For anyone interested in social negotiations and the conflicts that can arise during the predicted ‘social spring’, we recommend taking a look at what has just happened in Australia between the government, the media and ‘Big Tech’, alias GAFAM in French, and above all Google and Facebook. It’s not social, but it’s one hell of a negotiation. And since in France our social partners are great negotiators, there are a lot of similarities!
When GAFAM play dinosaurs
There are some useful ingredients in this story for pointing out the unfortunate “false solutions”, cognitive biases and other limiting beliefs that can be found in social negotiations.
It also goes to show that the French champions of social negotiation are nothing special, and that the kings of digital are not much better. Those who make us dream of unicorns sometimes behave like dinosaurs!
In a nutshell, the Australian story is as follows: the Australian media (starting with the legendary Rupert Murdoch) are waging a war against Google and Facebook to obtain payment for the use of their content. Very classic. A bill is introduced to support the media. The tug-of-war intensified, and the balance of power became a test of strength. Google threatens to withdraw from Australia, then finally changes its mind. After all, it can do again in Australia what it did in Europe with “neighbouring rights”.
Facebook has decided to block the sharing of links to news sites. Collateral damage: it also blocks weather and service information and all information on the pandemic. Naturally, the tone escalated further. Five days later, the Australian government amended its bill and negotiations with Facebook resumed. They had just reached an agreement.
What can trade unionists, MEDEF representatives, company directors and staff representatives learn from this story?
There are at least three ideas that should be avoided if employee representatives and company management want to avoid too many tragedies: treating negotiations as a power struggle will only make the situation worse; manipulating people will break down trust, and aiming for compromise alone will only lead to results that are far too lukewarm for everyone.
1 – The first fallacy : treating negotiations as a power struggle.
Arm wrestling is not about scoring points.
At the start of any negotiation, there is a need for the other party. Otherwise, no one would come.
Needing the other person means that any negotiation has to create value for those involved. If we need someone else, it’s stupid to want to beat them up.
Behind the use of the balance of power is the belief that in any negotiation there can only be one winner and one loser. The political and trade union leaders who promote this belief see any negotiation as a simple cake to be shared, with everyone vying for the smallest crumb.
In social negotiations, the boss needs the employee. And the employee needs the boss. If we think in terms of a strict balance of power, the relationship will appear unequal. In a programme devoted to the subject on Arte several years ago, Laurent Berger said as much to Raphaël Enthoven. But if we think in terms of added value, it’s only together that these two will be able to create value, for themselves and for the group.
In the Australian case, all the protagonists need each other. The interests are different and even divergent, but there are many common interests. Creating value means enlarging the cake, not cutting it into the most equal pieces possible. Negotiators need imagination, not muscle or threats. Any pressure put on one party leads to additional pressure from the other. Pressure on the other side will only strengthen and amplify the balance of power, turning it into a showdown. Arm wrestle your colleagues and see what happens.
2 – Second false lead: playing it smart
The clever ones try to play it smart. So they set up smokescreens, they take you for a ride, they string you along, they make you think they want this or that when in fact they want something else, which they will try to get away with without you knowing. In short, they manipulate. You’ll be fooled once, but not twice…
It should be pointed out that the manipulator is also convinced, because he is very intelligent, that he has the power to bypass you. This only works if the potential “manipulated” gives him this power. One day, a fairly “tenacious” trade union delegate came to see the HR manager at the end of a particularly tense meeting. He said with a smile: “I’m going to keep you awake at night with my questions”. The HR manager’s response was remarkable. He just smiled and replied “Come on, come on, you don’t have that kind of power”. Of course, all this leads nowhere and will have an impact on the reputation and ethics of the manipulative negotiator.
3 – Third false lead: finding the middle ground
The most pacifist minds among the classic negotiators are aiming for a compromise, acceptable of course, to prevent it from being lame. Now that’s enviable. The range of possibilities is considerable: I remember a recruitment interview where a recruiter, to make up for a meagre salary, claimed, by way of compensation, that his box of cigars was “always open” (true!).
The problem with compromise is that it is based on a concessive logic. Instead of enlarging the cake, I cut it. In trying to find the middle ground at all costs, the negotiator also runs the risk of staying on the surface of the problem to be resolved. They negotiate on the basis of everyone’s positions. They do not set out to discover the motivations and reasons for these positions. And of course, he doesn’t talk about his own. As a result, at the end of the negotiation, the parties involved have reached a conclusion that does not delight many people, and everyone imagines what the other is thinking. And if mind-reading is the way of the world, we’re not off to a good start…
It is possible to extricate our social negotiations from the traps of traditional negotiation. This sometimes requires us to revise deeply-rooted beliefs and resist some of our best-conditioned reflexes.
How many will dare?