Triple M’s Rush Hour with James Brayshaw and Billy Brownless will get you home from 4-6pm Monday to Friday. They’ve got you stitched up, with the biggest names in town joining them in the studio every day. Plus your favourite segments like Billy’s Bake, what have you seen…unusual, the Idiot File & Billy’s Joke. If it bounces, rolls or scores, then these two characters will have it covered in ways only they can.
…
continue reading
Content provided by Sports Conflict Institute. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Sports Conflict Institute or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Similar to Sports Conflict Institute
Triple M Footy is your ultimate destination for live AFL action, expert analysis, and unrivalled access throughout the season. Catch every game, every goal with our legendary team: James Brayshaw, Mark Howard, Brian Taylor, Billy Brownless, Jason Dunstall, Bernie Vince, Damian Barrett, and more! Listen to all your favourite Triple M Footy shows on demand in this podcast feed, and never miss a moment by streaming the shows and matches LIVE on the LiSTNR app. Just search 'Triple M Footy AFL' o ...
…
continue reading
Welcome to the Official Golf Betting Podcast of the DP World Tour. Hosted by Ollie Silverton, and joined by a panel of industry-leading golf tipsters and special guests, The Tips will preview all of the action on the DP World Tour and PGA TOUR as we try to sort the form horses from the long shots. So stretch off, pull the driver out and join us on The Tips. 18+ Please Gamble Responsibly. Visit: https://www.begambleaware.org/
…
continue reading
home of correct opinions
…
continue reading
Where sports and politics collide, hosted by Nation magazine Sports Editor Dave Zirin
…
continue reading
Mark Chapman, Jon Wilkin, Brian Noble and Jamie Peacock discuss, debate and argue over the best players, games, finals and iconic moments in Rugby League.
…
continue reading
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
))
Prescription Without Diagnosis: Why Your Negotiation Training Keeps Failing
Manage episode 514248132 series 2420818
Content provided by Sports Conflict Institute. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Sports Conflict Institute or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Organizations waste millions on negotiation training that fails to deliver results. The Negotiation Assessment Tool (NAT) reveals why: without diagnosing capability gaps across strategy, human capital, and incentives, even world-class training creates only frustrated negotiators operating in broken systems.
By Joshua A. Gordon, JD, MA & Gary Furlong, LL.M.
• Sports Conflict Institute
• 17 min read
Categories: Organizational Assessment | Negotiation Strategy | Capability Development
Executive Summary
The Problem: Organizations default to skills training as the universal solution for negotiation failures, ignoring systemic issues in strategy alignment, organizational investment, and incentive structures.
The Framework: The Negotiation Assessment Tool diagnoses organizational capability across three dimensions and four maturity levels, providing targeted improvement pathways.
The Solution: Systematic diagnosis followed by incremental capability building creates sustainable negotiation excellence rather than temporary skill enhancement.
In medicine, the principle stands unchallenged: prescription without diagnosis constitutes malpractice. Yet organizations routinely prescribe negotiation training without diagnosing underlying capability gaps, creating a cascade of wasted resources and unrealized potential. This fundamental error explains why billions spent on negotiation training yield minimal sustainable improvement in organizational outcomes.
The Negotiation Assessment Tool (NAT) transforms this paradigm by introducing systematic diagnosis to organizational negotiation capability. Rather than assuming skills training solves all problems, the NAT reveals the complex interplay between strategy alignment, human capital investment, and incentive structures that determine negotiation effectiveness. This diagnostic precision enables targeted interventions that build lasting capability rather than temporary competence.
This analysis examines the NAT methodology and its transformative impact on organizational negotiation capability. The discussion proceeds in three parts: first, understanding why traditional training approaches fail; second, examining the NAT’s diagnostic framework and capability model; and finally, implementing systematic improvement through targeted intervention strategies.
Understanding the Challenge: The Training Fallacy
Organizations confronting negotiation failures exhibit predictable behavior: they commission training programs. This reflexive response, what we term the “training fallacy,” assumes that individual skill deficits cause poor negotiation outcomes.1 The logic appears sound—better-trained negotiators should produce better results. Yet empirical evidence reveals a different reality: organizations spending millions on world-class training often see negligible improvement in actual negotiation outcomes. The problem lies not in training quality but in fundamental misdiagnosis of root causes.
Consider a university athletic department negotiating broadcast rights where revenue maximization, exposure optimization, and student-athlete welfare compete as organizational priorities. Without clear strategic alignment, negotiations swing wildly depending on which stakeholder dominates the room.2 No amount of skills training resolves this fundamental confusion about organizational objectives. Negotiators armed with sophisticated techniques but lacking strategic clarity become more frustrated, not more effective, as raised expectations collide with systemic constraints.
Human capital underinvestment compounds strategic misalignment. Organizations rely on individual expertise without building institutional capability, creating dangerous dependencies on star negotiators. When construction firms depend entirely on veteran negotiators’ intuitive understanding without mentoring programs, preparation templates, or debrief processes, retirement triggers capability collapse.3 Decades of accumulated wisdom evaporate because no systems exist to capture, codify, and transfer negotiation knowledge across generations of practitioners.
Incentive misalignment represents perhaps the most insidious capability destroyer. Custom home builders pursuing lifetime customer relationships while compensating salespeople on single-transaction margins create inherent conflict between organizational strategy and individual behavior. Research from organizational psychology demonstrates that misaligned incentives override training effects, as rational actors optimize for personal reward rather than organizational benefit.4 Training negotiators to build relationships while rewarding transactional victories ensures behavioral reversion to incentivized patterns regardless of skill development.
Case Illustration: The Retiring Expert Syndrome
A government contractor’s negotiation success depended entirely on one senior negotiator’s relationships and intuitive understanding. Upon retirement, win rates dropped 40% despite hiring equally credentialed replacements, revealing the organization’s failure to build systematic capability beyond individual expertise.
Framework Analysis: The NAT Diagnostic System
The Negotiation Assessment Tool evaluates organizational capability across three interconnected dimensions that determine negotiation effectiveness. Strategy, values, and direction establish the North Star for negotiation decisions.5 Human capital and organizational investment create the infrastructure for sustainable excellence. Incentive alignment ensures individual behaviors support organizational objectives. These dimensions interact dynamically—weakness in any area undermines overall capability regardless of strength elsewhere. The NAT’s diagnostic power emerges from systematically evaluating each dimension while understanding their interdependencies.
The four-level capability maturity model provides granular assessment of organizational negotiation sophistication. Level 1, Ad Hocracy, characterizes organizations relying on individual charm and hustle without systematic processes.6 Level 2, Repeatable Competency, emerges when organizations establish standard preparation processes and basic playbooks. Level 3, Adaptive Flexibility, manifests when organizations tailor strategies to context while maintaining systematic learning. Level 4, Optimized Performance, represents the pinnacle where organizations co-design negotiation processes with counterparts to maximize value creation. Each level builds upon previous foundations—attempting to leap levels ensures failure.
Diagnostic precision enables targeted intervention strategies aligned with organizational maturity. Organizations at Level 1 benefit most from establishing basic preparation templates and role clarity, not advanced integrative negotiation training. The NAT reveals that a twenty-minute pre-brief establishing roles, boundaries, and priorities delivers more immediate impact than week-long skills workshops for ad hoc organizations.7 This diagnostic specificity transforms random improvement efforts into systematic capability building with predictable progression through maturity levels.
The assessment process itself catalyzes organizational learning about negotiation capability. Simple diagnostic questions reveal profound gaps: Does your organization explicitly define “best deal” before negotiations? Do you use standardized preparation processes? Do you capture learnings in institutional playbooks? Organizations answering “no” to these fundamental questions immediately understand why training alone fails. The NAT transforms abstract capability concepts into concrete, actionable improvement opportunities that resonate with practitioners and executives alike.
The NAT Capability Assessment Framework
Strategy, Values & Direction: Clear definition of negotiation success aligned with organizational objectives and communicated throughout negotiation teams.
Human Capital & Investment: Systematic development of negotiation capability through training, mentoring, tools, and knowledge management systems.
Incentive Alignment: Reward structures that reinforce desired negotiation behaviors and outcomes consistent with organizational strategy.
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any direction will do. Problem is, you’re going to end up lost in all cases at the end of the day.”
— Gary Furlong, Strategic Negotiation Webinar
Implementation Strategy: From Diagnosis to Systematic Improvement
Successful NAT implementation begins with honest organizational self-assessment that often reveals uncomfortable truths about current capability. The three-question quick test provides immediate insight: explicit best deal definition, standardized preparation processes, and institutional learning capture.8 Organizations failing even one criterion likely operate at Level 1 Ad Hocracy regardless of individual negotiator sophistication. This diagnostic clarity, while sometimes painful, provides the foundation for systematic improvement by establishing an accurate baseline from which to measure progress.
The ladder metaphor guides incremental capability building that ensures sustainable progress. Organizations cannot leap from ground level to the third floor—they must climb systematically, rung by rung. For Level 1 organizations, establishing basic concession guardrails and incentive alignment delivers more value than teaching complex multiparty negotiation strategies. The NAT prescribes focusing on one capability dimension per quarter, allowing organizations to consolidate gains before advancing. This measured approach contradicts the “transformation” rhetoric common in organizational change but reflects empirical reality about sustainable capability development.
Industry context shapes but does not fundamentally alter NAT application principles. Labor negotiations feature perpetual relationships requiring different approaches than transactional commodity purchases. Sponsorship deals occupy middle ground with multi-year commitments and renewal expectations. Yet all contexts benefit from systematic capability assessment and targeted improvement.9 The NAT’s power lies in revealing universal negotiation capability requirements while accommodating contextual variation in specific implementation tactics.
Measurement and feedback mechanisms ensure continuous capability evolution beyond initial diagnosis. Organizations must track negotiation outcomes against strategic objectives, not just deal closure rates. They must evaluate whether preparation processes are actually used, not just created. They must assess whether learnings genuinely inform future negotiations, not just accumulate in unused databases. The NAT provides both initial diagnosis and ongoing measurement framework, transforming negotiation capability from abstract concept to managed organizational asset with clear performance indicators and improvement trajectories.
NAT Implementation Pathway
Phase 1: Diagnostic Assessment (Weeks 1-2)
Complete comprehensive NAT evaluation across all three capability dimensions, establishing baseline maturity level and identifying priority improvement areas.
Phase 2: Focused Improvement (Quarter 1)
Select single capability dimension for concentrated improvement, implementing specific tools and processes aligned with current maturity level.
Phase 3: Systematic Progression (Ongoing)
Quarterly reassessment and rotation through capability dimensions, building systematic excellence through incremental advancement up maturity levels.
Practical Implications
For Executive Leadership:
Demand diagnostic assessment before approving negotiation training budgets. Invest in systematic capability building across strategy, human capital, and incentives rather than isolated skills development. Establish negotiation capability metrics beyond deal closure rates to track genuine organizational improvement.
For Negotiation Practitioners:
Use the NAT self-assessment to identify personal and organizational capability gaps. Focus improvement efforts on systemic issues rather than individual skills. Build institutional knowledge capture mechanisms that transcend individual expertise and create lasting organizational value.
For Sports Organizations:
Apply NAT principles to complex stakeholder negotiations including media rights, sponsorships, and labor agreements. Recognize that different negotiation contexts require tailored approaches while maintaining systematic capability assessment. Build negotiation infrastructure that survives personnel changes and creates sustainable competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The Negotiation Assessment Tool revolutionizes organizational approach to negotiation capability by introducing diagnostic rigor to a field dominated by intuition and assumption. By revealing the complex interplay between strategy, human capital, and incentives, the NAT exposes why training alone consistently fails to deliver sustainable improvement. Organizations that embrace systematic diagnosis discover targeted pathways to genuine capability enhancement rather than cosmetic skills development.
Implementation success requires abandoning the seductive promise of transformation in favor of incremental, systematic improvement. The ladder metaphor captures this reality: organizations climb to negotiation excellence one rung at a time, consolidating gains at each level before advancing. This measured approach contradicts modern appetite for rapid change but aligns with empirical evidence about sustainable capability development. Organizations accepting this reality achieve lasting excellence while those seeking shortcuts remain trapped in perpetual mediocrity.
The future belongs to organizations that treat negotiation capability as a managed asset requiring systematic assessment, targeted investment, and continuous improvement. The NAT provides both the diagnostic framework and improvement roadmap for this journey. As competitive pressures intensify and negotiation complexity increases, organizations can no longer afford the luxury of intuitive approaches to capability development. The choice is clear: embrace diagnostic rigor and systematic improvement, or accept the inevitable consequences of prescription without diagnosis.
Sources
1 Joshua A. Gordon & Gary Furlong, STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 23-28 (Routledge 2023).
2 Strategic Negotiation Webinar Series: The Negotiation Assessment Tool (Sports Conflict Institute 2024) (transcript on file with authors).
3 Peter Cappelli & Anna Tavis, The Performance Management Revolution, HARV. BUS. REV., Oct. 2016, at 58-67.
4 Steven Kerr, On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B, 18 ACAD. MGMT. EXEC. 7 (1975).
5 The Negotiation Assessment Tool Framework, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 89-104 (Routledge 2023).
6 The Four Levels of Negotiation Capability, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 67-88 (Routledge 2023).
7 Joshua A. Gordon, Gary Furlong & Ken Pendleton, THE SPORTS PLAYBOOK: BUILDING TEAMS THAT OUTPERFORM YEAR AFTER YEAR 145-152 (Routledge 2018).
8 NAT Quick Assessment Guide, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 105-108 (Routledge 2023).
9 Industry Applications of the NAT, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 234-251 (Routledge 2023).
Note: All citations follow Bluebook format. For questions about specific citations, consult The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed. 2020).
About the Authors
Joshua A. Gordon serves as Professor of Sports Business & Law at the University of Oregon and Senior Practitioner at the Sports Conflict Institute. Gary Furlong is Senior Partner at Agree Inc. and co-author of Strategic Negotiation. Learn more about Strategic Negotiation →
Diagnose Your Organization’s Negotiation Capability
Stop prescribing solutions without diagnosis. Discover your true negotiation maturity level.
Related Resources
Strategic Negotiation Book
Access the complete NAT framework and implementation guide for organizational excellence
Get the Book →Negotiation Strategy Services
Expert diagnostic assessment and capability building for sports and business organizations
Explore Our Services →The post Prescription Without Diagnosis: Why Your Negotiation Training Keeps Failing appeared first on Sports Conflict Institute.
10 episodes
Share
Manage episode 514248132 series 2420818
Content provided by Sports Conflict Institute. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Sports Conflict Institute or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Organizations waste millions on negotiation training that fails to deliver results. The Negotiation Assessment Tool (NAT) reveals why: without diagnosing capability gaps across strategy, human capital, and incentives, even world-class training creates only frustrated negotiators operating in broken systems.
By Joshua A. Gordon, JD, MA & Gary Furlong, LL.M.
• Sports Conflict Institute
• 17 min read
Categories: Organizational Assessment | Negotiation Strategy | Capability Development
Executive Summary
The Problem: Organizations default to skills training as the universal solution for negotiation failures, ignoring systemic issues in strategy alignment, organizational investment, and incentive structures.
The Framework: The Negotiation Assessment Tool diagnoses organizational capability across three dimensions and four maturity levels, providing targeted improvement pathways.
The Solution: Systematic diagnosis followed by incremental capability building creates sustainable negotiation excellence rather than temporary skill enhancement.
In medicine, the principle stands unchallenged: prescription without diagnosis constitutes malpractice. Yet organizations routinely prescribe negotiation training without diagnosing underlying capability gaps, creating a cascade of wasted resources and unrealized potential. This fundamental error explains why billions spent on negotiation training yield minimal sustainable improvement in organizational outcomes.
The Negotiation Assessment Tool (NAT) transforms this paradigm by introducing systematic diagnosis to organizational negotiation capability. Rather than assuming skills training solves all problems, the NAT reveals the complex interplay between strategy alignment, human capital investment, and incentive structures that determine negotiation effectiveness. This diagnostic precision enables targeted interventions that build lasting capability rather than temporary competence.
This analysis examines the NAT methodology and its transformative impact on organizational negotiation capability. The discussion proceeds in three parts: first, understanding why traditional training approaches fail; second, examining the NAT’s diagnostic framework and capability model; and finally, implementing systematic improvement through targeted intervention strategies.
Understanding the Challenge: The Training Fallacy
Organizations confronting negotiation failures exhibit predictable behavior: they commission training programs. This reflexive response, what we term the “training fallacy,” assumes that individual skill deficits cause poor negotiation outcomes.1 The logic appears sound—better-trained negotiators should produce better results. Yet empirical evidence reveals a different reality: organizations spending millions on world-class training often see negligible improvement in actual negotiation outcomes. The problem lies not in training quality but in fundamental misdiagnosis of root causes.
Consider a university athletic department negotiating broadcast rights where revenue maximization, exposure optimization, and student-athlete welfare compete as organizational priorities. Without clear strategic alignment, negotiations swing wildly depending on which stakeholder dominates the room.2 No amount of skills training resolves this fundamental confusion about organizational objectives. Negotiators armed with sophisticated techniques but lacking strategic clarity become more frustrated, not more effective, as raised expectations collide with systemic constraints.
Human capital underinvestment compounds strategic misalignment. Organizations rely on individual expertise without building institutional capability, creating dangerous dependencies on star negotiators. When construction firms depend entirely on veteran negotiators’ intuitive understanding without mentoring programs, preparation templates, or debrief processes, retirement triggers capability collapse.3 Decades of accumulated wisdom evaporate because no systems exist to capture, codify, and transfer negotiation knowledge across generations of practitioners.
Incentive misalignment represents perhaps the most insidious capability destroyer. Custom home builders pursuing lifetime customer relationships while compensating salespeople on single-transaction margins create inherent conflict between organizational strategy and individual behavior. Research from organizational psychology demonstrates that misaligned incentives override training effects, as rational actors optimize for personal reward rather than organizational benefit.4 Training negotiators to build relationships while rewarding transactional victories ensures behavioral reversion to incentivized patterns regardless of skill development.
Case Illustration: The Retiring Expert Syndrome
A government contractor’s negotiation success depended entirely on one senior negotiator’s relationships and intuitive understanding. Upon retirement, win rates dropped 40% despite hiring equally credentialed replacements, revealing the organization’s failure to build systematic capability beyond individual expertise.
Framework Analysis: The NAT Diagnostic System
The Negotiation Assessment Tool evaluates organizational capability across three interconnected dimensions that determine negotiation effectiveness. Strategy, values, and direction establish the North Star for negotiation decisions.5 Human capital and organizational investment create the infrastructure for sustainable excellence. Incentive alignment ensures individual behaviors support organizational objectives. These dimensions interact dynamically—weakness in any area undermines overall capability regardless of strength elsewhere. The NAT’s diagnostic power emerges from systematically evaluating each dimension while understanding their interdependencies.
The four-level capability maturity model provides granular assessment of organizational negotiation sophistication. Level 1, Ad Hocracy, characterizes organizations relying on individual charm and hustle without systematic processes.6 Level 2, Repeatable Competency, emerges when organizations establish standard preparation processes and basic playbooks. Level 3, Adaptive Flexibility, manifests when organizations tailor strategies to context while maintaining systematic learning. Level 4, Optimized Performance, represents the pinnacle where organizations co-design negotiation processes with counterparts to maximize value creation. Each level builds upon previous foundations—attempting to leap levels ensures failure.
Diagnostic precision enables targeted intervention strategies aligned with organizational maturity. Organizations at Level 1 benefit most from establishing basic preparation templates and role clarity, not advanced integrative negotiation training. The NAT reveals that a twenty-minute pre-brief establishing roles, boundaries, and priorities delivers more immediate impact than week-long skills workshops for ad hoc organizations.7 This diagnostic specificity transforms random improvement efforts into systematic capability building with predictable progression through maturity levels.
The assessment process itself catalyzes organizational learning about negotiation capability. Simple diagnostic questions reveal profound gaps: Does your organization explicitly define “best deal” before negotiations? Do you use standardized preparation processes? Do you capture learnings in institutional playbooks? Organizations answering “no” to these fundamental questions immediately understand why training alone fails. The NAT transforms abstract capability concepts into concrete, actionable improvement opportunities that resonate with practitioners and executives alike.
The NAT Capability Assessment Framework
Strategy, Values & Direction: Clear definition of negotiation success aligned with organizational objectives and communicated throughout negotiation teams.
Human Capital & Investment: Systematic development of negotiation capability through training, mentoring, tools, and knowledge management systems.
Incentive Alignment: Reward structures that reinforce desired negotiation behaviors and outcomes consistent with organizational strategy.
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any direction will do. Problem is, you’re going to end up lost in all cases at the end of the day.”
— Gary Furlong, Strategic Negotiation Webinar
Implementation Strategy: From Diagnosis to Systematic Improvement
Successful NAT implementation begins with honest organizational self-assessment that often reveals uncomfortable truths about current capability. The three-question quick test provides immediate insight: explicit best deal definition, standardized preparation processes, and institutional learning capture.8 Organizations failing even one criterion likely operate at Level 1 Ad Hocracy regardless of individual negotiator sophistication. This diagnostic clarity, while sometimes painful, provides the foundation for systematic improvement by establishing an accurate baseline from which to measure progress.
The ladder metaphor guides incremental capability building that ensures sustainable progress. Organizations cannot leap from ground level to the third floor—they must climb systematically, rung by rung. For Level 1 organizations, establishing basic concession guardrails and incentive alignment delivers more value than teaching complex multiparty negotiation strategies. The NAT prescribes focusing on one capability dimension per quarter, allowing organizations to consolidate gains before advancing. This measured approach contradicts the “transformation” rhetoric common in organizational change but reflects empirical reality about sustainable capability development.
Industry context shapes but does not fundamentally alter NAT application principles. Labor negotiations feature perpetual relationships requiring different approaches than transactional commodity purchases. Sponsorship deals occupy middle ground with multi-year commitments and renewal expectations. Yet all contexts benefit from systematic capability assessment and targeted improvement.9 The NAT’s power lies in revealing universal negotiation capability requirements while accommodating contextual variation in specific implementation tactics.
Measurement and feedback mechanisms ensure continuous capability evolution beyond initial diagnosis. Organizations must track negotiation outcomes against strategic objectives, not just deal closure rates. They must evaluate whether preparation processes are actually used, not just created. They must assess whether learnings genuinely inform future negotiations, not just accumulate in unused databases. The NAT provides both initial diagnosis and ongoing measurement framework, transforming negotiation capability from abstract concept to managed organizational asset with clear performance indicators and improvement trajectories.
NAT Implementation Pathway
Phase 1: Diagnostic Assessment (Weeks 1-2)
Complete comprehensive NAT evaluation across all three capability dimensions, establishing baseline maturity level and identifying priority improvement areas.
Phase 2: Focused Improvement (Quarter 1)
Select single capability dimension for concentrated improvement, implementing specific tools and processes aligned with current maturity level.
Phase 3: Systematic Progression (Ongoing)
Quarterly reassessment and rotation through capability dimensions, building systematic excellence through incremental advancement up maturity levels.
Practical Implications
For Executive Leadership:
Demand diagnostic assessment before approving negotiation training budgets. Invest in systematic capability building across strategy, human capital, and incentives rather than isolated skills development. Establish negotiation capability metrics beyond deal closure rates to track genuine organizational improvement.
For Negotiation Practitioners:
Use the NAT self-assessment to identify personal and organizational capability gaps. Focus improvement efforts on systemic issues rather than individual skills. Build institutional knowledge capture mechanisms that transcend individual expertise and create lasting organizational value.
For Sports Organizations:
Apply NAT principles to complex stakeholder negotiations including media rights, sponsorships, and labor agreements. Recognize that different negotiation contexts require tailored approaches while maintaining systematic capability assessment. Build negotiation infrastructure that survives personnel changes and creates sustainable competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The Negotiation Assessment Tool revolutionizes organizational approach to negotiation capability by introducing diagnostic rigor to a field dominated by intuition and assumption. By revealing the complex interplay between strategy, human capital, and incentives, the NAT exposes why training alone consistently fails to deliver sustainable improvement. Organizations that embrace systematic diagnosis discover targeted pathways to genuine capability enhancement rather than cosmetic skills development.
Implementation success requires abandoning the seductive promise of transformation in favor of incremental, systematic improvement. The ladder metaphor captures this reality: organizations climb to negotiation excellence one rung at a time, consolidating gains at each level before advancing. This measured approach contradicts modern appetite for rapid change but aligns with empirical evidence about sustainable capability development. Organizations accepting this reality achieve lasting excellence while those seeking shortcuts remain trapped in perpetual mediocrity.
The future belongs to organizations that treat negotiation capability as a managed asset requiring systematic assessment, targeted investment, and continuous improvement. The NAT provides both the diagnostic framework and improvement roadmap for this journey. As competitive pressures intensify and negotiation complexity increases, organizations can no longer afford the luxury of intuitive approaches to capability development. The choice is clear: embrace diagnostic rigor and systematic improvement, or accept the inevitable consequences of prescription without diagnosis.
Sources
1 Joshua A. Gordon & Gary Furlong, STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 23-28 (Routledge 2023).
2 Strategic Negotiation Webinar Series: The Negotiation Assessment Tool (Sports Conflict Institute 2024) (transcript on file with authors).
3 Peter Cappelli & Anna Tavis, The Performance Management Revolution, HARV. BUS. REV., Oct. 2016, at 58-67.
4 Steven Kerr, On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B, 18 ACAD. MGMT. EXEC. 7 (1975).
5 The Negotiation Assessment Tool Framework, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 89-104 (Routledge 2023).
6 The Four Levels of Negotiation Capability, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 67-88 (Routledge 2023).
7 Joshua A. Gordon, Gary Furlong & Ken Pendleton, THE SPORTS PLAYBOOK: BUILDING TEAMS THAT OUTPERFORM YEAR AFTER YEAR 145-152 (Routledge 2018).
8 NAT Quick Assessment Guide, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 105-108 (Routledge 2023).
9 Industry Applications of the NAT, in STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION: BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE 234-251 (Routledge 2023).
Note: All citations follow Bluebook format. For questions about specific citations, consult The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed. 2020).
About the Authors
Joshua A. Gordon serves as Professor of Sports Business & Law at the University of Oregon and Senior Practitioner at the Sports Conflict Institute. Gary Furlong is Senior Partner at Agree Inc. and co-author of Strategic Negotiation. Learn more about Strategic Negotiation →
Diagnose Your Organization’s Negotiation Capability
Stop prescribing solutions without diagnosis. Discover your true negotiation maturity level.
Related Resources
Strategic Negotiation Book
Access the complete NAT framework and implementation guide for organizational excellence
Get the Book →Negotiation Strategy Services
Expert diagnostic assessment and capability building for sports and business organizations
Explore Our Services →The post Prescription Without Diagnosis: Why Your Negotiation Training Keeps Failing appeared first on Sports Conflict Institute.
10 episodes
All episodes
×
Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.
Similar to Sports Conflict Institute
Triple M’s Rush Hour with James Brayshaw and Billy Brownless will get you home from 4-6pm Monday to Friday. They’ve got you stitched up, with the biggest names in town joining them in the studio every day. Plus your favourite segments like Billy’s Bake, what have you seen…unusual, the Idiot File & Billy’s Joke. If it bounces, rolls or scores, then these two characters will have it covered in ways only they can.
…
continue reading
Triple M Footy is your ultimate destination for live AFL action, expert analysis, and unrivalled access throughout the season. Catch every game, every goal with our legendary team: James Brayshaw, Mark Howard, Brian Taylor, Billy Brownless, Jason Dunstall, Bernie Vince, Damian Barrett, and more! Listen to all your favourite Triple M Footy shows on demand in this podcast feed, and never miss a moment by streaming the shows and matches LIVE on the LiSTNR app. Just search 'Triple M Footy AFL' o ...
…
continue reading
Welcome to the Official Golf Betting Podcast of the DP World Tour. Hosted by Ollie Silverton, and joined by a panel of industry-leading golf tipsters and special guests, The Tips will preview all of the action on the DP World Tour and PGA TOUR as we try to sort the form horses from the long shots. So stretch off, pull the driver out and join us on The Tips. 18+ Please Gamble Responsibly. Visit: https://www.begambleaware.org/
…
continue reading
home of correct opinions
…
continue reading
Where sports and politics collide, hosted by Nation magazine Sports Editor Dave Zirin
…
continue reading
Mark Chapman, Jon Wilkin, Brian Noble and Jamie Peacock discuss, debate and argue over the best players, games, finals and iconic moments in Rugby League.
…
continue reading
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
