Insights from the Ukraine and the tariff situations offer lessons in negotiation for the meetings industry
Recent events, such as the Trump administration’s tariff policies for Canada, Mexico, and China, and the meeting between President Trump and Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, provide valuable lessons for meeting and event planners. Trump’s approach to negotiation, often characterized by a distributive bargaining style, contrasts sharply with the integrative bargaining approach that many successful planners should adopt. Understanding these methods can greatly enhance the effectiveness of negotiations with hotels and suppliers.
Distributive Bargaining
Trump’s negotiation style, as highlighted in his book, The Art of the Deal, focuses on distributive bargaining—a zero-sum game where one party’s gain is another’s loss. This method is akin to fighting over slices of a pie: if you get a bigger piece, someone else must settle for less. While this approach may yield short-term wins, it can lead to long-term consequences, particularly in ongoing relationships.
For meeting planners, this style can be detrimental. If planners adopt a distributive mindset when negotiating contracts with venues or suppliers, they may secure a lower price today but risk damaging relationships for future events. A hotel that feels undervalued or unfairly treated may not be willing to accommodate future requests, leaving planners scrambling for new options. And of course, the same is true if hoteliers or other suppliers take a distributive stance with meeting and event planners.
The Tariff Tangle
The complexities of Trump’s tariff policies further illustrate the pitfalls of distributive bargaining. When tariffs were imposed on steel and aluminum, Canada and Mexico responded with their own tariffs on American goods, creating a cycle of retaliation that strained relationships and disrupted trade. Likewise, when Trump raised tariffs on China, Beijing sought alternatives, reducing soybean orders from U.S. farmers and increasing purchases from Russia. This not only harmed American farmers but also strengthened Russia’s economic position.
Further Reading: 4 Must-Know Negotiation Hacks
This scenario mirrors the negotiation landscape for planners and suppliers. If one side adopts a hardline stance in negotiations, viewing the other side as adversaries, they might provoke negative responses that ultimately hurt their own objectives. Just as Canada, Mexico, and China sought other partners in response to U.S. tariffs, planners, venues, and suppliers may look for alternative partners if they feel undervalued.
The Need for Integrative Bargaining
In contrast to the distributive approach, integrative bargaining allows for collaborative solutions where both parties can benefit. This approach recognizes that there is not just one pie to divide; instead, it considers the overall relationship and the potential for future collaboration. For instance, rather than simply negotiating the lowest rate for a venue, planners and suppliers can discuss additional services, flexible terms, and future bookings that can benefit both sides.
During international negotiations, as seen in the Trump-Zelensky meeting, the failure to recognize the need for integrative bargaining can lead to adverse outcomes. Trump’s focus on tariffs exemplifies a narrow view of negotiation, where he assumes that imposing tariffs would yield a straightforward win. However, countries like China responded strategically, seeking alternative suppliers and thus undermining U.S. interests. This highlights the importance of a broader perspective in negotiations—considering the various options available to other parties can significantly affect the negotiation landscape.
Building Long-Term Relationships
One of the critical lessons from both the Trump administration’s tariff policies and the recent meeting with Zelensky is the importance of maintaining goodwill in negotiations. Distributive bargaining can breed resentment and diminish trust, which is invaluable in the hospitality industry. For meeting planners, fostering positive relationships with hotels and suppliers can lead to better service, preferential rates, and increased flexibility in future negotiations. For hotels and suppliers, it can lead to loyal customers.
To cultivate this goodwill, all parties should approach negotiations with a mindset of collaboration. Instead of viewing each other as adversaries to be outmaneuvered, they should view each other as partners in creating successful events. This shift not only enhances the immediate negotiation but also lays the groundwork for future collaborations that can yield mutual benefits.
The Future of Negotiation: Embracing Expertise
Finally, the Trump-Zelensky meeting underscores the importance of expertise in negotiations. Trump’s self-reliance in his negotiation style, rooted in his real estate experience, may leave him ill-prepared for the complexities of international diplomacy. Similarly, meeting planners should not shy away from seeking external expertise when negotiating contracts. Engaging professionals who specialize in negotiations can provide valuable insights and strategies that improve outcomes.
In conclusion, the lessons learned from the recent White House meeting extend far beyond politics. By understanding and applying the principles of integrative bargaining, maintaining positive relationships, and valuing negotiation expertise, suppliers and meeting and event planners can navigate their own negotiations more effectively. Adopting a collaborative mindset will not only yield better contracts but also pave the way for lasting partnerships in the events industry. Just as the international landscape requires adaptive strategies to thrive, so too does the world of meetings and events.
Any thoughts, opinions, or news? Please share them with me at vince@meetingsevents.com.
Photo by FreeMalaysiaToday.com, CC BY 4.0
