyle O. Rapp, Law and Contestation in International Negotiations, 46 Rev. Int. Stud. 672, 683-686 (2020).
Maximilian J. Schormair & Lara Gerlach, Corporate Remediation of Human Rights Violations: A Restorative Justice Framework, 167 J. Bus. Ethics. 475, 484-491 (2020).
Stephen B. Goldberg, et al., Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other processes, 35-47 (7th ed. 2020).