RECORDING: Some Class #2

Why Traditional Negotiations Fail in Two-Tier Disputes

Picture this: Three people sit down at a negotiation table. Each has a gun pointed at the others. Each believes they can't lower their weapon first.

That's essentially what's happening at Busways right now. But instead of guns, they're wielding economic threats, industrial action, and rigid positions.

Traditional negotiation tactics fail here because they focus on positions rather than interests. It's like trying to split an orange between two people fighting over it - when one actually wants the juice for drinking, and the other needs the peel for baking.

Let's break down why conventional approaches crumble:

First, there's what psychologists call "loss aversion bias." Studies show people feel the pain of losing something twice as intensely as the pleasure of gaining something equivalent. The veteran drivers aren't just fighting for their benefits - they're fighting against loss. That's a crucial distinction.

Then there's the "fixed pie" fallacy. Everyone assumes they're negotiating over a finite resource. More for you means less for me. But what if that assumption itself is the problem?

But here's what's really fascinating: Research from crucial accountability experts Patterson and Grenny reveals that in situations like this, about 97% of people choose one of two failing strategies:

They either avoid the conversation entirely (silence)
Or they handle it poorly (violence)

Both strategies stem from the same root: fear.

Management fears losing control of costs. Veteran drivers fear losing their hard-won benefits. Newer drivers fear being permanently relegated to second-class status. The union fears losing relevance.

And fear, as it turns out, makes for terrible negotiation strategy.

Consider this: In every successful resolution of a two-tier dispute (and yes, there have been some), the breakthrough came not from clever negotiation tactics, but from fundamentally reframing the conversation.

The key question isn't "How do we split the pie fairly?"

It's "How do we make the pie bigger?"

Or better yet: "Why are we fighting over pie when everyone might prefer cake?"

In our next piece, we'll explore how to transform this standoff using crucial accountability principles - starting with the counter-intuitive first step that most leaders miss entirely.

But first, ask yourself: What fears are really driving your position in this conflict?