a) The prevalent market conditions
b) The skill set of the individual
From the individual's or the organization's point of view, both the above mentioned factors are very important. If we see from the individual's perspective, we can say that in very good market conditions, when the industry is in an expansion mode, then everything seems fine. Any company would be hiring more people, and hence, prospective employees could negotiate based on other "offers" that they get. But, here we should remember one thing. The individuals get offers only based on the skill sets they have, and hence, they should keep honing them.
From the organization's perspective, we can say that, since it expects future growth, it hires many people to meet its prospective demand. But, when the growth rate falls down, then it begins to fire people. But, it almost never fires those people whom it thinks are very critical to the functioning of the organization. Hence, we can say that, even in very bad market conditions, a few people still retain their bargaining power. Though the market conditions do have a huge say in this matter, it is up to the individual to make himself indispensable to the organization (not the job).
4 comments:
Dear Sushma,
Your points related to "market conditions" and "skill sets" are well taken.
But your analysis per se does not address anything specific to the Darrel Hair's non-negotiable offer.
What you have mentioned in your analysis implying who gets the best offer is contextualized in pre-employment negotiations. However, here the context is totally different as the offer comes from a departing employee negotiating better terms and conditions for his exit. Don't you realize that?
Going by your analysis, shall we assume that Darrel Hair was not a high performer meaning not critical to the functioning of ICC and hence ICC decided to fire him? Also shall we assume that the market conditions of ICC was very bad hence it was forced to start contemplating the possibility of getting rid of Hair?
With Regards,
Ganesh
Darrel Hair was in no way "not a high performer". He was in fact on of the best umpires of the ICC, and was a member of the elite panel of ICC umpires.
The analysis done by Sushma gives broad and generic factors responsible for the power of negotiation. In most of the cases, the power is driven by factors like skill set and supply-demand. We need to also understand the other issues that drive the power.
In case of Hair, it was the weakness of the employer (ICC) that gave him the power. He had not done anything wrong according to he law and according to his "contract". But, the ICC was under pressure to remove him. This gave him the power.
With Regards,
Varun Agarwal
Dear Sir,
I am extremely sorry for not having answered to the point and digressing from the topic.
As pointed out by Varun, Darrell Hair was a very good performer. Though, the decision taken by him was in accordance with the law, ICC wanted to remove him (some say due to external pressure).
Hair himself admitted in an interview in April 2006 that he had considered retirement from umpiring. This leads me to believe that maybe he was not satisfied with his job. And seeing ICC's display of weakness made him realize that he could leave the job on his own terms.
Regards,
Sushma Rao.
Post a Comment