Question

Background Information:

As far as famous negotiations go, it was a classic professional sports negotiation case. Starting back in March of 1998, National Basketball Association (NBA) team owners and players were at loggerheads over their new contract. At midnight on June 30, 1998 the owners declared a lockout, halting preparations for the start of the 1998–99 NBA season. The players and owners negotiated for six long months, during which time the two sides collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the end, it was a deadline that resolved the conflict. The team owners declared that if they didn’t reach an agreement with the players by January 7, 1999, they would cancel the rest of the season. In effect, the owners placed a final, arbitrary deadline on their participation in the famous negotiations; the chosen date had little significance to either side.

Crisis negotiation skills can make or break a negotiator in heated conflicts. Learn these skills from the experts at Harvard Law School when you download our FREE Special Report, Crisis Communication: How to Avoid Being Held Hostage by Crisis Negotiations.

Through public statements, the owners committed themselves to declaring an impasse if the deadline came and went. In the early-morning hours of January 6, the two sides agreed to contract terms that dramatically favored the owners.

We’re all familiar with negotiation case stories of tough opponents who bargain for months without making progress, only to reach resolution in the final moments before the passage of a critical deadline. Without a deadline, negotiators are tempted to use stalling tactics, hoping to pressure the other side into giving in.

Despite the proven effectiveness of deadlines, they remain one of the most misunderstood negotiation strategies. Many negotiators hesitate to place a deadline on their talks. In his research, when professor Don Moore of Carnegie Mellon University asked people to predict the effect of deadlines on negotiations, even experienced negotiators predicted that the presence of a shared deadline would hurt them by forcing them to concede more quickly than they would like, thereby helping their opponents.

While there is some truth to these assumptions, it’s also true that deadlines increase pressure on the other party to reach an agreement in almost any negotiation case. Negotiators who recognize that deadlines affect everyone equally can use them to defuse costly stalling tactics. For example, car salespeople sometimes try to draw out price negotiations, hoping the amount of time you’ve invested will increase your commitment to making the deal. To defuse this strategy, try beginning your negotiation for a new car by informing the salesperson that you have only an hour to make a possible deal.

Because deadlines put pressure on everyone, they can get talks moving again. Don’t be afraid to set deadlines and commit to them. Furthermore, when negotiators tell their opponents about an existing final deadline, they get better deals. Why?

First, because both sides are more likely to work toward a dispute resolution agreement before the deadline passes, you reduce your risk of walking away with nothing. Second, when an opponent knows about your deadline, he’ll make concessions much more quickly. The NBA owners’ January 7 deadline would have been useless if they had kept it secret; the players’ union would have expected to keep negotiating past the deadline. It surely was one of the famous negotiations we can all learn from.

Question: Describe the background of this negotiation to give the big picture. Some questions to consider: What brought these parties together? What were the positions and interests of each party?  What did each want to accomplish?  What was the nature of the relationship at this stage of negotiations? What did each party know about the other?  Why were these two parties talking to each other, as opposed to working with or negotiating with some other company or party?  Give the overall view of what things looked like going into negotiations.

Answer 1

Answer:

Negotiation Background: This was a professional sports negotiation in 1998, between the team owners and players of the National Basketball Associations (NBA) for their new contract.

What brought these parties together: These parties brought together by the contract for the next session between the team owners and players of the National Basketball Associations. Thus it is the basketball sports/games session for the next session, which brought these parties together for negotiation for the contract.

What were the positions and interests of each party: The position of each party is that team owners are owning their respective Basketball team i.e. they are the owner of the team i.e. they are on the managers for the team. The players are the people who are playing in the team for the owners/managers. Thus the players are in the category of employees. The interest of team owner is that they want to have low rates to the extent possible for players for upcoming session, whereas the players wants to have high rates to the extent possible for them for the upcoming session.

What did each want to accomplish: The team players want to achieve higher pays for the upcoming session of basketball whereas the team owners wants have low rates for upcoming session of basketball.

What was the nature of the relationship at this stage of negotiations: The relationship at this stage of negotiation is not good and both (players and team owners) do not have confidence in each other, as the negotiation is running for more than six months and no resolution achieved till now.

What did each party know about the other: Each party know about the other in details and have depth knowledge of each other as both (players and team owners) are in the same profession and aware of each issues and factors for the same).

Why were these two parties talking to each other, as opposed to working with or negotiating with some other company or party: These two parties are talking to each other, because both are direct related for their issue and these parties are going to be affected directly with the outcome of the negotiations. The players are going to affect with the pay rates and the team owners are also going to affect by the pay rates. Thus both are related with each other directly and no third party is applicable or involved. If things are not settled , then can explore to involve third party for the resolution.

Overall view of what things looked like going into negotiations: The overall view is that the negotiation is running between the player and team owners for a period of six months and now they are defining the deadline to close the negotiation, so that they can have the contract for the next session and they can start the session. They had already in massive loss due to delay in the session due to past six months.