Negotiation Tactics and Government Response in PATCO-FAA Conflict

This case study discusses the negotiation tactics used by PATCO and FAA in the light of ethics and fairness, and evaluates the government's response to the strike. The study analyzes whether the union used fair or ethical negotiation tactics, and whether the government's response to the strike was fair and appropriate. The study also provides recommendations on what could have been done better by both PATCO and the government. The subject of the study is negotiation and conflict resolution, and the course code and college/university are not mentioned.

Running Head: Communication
Communication
Individual Questions

Communication P a g e | 1
Executive Summary
The case study here is based on a situation of conflict which arose between PATCO and
FAA (Federation of Aviation Authority), the conflict arose when the Government
decided not to amend the existing terms of contract given by the labour union. PATCO
reacted to it in an unfair and unethical manner by starting a protest against the
government. The repercussion of such extreme step resulted in harsh government
action, which resulted in loss of jobs and also banned them from joining any
government organization for a period of 12 years. The assignment here will discuss the
case of both PATCO and FAA in the light of ethics and fairness, and would also advise on
what could have been done in order to ensure a smooth handling of the situation.

Communication P a g e | 2
Table of Content
Question 1: Did the union use “fair” or “ethical” negotiation tactics?.........................................................3
Fair Negotiation Tactics........................................................................................................................................... 4
Ethical Negotiation..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Question 2: Was the government’s response to the strike fair and appropriate? Explain.................6
Rationale for the Fair and Appropriate action by the Government........................................................8
Question 3: Who was at fault in the negotiation breakdown and why?..................................................10
Question 4: What do you think could have been done better by PATCO? By the Government?...13
Things to be done differently by PATCO.............................................................................................................. 14
Conflict resolution Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 14
Accommodating................................................................................................................................................... 14
Avoiding.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Collaborating......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Compromising....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Competing.............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Bargaining Strategies.............................................................................................................................................. 16
Distributive Negotiation................................................................................................................................... 17
Integrative Negotiation.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Integrative V/s Distributive Negotiation........................................................................................................ 17
Things could have been done better by the Government.............................................................................18
Openness in Communication............................................................................................................................... 18
Conflict Resolution................................................................................................................................................... 19
References........................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Communication P a g e | 3
Question 1: Did the union use “fair” or “ethical” negotiation tactics?
The case study is a classic example of a scenario where it becomes difficult and highly
subjective to find what is fair and what is ethical. As it is a known fact that what is fair
might not be ethical and vice versa. Thus, the same holds true in the case of Professional
Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) and Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in
the US. In the context here, PATCO went on strike against the FAA because the later
denied the request of PATCO to amend the terms of contract, thus as a last resort they
had to go on strike. FAA took a serious action against the union members which are as
follows:
 All striking controllers were immediately fired from their respective jobs.
 A federal injunction was obtained against the union, and the union and its
leaders were filed with millions of dollars.
 Some of the important members in the strike such as Poli were straight away put
into the Prison.
 The financial accounts of the union were impounded.
 All the striking controllers were banned from any further employment with the
US government in any capacity whatsoever. It was only in the year 1993 when
then President Bill Clinton pardoned them and gave instruction to re-hire them;
the shocker was it was 12 years after the incident occurred.
The case here looks a little lopsided and in slight favour of the PATCO. Although it can
be said that the union was not fair in their calling off strike against the FAA, it can be
however seen as ethical. Due to the reason that the FAA did not give any attention to the
demands of the Union and its members, and even after 3-4 meetings, the effort was
completely futile and the authority was in no mood to sit on the negotiating table. Thus,
Poli too was under a lot of pressure as he was representing the rights of the labour
union and wanted to extract a good deal for them, thus the impulsive decision to bring
on the strike against the FAA was taken. Poli completely forget to harbinger the
potential damage his action could potentially cause, and miscalculated the
consequences. He even forgot about the previous contract in which it was clearly
mentioned that any strike implemented by the union would be considered as illegal and

Communication P a g e | 4
the US government and FAA can take any action as they seem necessary to contain the
strike. It was this useful piece of information which the union leader Poli overlooked
and asked the union members to come together and put a strong case in front of the
FAA.
Before getting into the intricacies of whether the union used fair or ethical negotiation
tactics, it is important to first understand the implied meaning of these tactics to reach
at a conclusion.
Fair Negotiation Tactics
Negotiation can be seen as a method by which people try to settle their differences, it is
a process by which compromise or agreement is reached upon while avoiding any
argument and dispute(Yang, DeCremer & Wang, 2017). In the case of disagreement
individuals with an understanding aims to achieve the best possible outcome out of the
situation and try to make the most out of it. In this case however, Poli tried sitting on the
negotiation table with the authority, however they were in no mood to revisit the terms
of the earlier contract. This, made Poli a little agitated and he took matter in his hands
and overstepped the authority. Fair negotiation can be understood as the negotiation or
arriving at a conclusion which is mutually agreed by both parties without any coercion
or external pressure (Orbie & Martens, 2016).
In such a state, a fair negotiation is achieved provided the terms of the agreement are
just and equitable. The deal with Fair negotiation is that it has to be fair and just,
mutually agreed upon both the parties and also take into consideration that nobody gets
a setback in the process (Banai et. al., 2014). In the eye of Fair negotiation, thus it can be
said that Poli and PATCO negotiation tactic was not at all fair. It can be easily seen as an
act of militancy and trying to put in pressure or coercion on the US FAA authority by
bringing the operation to halt due to the strike. Poli while taking the call of strike wasn’t
aware of the potential ramification which can be caused by his action on the union
members. Poli had a responsibility of ensuring the right of the members and also to put
their best interests forward, however, the outcome of it was really devastating and
imposed long plight on the members and Poli. Thus, in the eye of the above evidence
and the understanding drawn from Fair negotiation we can easily draw the conclusion
that the union did not use fair negotiation tactic (Fleck, Volkema & Pereira, 2016).

Communication P a g e | 5
The same can also be seen by analysing the position of the FAA; the authority suffered a
major blow due to the strike. The employees by not coming to the work could have led
to potential and fatal accidents. Hence, it was highly unfair on the grounds of union
members and Poli who went selfish and completely forego the needs and the modalities
of their action (McDermott, 2016). At the very same time, Poli did not care about the
ramification for the family members of the union members, the lives of the people
would have been impacted due to the consequence of the strike. Thus in light of all the
stakeholders who were or would have been impacted by this strike, it can be easily
concluded that it was highly unfair (Gasper & Chen, 2016).
Ethical Negotiation
In the simplest way, the definition of ethics can be understood as a system of moral
principles or values, it is the rules or standards governing the conduct of the members
of a profession with accepted principles of right and wrong(Zohar, 2015). Many
negotiators have described ethical negotiation as “ethical climate” because ethics are
reflected in different context where expectations are that negotiators are seeking to
maximize their own gains and are using the other parties as means not end in
themselves to achieve their own goals. Hence it can be said that ethical climate is a
function of more than just the behaviour alone, and it depends on the relationship
between the negotiator and the other party (Butler, 2016).
Ethics is something which is different for every person, as it is guided by the principles,
values, beliefs and moral of an individual and is partially influenced by the society in
which the individual is raised, thus what is ethical for one might not be ethical for the
other person. Thus, ethical negotiation can vary according to the situation and
individual. In the case of PATCO and FAA, PATCO was highly unfair as thy failed to bring
just, equality and fairness in their action; the actions were solely guided by the interest
of the union without any due consideration for any kind of consequences (Kowalczyk &
Kleka, 2015).
However, PATCO tried everything at their end to bring the negotiation to a win-win
table, but due to getting ignored by the FAA authority repeatedly they had to take
matter in their hand and take some action, which I their head was highly ethical. Poli
tried to negotiate with FAA as the union was not happy with the earlier terms of

Communication P a g e | 6
agreement, and almost 90% of the people were not happy with the terms of the contract
and the agreement. Thus, it was Poli who had the responsibility of forwarding the
concern of the union members to the authority and bring out the outcome in the favour
of union members. Poli was elected from amongst the union member due to his
negotiation skill, his influencing ability and other strong personality features, thus he
was entrusted to keep the rights of the union members above all (Balsiger, 2014).
Due to all these reasons and after trying every arrow from his quiver, he was left with
no other option than to call a strike to wake up the authority so that they give their
attention to the concern of the union members. Poli, in his head was ethical, as every
person has a right to live and has a freedom to oppose what wrong is being done to hi in
a peaceful manner, keeping all this rationale in mind, the act of Poli was highly ethical.
He was fighting for the right and entitlement of the union members, who were being in a
bad shape due to the earlier terms of agreement. Thus, the negotiation tactic was highly
unfair but was ethical in the eyes of Poli and the union members, and he did not want to
leave any stone unturned which would show them in a weak light. Poli was right on the
ground of human rights and in thinking that he has to act in the best interest of the
members he is representing, if in doing so, even if certain rules and policies are being
flouted, it is still ethical according to their standards. Nobody should suffer in silence, it
is an act of barbarism, thus one has to raise the voice to support their claim and make
the authority listen to their demands.
Towards the end, in order to conclude the discussion whether union actions were fair or
ethical, there are no two doubts that the action of union was highly unfair on the ground
of justice and equality and should have been avoided at all costs. At the same time, Poli
acted on the accord of the benefit of the union members and to support claim to their
entitlement, which is ethical in practice.
Question 2: Was the government’s response to the strike fair and appropriate?
Explain
Federal aviation authority is a US body which control and manages the air traffic control
on the bastion and employees members of the Professional Air traffic controller’s
organization union. The government has a signed contract with the union members on

Communication P a g e | 7
the terms and conditions which was earlier agreed and signed by the union members.
Poli, who is the leader of the union and the representative of their rights, felt along with
the union that there is a scope of significant improvement in the terms and contract of
the agreement. FAA came up with a new agreement on the demands of the union
members and submitted the same to Poli, but more than 90 % of the members were not
satisfied with the terms and condition of the new agreement. The request for changing
the agreement was then denied by the authority, over which the union and the
members took an extreme step of calling a strike. The ramification of which were
severe, as the FAA has to create an example out of them, the actions taken were as
follows:
 All the striking controllers were immediately fired from the job.
 An injunction against the strike was obtained and both the union and the leaders
were fined millions of dollars per day for the violations.
 Poli and some other executive leaders were thrown into the prison.
 The financial accounts of the union were impounded.
 The biggest blow which the authority gave to the union members was,
prohibiting them to work in the US government for a long period of time; it was
after Bill Clinton came in power that after 12 years the punishment was called
back.
As tough, severe, heinous the ramification may sound, the previous terms of the
agreement clearly mentioned that Union members cannot call strike in any case, and in
the situation of strike it will be called as illegal and the authority can take any action
whatsoever.
The action of the government if has to be evaluated on the grounds of human context
and considering the ramification and troubles the family members of the union
members loss of pay, the action can certainly be considered as tragic and should have
been avoided at all cost. FAA could have trimmed down the punishment keeping in
mind the potential losses for other stakeholders and also the loss for the employees. But
the authority wanted to set an example in front of the union that nobody is higher than
the law, and everybody has to abide by the terms of contract which are guided by the
law.

Communication P a g e | 8
Rationale for the Fair and Appropriate action by the Government
US government is the supreme body which is embarked on the pillars of rightful law,
fairness, ethics, integrity and genuinety. The Government has to make sure that all the
organizations falling under the purview of government regulation abide by the laws set
for them and also follow the guidelines related to work. The Government also has an
added responsibility to make sure that the citizen or the members working in tandem
with the US government and in contractual agreement with the government respect the
terms and conditions as mentioned in the agreement (Lecocq & Hourcade, 2016).
Some people might think that the action taken by the government was highly unfair and
done in spite to teach union members a lesson, but in all fairness, the action was
extremely necessary and an important step to bring discipline into the system and curb
such things from happening in the near and far off future. FAA denied the request of the
union members in the peaceful manner when they wanted certain amendments in the
agreement, the request was denied politely by the government, as in their eyes the
amendments were not fair at the given point in time. The government authority already
has plethora of responsibility on them, thus few ore meeting Poli had with FAA can be
considered as futile. However, the measures and the means employed by FAA can be
seen as highly ethical, fair, transparent and peaceful. The authority was just doing its job
and obeying the commands of the senior authority by following the orders. In the
government orders, commands and respect for law is seen in a higher light, thus
government was just doing its job and to be fair it did a fantastic job.
FAA authority made it extremely clear to the PATCO and Poli that no further discussion
would be done on the aforesaid topic. However, the union and the members did not
knock the right door or used the best alternate available to make their voices heard.
They went berserk and haphazardly called strike without thinking of the consequences
for them. This was where the union went wrong and committed a mistake. They were
supposed to follow the law, raise their voice peacefully and opt for the court. Judicial
system has been created just to ensure that when someone has certain grievances and
they are not being listened to, the judicial system can be approached for the justice.
Judicial system in any state is the highest power which has been given the authority to
decide in the case of any conflict or unfair treatment. Thus, the right way to approach

Communication P a g e | 9
the situation for the union and Poli would be to approach the court, discuss their
grievances and accordingly fight the case to get the justice. If this approach would have
been used by the Union, it would have been fair and ethical by all standards, but due to
their adopted method of going forward with the strike, it resulted in unfair negotiation
from their end.
Government on the other hand was extremely fair in their conduct and their action
against the union members and the union leader, Poli. Government from its side did
everything possible, engaged in fruitful conversation with the union leader and the
members and formed a contract which was beneficial to them. However, if it was not
acceptable to them, union could have knocked the doors of higher authority and given
their grievances. Government did not do any unlawful activity; it did everything within
the purview of law and the terms and condition of the contract. It was explicitly written
in the contract that under no circumstance the FAA would tolerate strike from the union
or its members, and a strict action will be taken against the people who are involved in
such illegal activity (Gratch, Nazari & Johnson, 2016).
The hands of FAA were tied especially after the case of strike by the union members,
because the entire operation came to a halt and plethora of nuance was the order of the
house. Now, in such a situation even the hands of the government were tied as they
were not at fault, and unnecessarily calling a strike was something which was out of the
blue. Government had to go according to the contract agreement, which mentioned
clearly that if at all strike is called by the union it would be deemed as illegal and the
government is free to act on their own accord. FAA in order to set example for future
unions gave hefty punishment to the union members and the union head, they wanted
to create an example that nobody is over the law. In absence of proper communication
or grievances handling the right approach should be to knock the doors of the higher
authority such as the judicial system and not to take the matters in their own hand,
however, despite understanding the ramification of the possible action of the strike, Poli
and union members failed to comprehend to the same and thus their fate was written
by the government.
Thus, in order to conclude, it can be clearly said that Government has to go by rules,
follow the rules, follow the protocol and act accordingly. A government does not have

Communication P a g e | 10
power to act on its own accord and has to follow a system or a patter to reach at a
logical conclusion. In the case above FAA or the government did everything right, its
action was fair and ethical and within the purview of the law. Government was highly
fair and ethical and was just following the orders as were mentioned in the contract.
Imposing hefty fines and firing the employees from the job was the need of the hour. It
was not an impulsive decision but a calculated move to ensure that such incidents do
not occur in the future, as the law is above all and justice always prevails. It is essential
to always punish the miscreants who are not guided and governed by the law and just
act of their impulse nature without any consideration for the possible ramification for
any of the stakeholders (Stefandis & Banai, 2014).
Question 3: Who was at fault in the negotiation breakdown and why?
In order to achieve a desired outcome in a negotiation process, it is critical that both the
parties involved in the negotiation have a clear image of what they expect from this
negotiation. Upon identification of the same, the two parties must communicate and
offer solutions to each other. These solutions are then followed by bargaining and
finally the case is closed after involved parties reach a grey ground. However, a failure
at any step can lead to a negotiation breakdown. This is why a negotiation between two
parties is a critical process and hence must be conducted with utmost care. There are
various ethical and legal laws that bind both PATCO and FAA. In the face of a
negotiation, it is imperative that both parties remain in the boundaries created by the
laws that govern them. Respecting the sanctity of these laws comes foremost and hence
it is critical that it is maintained and respected (Zhu, Zhao & Chua, 2016).
In the negotiation process of PATCO and FAA the ground rules and legalities were
clearly violated by PATCO and hence this led to the breakdown in their negotiation.
PATCO is primarily at fault in the failure of this negotiation. Since the beginning of their
contract, it had been explicitly clear that either party is not legally allowed to conduct
any kind of strikes. This was probably done after keeping in mind the criticality of the
business. A strike does not only impact the two parties but all other stakeholders
involved in the process. Hence if a strike is conducted in such a situation, it is sure to
aggravate situation and adversely impact all the stakeholders which are directly or
indirectly impacted by the two parties (Strulovici, 2017).

Communication P a g e | 11
Union leader representative, Robert Poli has been leading the negotiation from PACTO’s
side. He was well aware of all the laws that govern his team. As a leader it was his
responsibility and accountability to ensure that the negotiation is conducted keeping all
the legalities in mind. Despite that, he encouraged his team members to go on a strike
which was strictly disallowed in the contract signed between the two parties. Therefore,
Poli’s leadership is also ineffective and highly mismanaged. This is because the primary
responsibilities of a leader are to make sure that the team does not conduct any activity
which is considered illegal in the nature of the organization (Herwig, 2014).
Every individual is allotted certain responsibility and authority in any organization and
at any position. In this case, PACTO leader, Robert Poli exceeded his authority and asked
his team to resort to a strike. The rejection of a proposed agreement is similar to a no-
confidence vote and hence efforts must be put by the other party to revise their stance
and correct the same. An extreme step such as a strike causes harm to both the parties
as well as various other stakeholders associated with either of the organizations. Hence
Robert Poli must have understood the limitations that come with his position of
authority as a union leader of PACTO and he must have respected the same. Poli must
have also respected the seniority of FAA in the entire negotiation process and not
conducted himself in an aggressive manner. This is a clear example of a flawed
leadership and this wrong step taken by Poli did not only impact the entire negotiation
process but also his team members (Kayes, 2015).
In the entire process of the negotiation as stated in the case, it has been clear that FAA
has been following the ground rules despite tormented relationships between the two
parties. They had presented a tentative agreement to the PATCO leader to negotiate a
new labor management contract. However, this agreement was rejected by PATCO
members. As per FAA, they had offered PATCO sufficient concessions and
improvements on the already existing contract between both the parties. PATCO on the
other hand resorted to aggression while responding to the offer made by FAA.
Therefore, it is clear that PATCO is largely responsible for the negotiation breakdown
between the two parties. Very often, during a negotiation, parties involved do not easily
reach a final conclusion. It takes time and is often a lengthy process. Therefore during
this time, it is highly important that parties keep working towards that much needed
grey ground (Winham, 2014).

Communication P a g e | 12
It is natural for negotiating parties to feel agitated or frantic owing to each other’s
actions. However, what is most important in any negotiation process is that the parties
involved continue to work towards their goals in an amicable manner. Trust and respect
in each other helps in maintaining the sanctity of the negotiation process. This in turn
enhances the possibility of both the parties being content with the negotiation outcome
and also creates an environment of positivity among each other. Unfortunately, by
asking his team members to go on a strike, Poli not only presented a case of flawed
leadership but also disrupted the entire negotiation process by taking such an erratic
step. Such steps in the negotiation process lead to similar steps from the opposing party
as well. In this case also it has been witnessed that as a response to the strike initiated
by PACTO members, FAA also took severe and extreme steps. These steps included
firing controllers immediately from their respective jobs, fining the union leaders with
several millions of dollars, arrest of several union executive leaders, impounding of
union’s financial accounts and banning controllers from availing any further
employment opportunity with the US government in any capacity. It is safe to assume
that such a stringent step would not have been taken by FAA had PACTO not resorted to
conducting a strike (Craigie, Gransberg & Jeong, 2016).
During many negotiation processes, involved parties often resort to strikes but it is
important to note that ideally this is the last step that is taken. A strike is usually
followed by a large number of steps in between. In this case the negotiation appeared to
be very short lived. A single tentative agreement was presented by FAA to PACTO which
was rejected by the latter. However, within a short span of just two weeks, PACTO
resorted to a strike. There were various better and less harming alternatives that could
have saved the negotiation process from having such catastrophic effects. Within two
weeks itself, conducting a strike is too soon especially when the current agreement had
been in effect since such a long time. A strike is a clear indication or rather a warning to
the other party. In any healthy negotiation, parties involved must resort to
recommendations and not warnings. Warnings like going on a strike are unethical and
in this case even illegal. Both the parties must enter the negotiation with the intention of
trying to resolve the underlying issue and reach a conclusion which is fair to both the
parties. If the involved entities continue to negotiate with their personal agendas in
mind then it is likely that the negotiation process will not take place smoothly, there will

Communication P a g e | 13
be negative repercussions of the same and none of the parties involved would be
satisfied with the final outcome of the process (Pestana, 2015)
From the various reasons determined above, it is clear that PACTO is at fault in the
negotiation break down that happened between the two parties. PACTO took a stern
step by conducting a strike. This was a highly aggressive step taken by the organization.
PACTO should have put more efforts in an attempt to improve the contract between the
two parties and should have been subtle in the actions taken by them. Secondly, as a
leader, Robert Poli should have not exceeded his authority in the negotiation process
and respected the seniority of FAA. His flawed leadership and misguided steps led to
adverse impacts and many other stakeholders involved in the process would have to
bear the brunt of it. Thirdly and most importantly, the step taken by PACTO to conduct a
strike was illegal as it was clearly documented in the contract that PACTO is legally not
allowed to go on a strike. Hence ethically as well as legally, it is clear that PACTO was
wrong and largely responsible for the breakdown of the negotiation process between
the two parties. Illegal, aggressive steps by PACTO under the misguided leadership of
Robert Poli led to the breakdown of the negotiation between the two parties which
adversely impacted various involved stakeholders.
Question 4: What do you think could have been done better by PATCO? By the
Government?
There are no two doubts that situation was blown way out of proportion which led to
unforeseen and drastic consequences for the union member and the leaders. Had the
situation been handled in a much better way, there definitely would have been a
solution amicable to both the parties involved in the negotiation. It is natural for a
conflict to arise when the two opposing parties are at loggerheads, and thus for this
reason negotiation tactics come into play. Negotiation tactics and conflict resolution are
designed especially for the purpose that in case of conflict, an amicable solution is
carved, which is beneficial to both the parties and give them a feeling of win-win
(Singer, 2018).

Communication P a g e | 14
Things to be done differently by PATCO
Keeping all the points in mind, there are no two doubts that action taken by PATCO and
especially the role played by the negotiator Poli was Unfair and highly unethical. The
failure to foresee the future consequences was the biggest lacunae in the negotiation
strategy of Poli, which led to such heinous circumstances. In order to avoid the same,
PATCO could have knocked the door of the court, used the power of higher judiciary to
bring justice to the situation. They could have easily written repeated letters to the
authority senior to FAA and bring the matter into the light of the decision makers
(Lederach, 2015). In order to do so, some of the conflict management and resolution
strategy could have been used such as:
Conflict resolution Strategies
(Source: Wallensteen, 2015)
Accommodating
Accommodating strategy stands high on Level of cooperation and low on the level of
competitiveness. This strategy essentially states that it should offer what the other
party basically wants. The use of accommodation strategy is done where the party
thinks that the issue is minor and therefore by accommodating certain changes the

Communication P a g e | 15
impact would not be that significant. In the case of PATCO however, FAA was not at all
agreeing to amend the contract, thus the accommodation strategy fails in this case
(Moore, 2014).
Avoiding
Avoidance strategy stands low on level of cooperation and the level of competitiveness,
and as the name suggests this strategy aims to put off the conflict indefinitely. In this
strategy the avoider hopes that the problem gets resolved on its own, without paying
much attention to it. FAA was definitely going with the avoiding strategy, as it did not
intend to get into any conflict and was assuming that the PATCO would mellow down on
its own over the time. This strategy can be seen as productive and counter- productive,
however, if PATCO would have avoided the conflict, FAA could have come down to their
terms, but it was a long shot (Fisher, 2016).
Collaborating
This is one of the best negotiation strategies which come handy in the case of conflict
resolution. The strategy rank high both in terms of level of cooperation and
competitiveness, as the name suggest it is created by collating the ideas of multiple
people of parties involved in the conflict. The underlying purpose here is to find a sweet
spot which is acceptable to both the parties in the conflict. PATCO and FAA had to, had
to work on coming up with a solution where both the parties would have been at peace.
Poli could have leveraged his capacity of the negotitater and asked FAA to work on
finding a collaboration solution to end the conflict in this case (Johns, Cowley &
Guetzloe, 2017).
Compromising
This type of negotiation strategy lies at the centre of level of cooperation and the level of
competition, as the name suggests, this strategy is to be used in the situation wherein
both the parties compromise certain elements of the deal and work towards an
acceptable solution, if not necessarily agreeable solution. Here in the case of PATCO and
FAA, the strategy could have been of great importance. For instance, Poli could have sat
with the union and instead of dismissing the entire contract unanimously they could
have identified the points which are agreeable to them, and which are not. The same

Communication P a g e | 16
should have been communicated to FAA, and the chances of working towards the
amendments would have increased by a big margin. Thus, compromising strategy could
have ensured that the union members do not suffer a bad fate (Folger, Poole & Stutman,
2017).
Competing
This type of negotiation strategy ranks high on the level of competition and low on the
level of cooperation, in this case it was the competing strategy which was used by
PATCO against the government. Competing strategy should be used only in the case,
where the other party has sufficient leverage and a surety that the other conflicting
party will have to drop their weapons. Poli was of the opinion that an indefinite strike
would push back FAA, as the government could not take chances with procrastination of
their operation, however, Poli’s judgment went wrong and the Government went
berserk on the employees. Thus, usage of competing strategy went highly wrong for
PATCO (Rahim, 2017).
Thus, it can be said that provided Poli and PATCO would have used accommodating,
compromising, collaborating and avoiding strategy, the things definitely would have
been different and the union members and leaders would have not suffered such an ill
fate.
Bargaining Strategies
As mentioned in the earlier section, negotiation is a 2 Way Street through which one
gets what he wants. It can be seen as a process in which 2 or more parties look forward
to resolve their conflicts by the virtue of tweaking their demands, in order to reach a
mutually acceptable solution. This type of negotiation was hardly reflected in the action
of Poli and PATCO, which was the biggest reason for their ill fate. The two most common
negotiation strategies which can help in resolving the conflict are distributive and
integrative negotiation.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation can be understood as a competitive negotiation strategy which
is used in the cases where the conflicting parties are looking forward to divide the

Communication P a g e | 17
assets, fixed resources, money etc. between themselves. It can also be seen as a zero
sum game, that is, as one party wins the other one definitely loses. This type of
negotiation is primarily used by business communicators where there is lack of trust
and faith on the other party (Cummings et. al., 2015).
This type of negotiation in the case of PATCO and Poli could have gone either ways, but
it would have definitely not have landed Poli in jail and other members out of their
respective jobs. Distributive negotiation would have given certain leverage and power
in the hands of PATCO as by asking for certain resources, they would have leveraged a
full control over it, thereby creating a scenario of win for them.
Integrative Negotiation
Integrative negotiation is also known as a collaborative negotiation strategy, in this
strategy both the parties seek to arrive at a solution of win-win in order to settle the
conflict and move forward. Integrative negotiation makes the way for combining the
goals, objectives and aims of both the parties in such a way that a larger pie is created
out of it. Integrative negotiation is done keeping in mind, the needs, interests, concerns
and preference of the parties concerned. Thus, Integrative negotiation is the best
technique to accommodate the needs, concerns of the conflicting parties and reach at a
solution which is happily acceptable to both, this is strongly based on the concept of
value creation(Lawrence, 2018).
Integrative V/s Distributive Negotiation
Definition Integrative Collaboration Distributive
Collaboration
Strategy used Collaboration strategy is
used here
Competitive strategy is
used here
Resources Can be anything, not fixed In this case resources are
mostly asset and money
Orientation WIN-WIN is the orientation
here
Win-Lose is the orientation
here
Motivation The motivation here is
based on mutual interest
and gain
The motivation here is
based on self-interest and
individual profit.
Issue Multiple issues can be
discussed at one time
Only one issue has to be
discussed at a time
Communication Openness and constructive
communication is the order
Here it is selective and
highly controlled.

Communication P a g e | 18
of the house here
Relationship High priority is give here Not a high priority is given
in this case.
(Source: Deutsch, 2015)
Thus, the differences between distributive and integrative negotiation tactics
establishes the fact that situation could have been handled in a much better way,
provided the negotiator would have some knowledge on the tactics of negotiation which
he could have used for his leverage(Peng, Dunn & Conlon, 2015).
Things could have been done better by the Government
In all fairness, it is certain that the government agency did fair and ethical jobs in
restricting the strike of the union members by taking strong steps towards them. The
action of the government was guided by the terms and condition of the contract
agreement, which mentioned explicitly strike would be treated as illegal. Thus,
government was left with no other chance than to respond strongly and cite an example
for future employees or the future union. However, there are still quite a few things
which the government could have done differently, in order to avoid such a huge
conflict and creating a situation of Lose-Lose for both FAA and PATCO.
Openness in Communication
Nowhere in the case has it been mentioned that the government was open to
communication and was considering the points of the union. The government agency
just rubbished all the possible amendments to the contract and left no choice for the
union. However, if the government would have lent ears to the concerns of the union
and communicated in a better way, there is no two doubts that the situation would have
been different (Sebenius, 2015).
Conflict Resolution
As pointed in the case, three of the meetings Poli had with FAA, 2 were extremely futile
and government did not turn even heads towards the concerns of the union members. A
conflict was in due in the pipeline, had the government been more proactive, more

Communication P a g e | 19
caring and more concerned towards the needs of the union, the members would have
not suffered such an ill fate. FAA was the only body who could have solved the conflict,
or guided the Union to approach somebody else, as FAA has its hands tied, this could
have potentially reduced the conflict and empower the union in the process (Hawes &
Fleming, 2014).
Thus, it can be concluded by saying that impulsive reaction of the PATCO and Poli was
the pivotal reason for big loss for all the stakeholders. However, if the government
would have been a little concerning, caring and considerate towards the needs and
demands of the Union members, the situation could have been averted. Thus,
Negotiation and bargaining tactics, two way communication and conflict resolution
techniques are extremely important in handling such situations.
References

Communication P a g e | 20
Balsiger, P., 2014. Between shaming corporations and promoting alternatives: The
politics of an “ethical shopping map”. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), pp.218-235.
Banai, M., Stefanidis, A., Shetach, A. and Özbek, M.F., 2014. Attitudes toward ethically
questionable negotiation tactics: A two-country study. Journal of business ethics, 123(4),
pp.669-685.
Butler, J., 2016. Playing fair. Human Kinetics.
Chapman, E., Miles, E.W. and Maurer, T., 2017. A proposed model for effective
negotiation skill development. Journal of Management Development, 36(7), pp.940-958.
Craigie, E.K., Gransberg, D.D. and Jeong, H.D., 2016. Cost and scope breakdown structure
for functional level estimating of consultant fees. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2573), pp.157-163.
Cummings, E.M., Faircloth, W.B., Schacht, P.M., McCoy, K.P. and Schermerhorn, A.C.,
2015. Opportunities and Obstacles in Giving Away Research on Marital Conflict and
Children. The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychology in Practice: Implementation
and Impact, p.53.
Deutsch, M., 2015. Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict. In Morton Deutsch: A Pioneer
in Developing Peace Psychology(pp. 47-70). Springer, Cham.
Fisher, R.J., 2016. Interactive conflict resolution: A social-psychological approach to
resolving violent ethnopolitical conflict. In Ronald J. Fisher: A North American Pioneer in
Interactive Conflict Resolution (pp. 105-132). Springer, Cham.
Fleck, D., Volkema, R.J. and Pereira, S., 2016. Dancing on the slippery slope: The effects
of appropriate versus inappropriate competitive tactics on negotiation process and
outcome. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(5), pp.873-899.
Folger, J., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K., 2017. Working through conflict: Strategies for
relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge.
Gaspar, J.P. and Chen, C.C., 2016. The Unconscious Conscience: Implicit Processes and
Deception in Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 32(3), pp.213-229.

Communication P a g e | 21
Gratch, J., Nazari, Z. and Johnson, E., 2016, May. The Misrepresentation Game: How to
win at negotiation while seeming like a nice guy. In Proceedings of the 2016
International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (pp. 728-737).
International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
Hawes, J.M. and Fleming, D.E., 2014. Recognizing distributive or integrative negotiation
opportunities in marketing channels: the conceptualization of adaptive
negotiations. Journal of Marketing Channels, 21(4), pp.279-287.
Herwig, A., 2014. The WTO and the Doha Negotiation in Crisis?. In Netherlands Yearbook
of International Law 2013(pp. 161-185). TMC Asser Press, The Hague.
Johns, B.H., Crowley, E.P. and Guetzloe, E., 2017. The central role of teaching social
skills. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(8).
Kayes, D.C., 2015. Organizational resilience: How learning sustains organizations in Crisis,
disaster, and breakdown. Oxford University Press, USA.
Kowalczyk, E. and Kleka, P., 2015. Selected Determinants of Interpersonal
Communication in Negotiation–between Openness and Manipulation.
Lawrence, W.G., 2018. Introductory essay: Exploring boundaries. In Exploring individual
and organizational boundaries (pp. 1-19). Routledge.
Lecocq, F. and Hourcade, J.C., 2016. Unspoken ethical issues in the climate affair:
Insights from a theoretical analysis of negotiation mandates. In The Economics of the
Global Environment (pp. 311-340). Springer, Cham.
Lederach, J., 2015. Little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding
principles by a pioneer in the field. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc..
McDermott, M., 2016. Negotiating on Behalf of Low-Income Clients: The Distorting
Effects of Model Rule 4.1. SCL Rev., 68, p.1.
Moore, C.W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John
Wiley & Sons.

Communication P a g e | 22
Orbie, J. and Martens, D., 2016. EU TRADE POLICY AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
TOWARDS A MORE ETHICAL AGENDA?. In Different glances at EU trade policy (pp. 73-
82). CIDOB.
Peng, A.C., Dunn, J. and Conlon, D.E., 2015. When vigilance prevails: The effect of
regulatory focus and accountability on integrative negotiation outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, pp.77-87.
Pestana, J.D.F.M.G., 2015. Escalation of conflict in FMCG industry: A negotiation
case (Doctoral dissertation).
Rahim, M.A., 2017. Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.
Sebenius, J.K., 2015. Why a behavioral theory of labor negotiations remains a triumph at
fifty but the labels “distributive” and “integrative” should be retired. Negotiation
Journal, 31(4), pp.335-347.
Singer, L., 2018. Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal
system. Routledge.
Stefanidis, A. and Banai, M., 2014. Ethno cultural considerations in negotiation:‐
pretense, deception and lies in the Greek workplace. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 23(2), pp.197-217.
Strulovici, B., 2017. Contract Negotiation and the Coase Conjecture: A Strategic
Foundation for Renegotiation Proof Contracts.‐ Econometrica, 85(2), pp.585-616.
Wallensteen, P., 2015. Understanding conflict resolution. Sage.
Winham, G.R., 2014. International trade and the Tokyo Round negotiation. Princeton
University Press.
Yang, Y., De Cremer, D. and Wang, C., 2017. How Ethically Would Americans and Chinese
Negotiate? The Effect of Intra-cultural Versus Inter-cultural Negotiations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 145(3), pp.659-670.

Communication P a g e | 23
Zhu, L., Zhao, X. and Chua, D.K.H., 2016. Agent-based debt terms’ bargaining model to
improve negotiation inefficiency in PPP projects. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, 30(6)
Zohar, I., 2015. “The Art of Negotiation” Leadership Skills Required for Negotiation in
Time of Crisis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, pp.540-548.

Communication P a g e | 24