Dangers of Agitating Your Negotiating Partner in Public

Rob Manfred, MLB Commissioner. Image courtesy of the AP.

Major League Baseball owners and the players are struggling in collective bargaining negotiations, with each blaming the other side for no agreement and thus no on-time start to the baseball season. A recent letter to the fans — and media — from MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred intended to deescalate anger at the owners and MLB and displace blame, was of questionable intelligence and strategy.

Keep in mind the owners previously had locked the players out.

Many fans are upset, at the owners mostly — and the players know this. Yet, Rob Manfred, the commissioner, speaking on behalf of the owners released a letter to detail what owners have offered to satisfy players in an effort for the season to start, clearly a tactic to diffuse fan anger and maybe, media disgust too (hey, they're fans too).

What did Manfred communicate in the letter and why was it a blind spot of the owners and commissioner to communicate, in words and intent, the way they did?

Let’s look at pieces of the letter where the owners and Manfred, the spokesperson for them, went off the rails with high-risk communication, so we can learn from their public relations miscalculations and very preventable errors.

“I had hoped against hope that I would not have to be in the position of canceling games.

“We worked hard to avoid an outcome that is bad for our fans, bad for our players and bad for our clubs. I want to assure our fans that our failure to reach an agreement was not due to a lack of effort on the part of either party. The Players came here for nine days, worked hard and tried to make a deal. I appreciate their effort.”

Analysis: Manfred starts the letter off well and when he gets to the paragraph above he shows a lack of bias and respect towards his negotiating partners — the players and their union, the MLBPA.

“So far, we have failed to achieve our mutual goal of a fair deal. The unfortunate thing is that the agreement we have offered has huge benefits for fans and players.”

Analysis: This is where the owners and Manfred begin to veer off course, starting the ‘blame game’ and poking at the players’ association, likely creating elevated animosity. Notice here how Manfred focuses on what he and the owners believe is a very thoughtful and generous offer, yet conveniently omitting how 1) the owners too might be greatly benefiting and 2) dismissing how the players association feels about the current proposal or proposals. This is a figurative punch in the face number one at that players for inferred selfish bargaining.

Manfred then goes on to list what the owners are offering, painting those points as efforts to meet the MLBPA’s requests and improve the game. He also speaks to satisfying what he believes are fans requests, even though fans don’t agree on all of what he mentioned. Notice how Manfred, again, speaking for the owners (and himself), does not mention what value the players’ association offered to the owners and what concessions they too made.

Manfred’s comments are presented in a way that communicates that the owners are doing all the work of creating value. How this can’t upset the MLBPA, leading them to feel misrepresented or lied about and portrayed as greedy is very dangerous to the negotiation relationship and process.

Any aggrieved person or party remembers their negative emotions when they feel mistreated and that then becomes part of the dispute or in this case, ongoing conflict, between parties.

“So, what is next? The calendar dictates that we are not going to be able to play the first two series of regular season games and those games are officially canceled. We are prepared to continue negotiations. We have been informed that the MLBPA is headed back to New York meaning that no agreement is possible until at least Thursday. Currently, camps could not meaningfully operate until at least March 8th, leaving only 23 days before scheduled Opening Day.

“We played without an agreement in 1994 and the players went on strike in August, forcing the cancellation of the World Series. It was a painful chapter in our game’s history. We cannot risk such an outcome again for our fans and our sport.”

Analysis: Manfred talks about the consequences of no agreement, surely to upset fans who look forward to Opening Day and a new season of games, excitement and hope for their teams and favorite players. He details the ‘why’ as to the reasoning for the decision, choosing to say something that he could have chosen not to say, which is blaming the players. Manfred frames this decision as protecting the sport and fans against the whims and selfishness of the players.

“The Clubs and our owners fully understand just how important it is to our millions of fans that we get the game on the field as soon as possible. To that end, we want to bargain and we want a deal with the Players Association as quickly as possible.”

Analysis: Manfred speaks to the intent of the owners and MLB, yet again framing it as MLB and the owners versus the “Players Association,” who are holding up an agreement. Instead of showing the players and owners are a team that needs to solve this conflict, Manfred presents the players' association as adversaries and enemies to the sport and fans.

What is there to make of this shortsighted, expensive (the players will be angry and want more out of any agreement now) tactic? The owners and commissioner want to put pressure on the players’ association, using the fans impatience for baseball as motivation for movement and agreement.

Since the majority of fans, while possibly upset at the mutual greed or players’ greed, channel most of their disdain towards owners, this was a serious, egregious communications, public relations and negotiation miscalculation on behalf of the owners and Manfred.

This is also an example — a transparent one — of ‘spin,’ inferring how the owners are all about the best interests of the sport and fans, while the players are self-absorbed, unreasonable and uncaring towards the fans.

Manfred is detailed about the negotiating points yet only presenting one side of the dispute and negotiations. This is intended to show the reasonableness of the owners and how players are expecting and asking for too much. It doesn’t take much thought to know that this is not the whole story being presented and that a lot of details and nuance are missing.

Manfred is communicating, in not so many words, that the owners are ‘givers’ and the players are ‘takers,’ knowing how fans emotions could be triggered. The players’ association could very understandably feel thrown thrown under the bus, as the phrase goes.

The fans want what they want — Spring Training games and an on-start time for the season — when they want it, yet they are not dumb. Many of them are employees and they realize how ownership doesn’t always act ethically. Even business owners, who might be more empathetic to owners, might disagree with how the negotiations are transpiring and the public statement made.

Publicly making your negotiating partner out to be the ‘bad guys’ in the media and to fans, as stakeholders, is a dangerous move. It was easy to do yet now the owners have to communicate again, in the same room likely, with the players. How do they and Manfred believe that is going to go for them? This arrogance of communication had to pour gasoline on the negotiation relationship.

The owners could benefit from this attack strategy in the end yet it is difficult to see exactly how it will pressure the players, who realize they have the majority of fans and media on their side. And if the fans aren’t mostly in the players’ corner, then their disgust is shared towards both parties. The owners are certainly not seem as benevolent or blameless.

An agreement will get done. It always does. Yet it will be more contentious and competitive now, likely not what the owners and commissioner planned when publicly demeaning the players.