Don't Negotiate When You Are Not in a Negotiation

Two quick anecdotes:

1. As part of the year-end review process, my direct reports were required to complete a self-appraisal. I encouraged them to be self-reflexive, identifying areas where they were excelling and where they could improve. All but one of my direct reports handed in a thoughtful self-appraisal. One direct report submitted a self-appraisal where he declared himself to be outstanding on every competency and suggested that he should be promoted three levels. When I asked him if this was his honest assessment of his skills and performance, he replied, "This is a negotiation, I bid high and you bid low and we'll agree in the middle. The higher I bid, the higher you'll go to accommodate." I handed him back the paper and advised him to either come up with a self-appraisal that was a more honest self-assessment or I won't consider it in the review.
2. Upon approaching the entrance to a local deli, a homeless man approached me for money. I informed him that I don't give money to the homeless but if he wants I can buy him some fruit. He responded, "I'll have a foot-long meatball sub, large coke and a bag of potato chips." After telling him that I am only getting some bananas for myself and offering to give him some he replied, "Either a foot-long meatball sub, large coke and a bag of potato chips or nothing!" I calmly replied, "You drive a very hard bargain, but you will get nothing."

In both situations, I was in a power position where there was only a limited impact in my decision to not negotiate. What about the president and the looming budget standoff? Bill Clinton showed in 1995 that as president he didn't have to negotiate with Congress and a shutdown ensued until a plan was worked out. Shutdowns are a consequence of not negotiating, but as I discussed recently, they have relatively benign short-term impacts.

House Budget Chair Paul Ryan introduced a plan that is a blueprint for conservatives. It turns Medicare into profit-generating vouchers for private insurers and converts Medicaid and Food Stamps into state-level block grants with no control over if the states distribute the funds to the poor. Funding for schools and roads are slashed, all in the false name of being budget conscious yet, at the same time, taxes would again be lowered for the wealthy. There is no subtlety in this plan, no attempt to hide the fact that a budget crisis is being manufactured by lowering taxes for the wealthy while cutting programs for those in need.

No one who is serious about financial responsibility would pretend that lowering taxes for the wealthy will do anything more than drive down government revenue, but this proposal is not meant to be passed. Rather, Ryan has put his flag in a place where he knows that the Senate and President can't possible agree, in order to create a crisis.

While it would be refreshing to see The Great Compromiser inform the Republican Party that he won't sign any declarations of war against American's middle class and poor, I wouldn't bet on it unless his pollsters tell him it will increase his odds for 2012.

Please join Howard's Facebook Fan page: http://on.fb.me/i2zCDg

 

 

 

Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman

Comments

[Oceras]

09:19 PM on 04/08/2011

Ryan, as with the other Republicans in Congress, salivate at the opportunity to squeeze the last drop of reason from the turnip that is the federal government they have been squeezing for some time now. Their budget plan is indeed a sham. They propose it to shut down the government in the hopes that it will make the Obama administration look weak-willed, and they present the budget in such a way that the only things that can be compromised are programs that help the middle and lower classes. The Republicans are conniving haters of the federal government. They want only to divide the people even further so that they can conquer them later with policies and programs that leave them weak and the wealthy even stronger. They make me sick. But not in a good way.

[bobclapp1936]

08:00 PM on 04/08/2011

At this time, and probably anytime in his life, he will act to "increase his odds for 2012" and his legacy. Surely that is what he has done when considering the issues of War and Guantamano---Issues at least the equal of taxes. With the possible exception of Roosevelt's writing of a "2nd Bill of Rights" just before his death, all 44 of them think alike---HOW will history portray me?

[Howard Steven Friedman]

01:50 PM on 04/09/2011

While we both have reasons to be cynical about politicians, I think that some presidents have taken stands on issues because they thought it was the right thing to do, even if it could have cost them in the eyes of historians and/or the public.

Woodrow Wilson's efforts on behalf of the League of Nations did not endear him with many Americans who wanted to seek an isolationist path but he did it out of a fundamental belief that it was the right thing to do. Lincoln was unambiguous in his point of view on what was more important to him, maintaining the union or freeing the slaves - a stand that he certainly realized was going to be questioned later. Johnson knew that the War on Poverty was going to hurt him in the eyes of many Southern voters but he pushed in through anyway.

[Lock Piatt]

02:22 PM on 04/09/2011

Here is what the 1912 Progressive platform included - how much has been put in place and how much would you like to see advanced>

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/preface.html#31r

[bobclapp1936]

02:46 PM on 04/09/2011

It's true. I have for effect painted them with a very broad brush. Perhaps this will explain (not that I expect anyone to understand) I'm a PACIFIST who believes WAR to be the very genesis of evil. And history has shown that ALL 44 of them could have done much more to stop war, and also proves that some of them chose to make it far worse--Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm 75yrs.old and have been a pacifist for over 50 of them, and will never be persuaded otherwise. Thanks for "listening."

[Lock Piatt]

06:26 PM on 04/08/2011

Many need to read the Founders works. It was the STATES that created the Constitutional Republic not the people. The Federal [central] government was not trusted by the Founders; to much like a king.

So, according to article I section 8 the Federal Government's enumerated powers [limited what the Federal government could do for the states and the people]

I find no problem with the States running their States and Schools without the one size fits all mentality of DC. billions of dollars would be saved and money would not be wasted on over regulations.

[Oceras]

09:11 PM on 04/08/2011

You don't have to worry about wasting money on overregulation. We hardly have regulation now.
By and large, one size does fit all. It's time this nonsense about that not being the case ends.