Negotiating on Thin Ice

This essay will analyze the disputes, disagreements and negotiations between the NHL players and team owners in the case study 'Negotiating on Thin Ice'. It will also examine some power moves demonstrated by the characters in the study, and their BATNA's in the negotiation process.

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had been negotiated by the NHL players many times before, but because of the new salary cap and other similar issues players were simply not disposed to accept any proposals. The parties involved in the study should certainly try to reach an agreement that is beneficial and fair for both sides in order to resume the season. The players could not start the season until a new agreement was signed, so they needed to compromise and reach an agreement. Their disagreement resulted in a lockout, meaning that "no hockey would be played, no revenues would be collected, and no salaries would be paid...with the lockout in effect, 150 NHL players joined European hockey clubs and sports arena began finding other sources of revenue" (Malhotra & Hout, 2006, p.1). In addition, players should reach an agreement in order to avoid an even bigger disaster with the cancellation of work and disappointment of the people who supported the players such as owners and fans.

The main barrier to reaching a negotiated agreement was related with the players' salary. According to the team's owner (NHL) their compensation was too high compared to the league's revenue. However, the players represented by the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) were not psychologically ready to accept the fact that they might have to temporarily get a lower salary until the owners figured something else or convinced them to accept the offer. Another barrier was that the NHLPA argued the owner's honesty regarding their revenues reports; they were being accused of reporting less revenue. The NHLPA was not willing to accept the owner's proposal because they argued their negotiation tactic was not traditional; they had different perspectives and different priorities. According to the study, both Bettman and Goodenow had many differences, but what made the negotiation more difficult was what these men had similar. The tactic used in the negotiation itself of using shadows of their shared past was not very effective, in fact it was some of the barriers hindering agreement (Malhotra & Hout, 2006, p.1).

In this case study the ones representing and leading the negotiations were Bettman and Goodenow therefore they should be the ones to anticipate and overcome any possible barriers. They are the ones with experience and a long history of accomplishments so they should be able to distinguish among possible threats and anticipate what can obstruct the agreement. According to the study there was a lot of mistrust between team owners and players.

A strategic move, also known as power