Different Negotiations/Same Messaging Strategy

By Clark S. Judge, managing director.

We developed the tactic described in the Global Energy Company case study several years before the time of the case. It was for an environmental negotiation that another client was having with the U.S. Government.

The administration in office at the time was initiating talks with stakeholders in environmentally sensitive regions throughout the country. Our client was the focus of one of those talks. We had reason to question whether federal officials would treat the company or its local industry evenhandedly.

As in most matters dealing with the environmental, the government started with the media in its corner, ready to ignore plans or protests from industry. The government always has coercing powers in its pocket, an option that makes achieving balanced outcomes more difficult.

But just as we would later realize that the country in the energy case had interests that we could harness in our client’s favor (the need to continue attracting foreign direct investment), we saw a disciplining interest at play in the environmental talks – the need to have the public and media see the multi-state parlaying succeed. If the stakeholders in those American talks found to government strongarming our client, the overall talks would become much harder and likely fail.

So we wrote and placed op-eds signed by our client in each of the communities where other environmental talks were in process or planned. As with the later overseas talks, the message was simple: if you want to know how this government will treat you, keep an eye on us.

Signs of U.S. government strongarming and fast dealing vanished almost immediately.

The point is that governments may have power, but they also have interests. Effective messaging for negotiations requires understanding those interests and knowing how to speak to them.