University: Conflict Resolution in NHL Labor Dispute Analysis Report

This report analyzes a conflict resolution case study centered on labor disputes within the National Hockey League (NHL). The report examines the negotiation issues that arose between players and the NHL, highlighting the initial mistrust and subsequent conflicts over profitability, revenue, and player compensation. It identifies the adversarial and distributive bargaining dynamics, where both parties aimed to secure a larger share of a scarce resource. The report delves into the psychological, structural, and tactical barriers that impeded successful negotiation, including issues of trust, time constraints, and strategic maneuvers. The study also explores the significant roles of power and trust in complex negotiations, emphasizing their impact on interpersonal decision-making and the ultimate outcomes of the bargaining process. The analysis underscores the importance of understanding these factors for effective conflict resolution.

Running head: CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Conflict Resolution
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Negotiation issues in the context of a labor dispute.
The difference and conflicts between the players and NHL initiated during the early years
of NHL’s existence when mistrust had been showed by players on the NHL in relation to actual
revelation of its profitability and revenue. The conflict went on since then and had continued to
exist side by side with the operation of NHL. However when a formal strike had been initiated
by the players a war of attrition initiated both the parties who stood still in relation to their
position rather than their interest. Due to the prolonged conflict losses had been witnessed by
both the parties. The case is a primary example of adversarial and distributive bargaining when a
scarce resource which is money is tried to be claimed by both the parties in form of costs,
salaries, revenue and marketing rights. Various negotiations which took place between the
parties failed to produce a mutually agreed agreement between them. In the given situation it is
clear that there are various issues which arise in relation to a labor dispute. Here the labors are
referred as players. These issues involve disputes in relation to matters like money, employment
rights, ego and power. The employer has a stronger bargaining position than the labors, however
the labors also have platforms like going on strike to increase their bargaining power. In the
given case barriers to negotiation were clear and thus it made it difficult for both the parties to
come to an agreement. The barriers not only elongated the period of negotiation but also
increased the differences between the parties in terms of the relationship between them.
The issue in the given case was that the players wanted to be paid more for the services
provided to them and the NHL wanted to extract major revenue for its self. The players had a
stand that the NFL is concealing their profitability and paying them significantly less and on the
other hand the NHL had a stand that the players were paid adequately in terms of the revenue
received by them from the game. Both the parties were firm in relation to their position in the
dispute which was making them both suffer significant losses as the league was not being played.
The barriers in terms of the negotiation can be widely classified into three different areas
which include psychological, tactical and structural barriers.
Psychological, structural, and tactical barriers to successful negotiation
In the given dispute there are various psychological barriers. The players involved in the
dispute were very confident in relation to their position in the dispute. They were being
represented by Bob Goodenow who was a lawyer and more importantly a hockey guy. The
demands of the players had been met in 1992 when they conducted a strike in relation to
marketing rights only for ten days. In relation to limits in agency and lower supply of player
where the demand was significantly high the psychological barrier of the players was at its apex.
During the negotiations process also the players did not think much about team owners as they
had a great deal of distrust towards them. A major reason for such distrust is that the owners
failed to disclose the finances in relation to the league to the public and even the players. The
players believed that the game was itself not as important to the owners as it was to the players.

2
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Thus psychological barriers have a very significant role to play in relation to the process. When
the parties to the process have an understanding that their negotiating position is very high as
compared to the other party they stay very firm in relation to their position and do not give much
importance to the actual interest.
In relation to the structural barriers in the case both the players and the owners face a
issue in relation to the pressure of time. It was evident that an agreement between the parties
would not be achieved before the season was initiated. Both parties were aware of the fact that
every game missed is a potential loss of money for them both. Another structural barrier which
was faced by the parties in the case was in relation to the question that what constituted an actual
meeting between the parties. There was also confusion that who should be attending the
meetings for the parties. At one only the representatives of the parties Bettman and Goodenow
were having negotiations who had a significantly different perspective. This was also one of the
primary reasons why the negotiation had not been successful. Both the representatives were
taking away the productivity out of the negotiation because of the rival shared history between
them and cased a showed over the negotiation process.
There are a few tactical barriers as well in relation to the given case. The placement of
gag order on the owners crated an addition rift between the parties. The possibility of using a
meaningful relationship for reaching a common goal had been eliminated by such tactics.
Another tactical barrier which had been identified is where the representative of the owner used a
bogey of sports. He wrote a letter to the union during the dispute that he wanted to alter 19
aspects of the collective bargaining agreement. Although these did not carry much importance it
increased the complexity involved in the negotiation process. The letter also discouraged the
union form providing their corporation towards the process of negotiations. The players also
caused a tactical issue by denying the owners’ request in relation to renegotiation. Listing these
barriers help to identify why the negotiation process is not being successful. The psychological
barriers act as underlying motives which hinder logical and rational processes and caused lack of
progress (Lewicki, Saunders and Barry). The structural barriers depict the lack of control and
organization between both the parties. They help to identify that the rules which have been put
into place by such parties are too lax or too controlling. The tactical barriers help to identify the
cause and effect of the actions of the parties both during and prior to the process. This show
whether a previous situation has a positive or negative impact on the negotiation process (Pang,
Kelvin and Wang).
Role of power and trust within complex negotiations
A fundamental fact in relation to the process of negotiation and decision making which is
forgotten easily is that on the other side the representative is also a human being. Thus it is
evident that the human phenomenons of trust and power have considerable influence in relation
to the process. However these phenomenons are complex and broad and often so abstractly
defined that they easily escape attention (Kong). The process of negotiation takes place in

3
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
various contexts. According to Ray it is a process of interpersonal decision making which is used
when a person cannot single handedly achieves an objective. All facets of negotiation is
pervaded by power. The very idea of negotiation, indeed conjures intuitively images of tough
bargaining and power contest. The concept of power underpinning the fundamental structure of
negotiation arise from structural tradition which states that negotiation starts with the distribution
of power between the parties. The initial distribution colors the total process of bargaining and
set the initial outcome. There is also a wide spread agreement between scholars that trust is
significant in relation to effective negotiation. Trust has been identified by Geiger as the bedrock
of negotiation. When parties have a trust on each other there are high chances that the process of
negotiation is going to be successful. Thus power and trust play a major role in the process of
negotiation.

4
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
References
Fells, Ray. Effective negotiation: From research to results. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Geiger, I. (2016). Negotiation Management. In Business Project Management and
Marketing (pp. 207-275). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kong, Dejun Tony, Kurt T. Dirks, and Donald L. Ferrin. "Interpersonal trust within negotiations:
Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research." Academy of
Management Journal 57.5 (2014): 1235-1255.
Pang, Kelvin, and Cynthia S. Wang. "Understanding Negotiation Ethics." Negotiation
Excellence: Successful Deal Making. 2015. 255-269.
Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders, Bruce Barry , Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases.
(2010), Sixth Edition