for Aisha Writer only

Deep Thoughts

In reflecting how the BOE and Teachers negotiation was conducted, the overall experience was positive and insightful.  For the start of the negotiation with BOE, Teachers had good verbal communication as the group followed their strategic plan which addressed the members’ key concerns and expectations. The first part of the negotiation was well-structured and provided a framework for subsequent discussions. The teams established and agreed upon a time frame for those discussions. Both groups then moved to the dynamic and interactive process of the negotiation, conveying offers and counteroffers which appeared to be conducted in good faith by all involved. Throughout the negotiation process good communication was maintained which assisted in the bargaining on various data points of the exercise. Upon concluding the first session, both teams ended with a good understanding of each party’s needs and expectations. Both BOE and Teachers’ had an opportunity to digest and discuss counter offers with their respective team members prior to the next negotiation session.    

The second part of the negotiation again demonstrated good communication from both parties and went fairly quickly. This was achieved due to the thoroughness of the initial negotiation and the sharing of information on the final objectives. In "Taking the Stress out of Stressful Conversations", Weeks suggests splitting a stressful conversation in two parts; first to discuss the central issues and a second meeting to engage in discussion and resolution.  This allows both parties to prepare and engage in active conversation. This was the case during the overall exercise and both groups acknowledged the benefit of breaking up the negotiations into two sessions. The groups shared information and suggestions and chose to regroup the following week. When the time came for the second session, it was very productive, agreeable and fair.  Having the time to think about what each group could accept and give up allowed both sides to work towards a fair resolution. Both parties approached the difficult points of the contract in piecemeal fashion, bit-by-bit, agreeing on major issues, conceding where they could. Active conversation was evident and as a result and the consensus was that both parties walked away feeling accomplished.

In listening to the negotiating members of both groups, there was a clear theme that became apparent. That theme was grounded in the concept or strategy of integrative negotiations. The success of integrative negotiation depends on the search for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides. In this process, negotiators must be firm but flexible - firm about their primary interests and needs, but flexible about how these needs and interests are met (Lewicki pg. 63). Both sides were considerate and empathetic of the other's position and needs while being firm, yet flexible, during the second round of negotiations. Ultimately, the word reasonable is a way to describe this process as both parties negotiated in good faith while avoiding hardnosed tactics and strategies.   

Opposing Team

The BOE was well-prepared and fair in their approach.  They did a good job of listening to Teachers’ needs and concerns and tried to come to a resolution that accomplished their goals while meeting Teachers’ demands as well.  In the first round of the negotiation, the BOE participated in productive active listening and acknowledged information being provided. They restated the Teachers’ comments and requests, making it clear that they understood the positions throughout the negotiation process. BOE also demonstrated a good understanding of the Teachers’ positions and asked clarifying questions when needed. Specifically, they asked “window questions.”  According to Lewicki, Saunders and Barry (2011), window questions aid in looking into the other person’s mind. For example, “Can you tell us how you came to that conclusion?” BOE asked how certain numbers were determined that Teachers’ provided and how those numbers were formulated.   It was also clear that they had conducted the appropriate amount of research and "game planning" as they had counter offers at the ready when Teachers’ made requests. They anticipated the positions Teachers were going to take and they had counter offers for those "demands."  No decisions were made during the first round; however, this was where mutual trust and respect was built.  The second negotiation was efficient and the BOE was impressive with how well they listened to the Teachers’ needs. They very clearly tried to accommodate BOE accepted to give up certain expenses, reduce raises among other staff to increase teacher salaries, and gave almost all of the non-financial requests to help soften the blow from layoffs.  The BOE gave the impression that they cared about the Teachers’ needs and morale and were willing to work with them to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

The Teachers group was prepared, thorough, and they knew what they wanted to accomplish.  There was no sense of aggression or malice, just attention focused on the tasks at hand. The Teachers were well-researched, stating reasons for their concerns and important issues. They also demonstrated a pre-planned structure for the negotiation. Opening the negotiation, they expressed their need to come to a conclusion that benefited both sides, while targeting the main issues. This was effective in establishing the beginnings of trust between both parties. Additionally, the suggestion of listing issues which were important to each group helped to form an easy flow of conversation and, again, structure for the negotiation.  The Teachers also displayed active listening skills, as well as asked questions regarding the reason for some of the demands that BOE expressed. Teachers were not lacking in any particular area during either of the negotiations. For the second negotiation, the Teachers were very understanding of the BOE’s requests regarding cutting staff as well as salary and benefits and seemed satisfied with the overall results of the negotiation.

Multiple Issues

Both parties agreed that a negotiating scenario with multiple issues made the overall process more manageable and constructive. Both BOE and Teachers’ had high-priority issues that they needed to deliver on (reduction in staff for BOE and salary raises and overall job satisfaction for Teachers’). The fact that there were multiple issues in play allowed both teams the flexibility to bargain and negotiate away some of the less important or lower priority issues. Furthermore, once the high-priority issues were settled, the process flowed easily onto the lower priority issues. BOE was faced with cutting positions as a high-priority issue. BOE understood that if they were cutting positions there needed to be some things that they would be willing to give back to the teachers. BOE understood that there was a bottom line that needed to be reached. Conceding on other areas would help with the overall morale of the teachers. BOE listened to the Teachers’ point of view, and changed some of their original ideas to accommodate them. There were many issues that did not affect the bottom line. That allowed BOE to bend on issues such as workload and the evaluation process in order to meet in the middle around layoffs and salary.

Teachers used the multiple issues to their advantage by first focusing on salary which was the highest priority. Once settled, Teachers shifted focus to all the other items of concern.  During both sessions, each party was able to have a candid discussion on items that were important to one another and certain concessions were made to reach an agreement. Open and honest communication between BOE and Teachers was vital to the successful agreement. In the first negotiation, both parties were clear about what was the most important to them. Using that insight, both teams saw areas that were easy to "let slide", or concede on, to reach agreement on the most important goals for both parties. If Teachers weren't as clear about salaries being most important and BOE wasn't clear about reducing staff (and subsequently costs), it is unknown if both groups would have had such good communication.  Having the open discussion about potential areas to save costs, suggestions for expenses to eliminate and what items could be lost completely, helped both teams find common ground. Adjusting other expenses, salaries, deferring the consultant, etc. were all considered, and applied, but still the budget needed to be reduced. Teachers accepted this fact and tried to be innovative to reduce layoffs, but knew some would be unavoidable.  Teachers tried to achieve as many non-financial victories as possible and this was communicated to BOE. This seemed to work out well for Teachers and in the end both groups had favorable positions on their respective important issues.

Role of Preparation

The Teachers’ preparation in this negotiation played a significant and vital role. It provided the foundation and framework for the Teachers’ overall strategy as it defined objectives, an opening stance, concessions, resistance points and expected outcome. Given that the research and preparation was going to be the foundation for the group’s strategy, the preparation had to be fact-based and relevant to the negotiations. The Teachers’ plan defined concerns and research was conducted, gathering information from neighboring school districts in New Jersey. In addition, the strategic plan included a comprehensive spreadsheet with various possible outcomes. The spreadsheet and research allowed Teachers to present quantifiable information that supported the team’s position. This information enabled Teachers to produce a working budget that highlighted areas that could be cut before teacher layoffs were considered. Furthermore, the preparation provided a degree of confidence for Teachers as they entered the negotiation process; the group knew they had done their due diligence prior to the contract negotiations. The BOE's preparation and strategy also had a significant impact on the group’s approach and behavior during the negotiation. BOE’s strategy outlined the group’s overall goal and bottom line, and then a breakdown of each issue (in order of importance) highlighting target, resistance points, rationale/opening stances, as well as expected reaction from Teachers and possible concessions for each issue. The BOE strategy plan was also supplemented by research from neighboring school districts and their own agreements with their respective BOEs in New Jersey. Furthermore, certain information derived from these school districts was visually depicted on a spreadsheet, which also included the impact of BOEs most important decision on tables provided by the negotiation information. Both teams agreed that it was quite apparent that the competing team had done a good deal research and financial modeling in advance of the negotiations. Ultimately, it could be suggested that the level of preparation directly contributed to the free flow exchange of ideas and positions. Additionally, the preparation by both teams turned a negotiation process from a potentially adversarial one to one that was collaborative in nature.

Relationship between the Parties

Both parties came ready to work and had similar goals in mind. Respect and professionalism were evident on both sides, the relationship between both parties were amiable and respectful of each other's thoughts and opinions. Strained or negative feelings between BOE and Teachers were not evident after the negotiation (or at any time), as both parties felt that the results of the negotiations were acceptable and fair. Each team was able to disassociate issues from personalities, mainly because, at times, BOE expressed disagreement with some issues that were being proposed. This honesty allowed for a friendlier environment, and the ability for each party to view the issues as simply issues, not necessarily personal beliefs. In addition, the groundwork was laid to have an open dialogue with each team for all future contract negotiations.  

What Would You Have Done Differently?

Teachers were mixed on this issue. Some members stated that nothing would have been done differently and other stated that they would have advocated for a stronger delineation between "teachers" and all other administrative staff as a way to lessen the impact on the teachers. A large amount of cost savings could have been achieved by reducing administrative staff and some of the cost savings could have supplemented the much-needed raises for teachers while keeping the overall budget neutral or perhaps even reducing the overall budget. Some members of the Teachers would have also advocated more strongly for buyout packages for the more senior teachers as a way to avoid layoffs.

Additionally, Teachers’ had a working spreadsheet that had all budget numbers and various scenarios built into the tool. They worked together to adjust expenses and salaries and see how these changes affected the bottom line.  If there was additional time, it would have been valuable to share the spreadsheet with the BOE and work through, line by line, the areas where costs could be cut to try to get the budget in balance.  This deeper level of collaboration may have helped save some additional teaching jobs by finding other areas to cut expenses. Additionally, this level of collaboration would have given each side additional ideas to allow more creative solutions.