BLOODY STOCK CONTROL: ISSUE DEFINITION AND REHEARSAL
| Published date | 01 April 1988 |
| Date | 01 April 1988 |
| Pages | 3-5 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055124 |
| Author | Paul S. Kirkbride |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
BLOODY STOCK CONTROL: ISSUE
DEFINITION
AND
REHEARSAL
by Paul S. Kirkbride
Department of Business and Management, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong
Introduction
In the previous article in this series [1], the various legitimising principles and arguments utilised by the worker
representatives at Bettavalve Placid were examined. However, these legitimising principles and arguments
do not just "crystallise" at the Works Committee meetings, but are instead "rehearsed" in advance. Issues
are identified, refined and linked to appropriate legitimising arguments by processes of definition and rehearsal.
The texts and training packages on negotiation and bargaining are quite clear about the content of this planning
and preparation process, although it must be remembered that they are generally dealing with formal collective
bargaining situations. Thus, for example, Lewicki and Litterer [2] list five major areas for attention in the planning
process. They argue that a "negotiator who has carefully planned has made efforts to do the following:
•
understand the nature of the present conflict situation;
•
clarify the goals and objectives that he would like to achieve.
•
Understand the key issues at stake in the negotiation, and be able to specify which ones are important
to him, what he would like to achieve, and what will be minimially acceptable.
•
Understand the fundamental predictability of the negotiation process, so that he can strategically plan
how to achieve his goals and objectives.
•
Understand his opponent, and how his opponent's personality, history and negotiating style is likely
to affect his own strategy" (p. 71).
Similarly,
the
"Collective Bargaining" training package
from Employment Relations
[3]
focuses
on two
main
areas
of
this process.
The
first involves
the use of the
"expectation test"
to
diagnose
the
type
of
bargaining
situation,
sharpen
up
objectives and goals,
and to aid
strategy planning
by
identifying areas
of
potential
common ground and "key commitments"
to
be gained
in
the
negotiating process. Case preparation then
becomes
a
matter
of
identifying one's
own
strengths
and weaknesses, assembling
the
unpleasant
consequences
of
non-compliance
for the
opponent,
and mustering
the
benefits which will flow
for
him/her
from acceptance
of
your argument.
Judged
by
these exacting
and
professional standards
we can say that the worker representatives
at
Bettavalve
Placid were
not
very good
in
terms
of
planning
and
preparing
for
the discussions
in the
Works Committee.
We have seen
in
previous articles
[4] how
these
deficiencies
in
planning and rehearsal led
to
an inability
to pursue certain arguments
as
forcefully
as
possible
in
the
actual committee meetings,
and how
this
may
have prevented them from registering some minor
"wins".
If the worker representatives did
not
follow the "golden
rules"
of
good negotiation planning, what did they do?
The structure
of the
consultative system
in
Bettavalve
Placid
was
such that
the
worker representatives held
meetings
a
week
in
advance
of the
main Works
Committee meetings
in
order
to
collect items
for the
agenda,
and
these meetings were attended
by the
researcher. Several different
and
distinct processes
became noticeable during
the
observation
of
these
meetings.
Issue Rewording and Tactical Planning
The meetings served as an opportunity
for
issues
to be
raised
and
then reworded
in
language appropriate
for
the agenda
of
the Works Committee. The usual process
was a general discussion
of
recent problems and issues
(in
a
fashion similar
to
"brainstorming"), followed
by
a process
of
refinement, summary
and
rewording,
which was usually performed
by
one
of
the older, more
experienced, negotiating members.
The
processes
of
tactical planning can perhaps
be
illustrated
by
reference
to
an
agenda meeting
in
February
1980.
John Allen
raised
a
problem concerning lack
of
stillages
and
standard cages,
and
suggested that
it be put on the
agenda
for the
February meeting
of the
Works
Committee. However, Mike Stokes who was compiling
the agenda appeared
to
favour
a
different tactic:
It's
a
question
of
what he comes up with next week, isn't
it?...When
he goes
through the Chairman's Monthly Report,
it'll probably say something that we can fire a hole in, fire
a rocket
at.
In this case, John favours
the
tactic
of
ensuring that
the item
is
discussed
by
raising
it
formally
for the
agenda. However,
the
disadvantage
of
this tactic
is
that
it gives management time
to
investigate
the
problem
and come prepared
to the
meeting, which
may
result
ER
10,4
1988
3
To continue reading
Request your trial