Structural, Psychological, and Tactical Barriers

Discuss about the various Barriers to Negotiation.

In the early years of the National Hockey League, different conflicts have been experienced between the players and the NHL mostly on issues of mistrust on NHL’s profitability and revenues. The disputes went on for some time and thereby led to the formation of the National Hockey League Players Association in the year 1967 to combat such issues. However, after the inception of the NHL, the disputes continued hence leading to the first strike of the players in 1992 led by Executive Director of the NHLPA union (Malhotra et al, 616). Due to the conflicts between both parties, a lot of losses were experienced since each party focused on its position rather than the collective interests at hand. A mutually accepted agreement between the parties could not be arrived at hence not only the parties were affected but also the hockey fans and the game itself.

In the dispute between both the players and the NHL, different barriers to negotiation were evident hence the period for the negotiations was prolonged. This resulted in severe results both financially and in their relationship. In the outside world, the game began losing its fans and was characterized by an atrocious image (Ward, 45). The barriers to negotiation are divided into; structural barriers, psychological barriers, and tactical barriers.

These barriers involve either contextual or situational factors. To begin with, we have power imbalance. Each party, that is, the NHLPA and the NHL, maneuvered their power moves although there was a power imbalance due to the NHL being the owners. Their rules were not to be challenged. For example, a Calgary Flames defenseman known as Mike Commodore had to agree to the salary cap the NHL wanted for him to play in the league. Due to this, the other option was for the players to play in other leagues such as the European teams (Malhotra et al, 623).

Secondly, we have conflicts of interests. The dispute between the players and the NHL was a critical barrier. This is because the NHL was for the idea that the player’s salaries and bonuses be limited to a certain percentage. On the other hand, the NHLPA discredited the claim of the NHL and was for the idea that a free market would determine the player’s salaries and remuneration (Bartlett,98).

Lastly, we have the role of hockey fans. Fans of any sport develop an emotional attachment to the game therefore making their opinions relevant. For example, according to the poll results released by the NHL, the hockey fans portrayed much interest and concern on the NHL’s financial health and also the application of the cost certainty.

Power Imbalance and Conflicts of Interest

These barriers involve differences in cognition or way of perception. To begin with, we have the dilemma of trust. The players had trust issues with the NHL regarding matters of incorrect reporting of finances of the league. According to the players, the NHL concealed the information on revenues generated from the game (Malhotra et al, 617). Hence, the players began doubting if they were paid what they were worth. Due to this reason, the NHLPA was created to follow on player bargaining rights.

Secondly, we have the dilemma of honesty. The National Hockey League debated on the kind of information to be provided to the players to ensure the league is stable financially. The NHL argued that if the players had access to all their data, they would demand more remuneration. The NHL stated that the teams in the leagues were private enterprises and therefore the NHL was not liable to provide any financially related information to other parties.

Lastly, we have ego and conflict of positions. Bettman and Goodenow wanted to achieve their objectives irrespective of the loss of hockey as a game or its fans. Each party was firm in its position such that neither of the party would go ahead with the negotiations. For example, the players were so active on their position such that they were not ready to agree on the salary caps or the cost certainty.

These are barriers mainly involving the behavior of the parties. To begin with, we have the attitude of the parties. Since the ideas of both the parties collided, the parties behaved in a discorded manner. Neither of the parties was ready to understand at least or accept any of the concerns at hand. The parties were against each other to the point that they never realized the impact of their conflict to the outside world (Zentner,401). The players regarded the rules of the NHL to being hostile hence the parties were in the form of battle. Even after the inception of the NHLPA, conflicts continued.

Secondly, we have the leadership style. The similarity of the heads of the parties made the negotiation difficult. Both Bettman and Goodenow were ambitious. Bettman, the head of the NHL, was fruitful in his term since he contributed a lot to the growth of the NHL. For example, he led the NHL players in participating in the winter Olympics. However, he still received criticism from the players because his motivation was money, not the game. This printed him with a bad image. On the other hand, Goodenow, the head of the NHLPA was purely a hockey person. He acquired some achievements since he was very competitive. For example, in his tenure, he assisted in the growth of both players’ salaries and the NHLPA team.

Dilemma of Trust and Honesty

From both Bettman and Goodnow, it is clear that both heads performed well and were very competent in what they did. The similarities between this two people influenced their thinking and behavior hence making the negotiation complex.

Thirdly, we have the skeptic behavior of the players. Due to lack of transparency by the NHL, the players doubted the NHL even to the point when the audit was done; they would still not believe it was true (Baillie, 384). This caused the negotiations to be quite intricate. As time passed on, the skepticism grew much worse since the NHL would not accept to allow access to their financial records.

In regards to all barriers stated, the psychological barrier of distrust stands as the critical barrier. The suspicion hails from the early years of the NHL which halts the players from accepting the leagues’ proposal. The mistrust arises from the NHL not providing or sharing information which would be very meaningful to the players in making better decisions.

In the process of negotiation, power plays a critical role since it promotes the probability of achieving goals (Arrow, 54). It brings about a higher advantage over another party. To effectively apply power in a negotiation process, parties play tactics to gain an advantage over the other party. Power in a party can be attributed to the information or resources a party can control. Due to the different perspectives of both parties in the case, both parties held a particular kind of power. Therefore, the parties were able to maintain their positions hence making the negotiations complex.

Both the NHL and the NHLPA used a combination of power moves to outwit each other. To begin with, we have enlisting support from allies. For example, Bettman enlisted support from major American TV broadcasters such as ABC and ESPN. However, Bettman still would not develop a good relationship with the NHLPA. Some critics claimed it was because he was not a hockey person. He was termed as greedy since he was always after the money. Also, the participation of Bill Daly, who was the NHL legal officer, was another move to enlist support by the NHL head. This is because he was well respected both the league and the union.

The NHLPA Director, Goodenow, also enlisted support from Ted Saskin who was the Senior Director of the NHLPA to participate in the negotiation table. Since he was less confrontational, he was perceived to be effective in communication and would communicate the union’s interest unbiasedly (Zentner,9).

Attitudes and Skepticism

Secondly, we have the application of pressure levers. In the year 1992, the NHLPA led by its head, went into a strike to acquire their desired CBA. On the other hand, the NHL applied the pressure lever by locking out the players for 104 days from playing since there was no deal regarding the CBA before the 1994-1995 season began. However, when the agreement was reached, the NHL won.

Consequently, since the NHL was not appeased with the 1994-1995 CBA negotiation, Bettman approached Goodenow with an offer as the 1998-1999 season was ending.  He brought in a renegotiation deal and applied a pressure lever against Goodenow by informing him that if they did not accept the renegotiation, the players would encounter worse concessions in the 2004-2005 session. However, the NHLPA rejected the deal. To counter attack the union, the NHL enlisted support from its team owners to make sure they locked out the 2004-2005 session.

Also, the NHL publicized the fan poll results to acquire support from the fans. This was a pressure lever since the fans concerns were centered on the NHL financial health. It is clear that the league wanted to demonstrate its main interest which is its economic competitiveness.

Lastly, we have offering incentives. Before the 2002-2003 CBA had expired, the NHLPA offered incentives by suggesting an offer that included revenue sharing, payroll tax system, 5% rollback in remunerations and also rookie salary contract (Malhotra et al, 621). However, the league rejected the offer since the salary cap was not included. Consequently, in the year 2004, the union made another proposal that included a 24% salary rollback, salary arbitration, rookie salary cap and a better payroll tax. However, a counteroffer was created by the NHL.

Since the union did not comply to the NHL demands, the league applied the pressure lever to threaten the elimination of the 2005 season. To promote this, the league offered incentives to the players to lockout the season

The negotiation between the union and the NHL consumed a lot of resources and time yet there was no acceptable agreement. However, both parties would apply different methods to diagnose and solve problems of trust since it’s one of the critical barriers to successful negotiations.

To begin with, both the league and the union should adopt a win-win approach. This means that either of the parties should employ a positive attitude on each other. A conflict should be resolved in a way that it brings benefit to both parties. Understanding each other’s responsibility is an essential element in solving problems in the Hockey Association. Parties should exercise an open and flexible communication strategy so as to come up with creative outcomes that have a mutual benefit (Ramsbotham, et al, 304).

Secondly, focus on interests should be key rather than positions. This will ensure both parties gain mutually from the negotiations. However, since each party has different interests, both parties need to modify the issues at hand so as to fit the interests within each party.

Thirdly, the NHL should employ honesty by sharing their financial information so that decisions involving salaries or economic issues can be accordingly solved. This will extinguish the element of mistrust. In achieving fairness, both parties can put together a joint audit team including members from either party and also an independent auditor to prevent biases (Baillie, 56). Through this method, the union can determine the financial position of the NHL hence building trust.

Fourthly, the salary cap should be introduced and imposed on the players to allow certainty for controlling costs and budgeting. The league can employ other benchmarks other than revenues to acquire the cap. For example, salaries paid by other national associations can be referred to at the opening point then at later dates, annual salaries can be determined.

Lastly, since the NHL applies a political model of behavior in arriving at goals, the goals are not mutually met since they are only personal. Both the league and union have different interests hence diverting from what is substantial to hockey association. The league and the union are at most times negotiating on the CBA instead their focus should be on the common goals that benefit the hockey association.

References

Malhotra, Deepak, and Maly Hout. “Negotiating on Thin Ice: The 2004-2005 NHL Dispute (A).”

Arrow, Kenneth J. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1995. Print.

Ramsbotham, Oliver, Hugh Miall, and Tom Woodhouse. Contemporary conflict resolution.

Polity, 2011.

Shell, G. Richard. Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people.

Penguin, 2006.

Bartlett, Stephen J. “Contract Negotiations and Salary Arbitration in the NHL-an Agent’s

View.” Marq. Sports LJ 4 (1993): 1.

Zentner, Aeron. “Breaking the Ice of Negotiation Barriers: A Case Study Analysis of the 2004-

2005 NHL Dispute.” (2015).

Baillie, Jim. “An Investigation into the Collective Bargaining Relationship Between the NHL

and the NHLPA, 1994-2005.” Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University (2005).

Ward, Brian. “The National Hockey League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement: Its Inadequacies

in Dealing with League Internationalization.” Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 23 (1999): 747.