Tips and Answers to Your Questions
The Negotiations Process

The Strategic Goals Matrix: How to get beyond stuck in strategic restructuring negotiations

Recently we had the experience of facilitating negotiations among four national organizations considering some form of alliance (at the outset they were not yet sure what). From the beginning of negotiations the parties saw great areas of common interest but also had deep concerns around losing their uniqueness and individual identities. They were also at different stages of consideration of the partnership. Two of the parties were ready to merge, another was unsure whether merger or confederation was the right move, and the fourth was uncertain whether its unique needs could be met by any form of close alliance, but wanted to be at the table.

The discussion as it inevitably evolved, characterized the central the issue as one of identity. Thus any alliance -- merger, confederation, whatever -- would be judged in large part by how much it threatened each organization's autonomy. This, clearly, was not a framework for getting anywhere, since any form of alliance would require giving up some level of autonomy.

In order to shift the discussion to more productive ground we used the following method, which we call The Strategic Goals Matrix:

First, we asked each group to caucus separately and list, in writing:

• its most important strategic goals as an entity.
• its desired ends from the partnership.

While the caucus period was underway we drew a chart with four columns on it, each headed with the name of one of the organizations.

When the negotiators returned from their caucuses, we listed out each group's strategic goals, side-by-side, and found, amazingly, that they were very much the same. The graphic representation of these goals, repeated almost word-for-word beside one another, was a transformative moment in the process.

Next we listed each group's desired ends from the partnership, again side-by-side, and found that they were also quite similar. They broke out into three categories:

1. Activities that ease administration such as combined back offices
2. Activities that enhance member services
3. Activities that can have a major strategic impact on the field

When the negotiators reviewed the lists they found a great deal could be accomplished through a back office consolidation. Essentially all of numbers 1 and 2 could be achieved through the creation of a jointly owned management services organization. This, in itself, was a major breakthrough, again aided by seeing very similar goals laid out next to one another.

However, the negotiations committee felt strongly that the reasons they were considering coming together were not only, or even primarily, to achieve administrative ease. They returned to the list of their goals and quickly agreed that advancing their strategic agenda was the real reason they were assembled around the table. They also agreed that the only way to advance those goals was to create a single voice in the field. Thus they agreed to pursue creation of a confederation, as an interim step toward merger.

In this situation reframing the discussion away from identity issues to instead focus on each organization's strategic goals motivated the negotiators to come up with an agreement that they think will better serve their constituencies. Also helpful was the use of a simple chart that made it obvious to all negotiators how similar their goals and desires were. Finally, the act of specifying their desires concretized the discussions, moving away from abstract concerns over autonomy and toward very specific goals they strongly desire to accomplish. This motivation was sufficient to overcome the negotiators' natural fears of loss of autonomy, allowing the process to move on.

This critical discussion occurred at a meeting several months ago. Since then there have been many ups and downs in the talks but the process has moved forward. When autonomy concerns have once again arisen, as they do regularly at our negotiations sessions, they now do so within a context of shared agreement on the great things the groups hope to accomplish together. This perspective helps us to get over any roadblocks and back on track. We anticipate the first phase of the project - creation of a confederated entity - will occur by year's end.

When nonprofits are "stuck" such as in this example, it's sometimes useful to look for:

• Pre-conceived, unverified assumptions each may have about the other or about what the process may mean to their interests.
• Ways to help the groups look at the glass as "half-full" rather than "half-empty."
• Ways to reframe the discussion from a theme of "we can't work together," to an atmosphere of "we're going to make this work."

Strategic restructuring negotiations often are difficult and emotionally trying. However, usually we are able to help clients see their common interests and assess whether these will be advanced by working more closely together.