Negotiations involving nations,
businesses, unions, and various other entities and groups may occur when some
of their leaders are under ethical-legal suspicion. The recent case where the leadership of the
United Auto Workers is working under a cloud of scandal illustrates this
situation, but it is one that occurs in a variety of contexts. We address the hazards associated with
negotiating under such circumstances and what steps can be taken to mitigate
potential problems. Three qualifying comments merit
note. First, we presume that leaders in
these kinds of situations are innocent until proven guilty. [In the case of the UAW, notwithstanding the
recent raids on various current and former officials’ residences, no one in the
current top leadership at the International has been charged formally with wrongdoing.] Second, our analysis does not apply to
situations in which the ethical and legal problems of leaders involve crimes so
egregious as to necessitate immediate removal or involve situations in which
the evidence appears overwhelmingly to point to guilt. Third, we assume that the leaders in doubt
possess the intellectual and physical capacity to withstand the scrutiny
without losing their ability to concentrate on the negotiations. What are the possible dangers when
ethical and legal clouds hang over the heads of the key leaders associated with
a set of negotiations, especially where the stakes are high? Five possibilities emerge: over-reaction,
inflated expectations, undue cynicism, lack of concentration, and playing to
the crowd. Over-Reaction Leaders under ethical or legal challenge
may over-react to the situation. They
may feel psychological pressure to exceed expectations and produce higher rates
of return. These pressures, in turn, may
set themselves up for failure. They may
take positions or make demands during the course of a negotiation that cause
the other side to recoil reflexively or to become repelled. In either case, the chance of an agreement
suffers. Inflated Expectations To succeed in a negotiation,
particularly if it is necessary for a set of stakeholders to approve or ratify
a “tentative” agreement, leaders must manage not only their own expectations
(see above) but also those of their relevant constituencies. If these constituencies harbor doubts about
the leaders’ integrity or ability, given ethical or legal suspicions, then they
may hold them to expectations beyond reach.
The bar of acceptable performance simply is set too high to have any
reasonable chance of being met. These
inflated expectations may increase the leaders’ already high expectations,
creating a vicious circle of attaining goals beyond reach. Undue Cynicism Just as there may be doubters among the
leaders’ constituencies, there may be cynics on the other side at the
negotiating table. Negotiating
counterparts or opponents may question the ability of the troubled leaders to
deliver on promises made or to get agreements approved. Lack of Concentration Many individuals find it difficult if
not impossible to compartmentalize their lives so tightly that critical
incidents in one aspect can be isolated so as not to affect the overall
psychology of the person. A president,
for example, facing impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and
subsequent trial by the U.S. Senate, may find it exceedingly difficult to
concentrate on other matters which involve the national interest. This inability to focus could harm important
negotiations with foreign countries or with lawmakers on legislative issues
apart from impeachment and trial. Distractions
are a potential problem in conducting business as usual. Charges or suspicions of unethical or illegal
conduct undoubtedly magnify the likelihood of distractions impairing
performance. Playing to the Crowd Leaders, by definition, have followers,
and they make appeals for support when the chips are down. They may seek to ingratiate themselves with
their base if under threat or challenge.
This is eminently understandable when the threats or challenges involve
disagreements over strategy or tactic.
However, the whole tenor of discussion changes when doubts center on ethical
or legal improprieties. Rallying the
troops, so to speak, in order to tighten a leaders’ slipping grip on an office
may put these constituencies in undeserved jeopardy. What Can Be Done to Mitigate Adverse
Effects? In circumstances involving allegations
of ethical or legal lapses, there are no quick fixes or easy solutions. There are, however, several steps that
affected leaders and their surrounding team of advisors can take to mitigate
these adverse effects. First, they need to build an especially
strong team for the negotiations. A designated
member of this team should be capable of taking over should events take an
unfortunate turn and force a leader’s resignation or sudden departure. This is generally good advice in any major
negotiation, but especially on point in these tenuous circumstances. Second, the team should build
independent checks into their deliberations to gauge the wisdom of important
decisions on strategy and tactic. The
leaders and their team need to solicit critiques and invite scrutiny to ensure
that they stay on an appropriate track and do not allow the pressures and
emotions to set them on an unwise course.
Third, leaders should be as transparent
as possible with appropriate constituencies to avoid surprises and to engage
them during the course of negotiations to ensure sufficient buy-in. In this regard, they must regularly educate
and communicate. Listening is essential
to ensuring buy-in and winning confidence in whatever negotiating posture
emerges. [Active listening is difficult
to perform if one is preoccupied with personal problems.] Finally, it is absolutely essential to
encourage dissent on the negotiating team and to include participants who are
willing to confront the leader and raise objections. This is not the same as saying that the team should
include troublemakers or chronic objectors whose sole purpose is to obfuscate
or gain fame. But a negotiating team of
sycophants will invite even deeper doubts among relevant constituencies who are
not going to be fooled by the obsequious. *Marick F. Masters is a Professor of
Business and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Wayne State
University. He can be reached at
marickm@wayne.edu.    | ||||||
