????雖然球員和老板沒有遵循解決沖突的基本條款，但在磋商期間，斯特恩犯了幾個經(jīng)典的談判錯誤；不一定是他提出的條款有問題，而是他提出條款的方式。

????“我希望球員工會沒有這樣做，”斯特恩上周一在接受《體育中心》（SportsCenter）采訪時如是說。他所指的，是球員們解散工會，對資方提起反壟斷訴訟的決定。“他們這樣做的時機不合適，說辭也近乎可笑。他們似乎鐵了心地要自毀前程。我很痛心?！?/p>

????這聽起來似乎是在責難球員。喬治城大學麥克多諾商學院（Georgetown's McDonough business school）兼職教授克里斯?沃斯說，認為自己一派正經(jīng)的領(lǐng)導者往往給人一種居高臨下的感覺。他說：“大衛(wèi)?斯特恩說球員們會懷念支票的，但球員們顯然明白這一點，所以他們會把這番言論視為威脅。”

????如果斯特恩當時表示他理解球員們對工作保障的關(guān)切，因為他明白運動員的職業(yè)生涯往往非常短暫，不僅不會被看做示弱，相反還會緩解緊張的局勢。

????沃斯說，富有成效的討論往往始于一方準確重述另一方的觀點。如果一方說：“我理解你是因為某某事而不滿的?！痹谶@種情況下，另一方唯一能做出的反應就是：“是的，你說的沒錯?！边@不過是個微小的調(diào)整，其實并沒有改變所要傳達訊息的內(nèi)容，但這樣做有助于消除討論引發(fā)的某些負面情緒。

????沃斯曾經(jīng)為聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）設計過人質(zhì)談判策略，后來創(chuàng)建了以談判策略見長的商業(yè)咨詢機構(gòu)黑天鵝公司（Black Swan）?！拔覀兊恼勁蟹株牻?jīng)常幫助警方跟某個嫌犯談判。警察一旦把嫌犯團團包圍，往往會說，‘投降，要不然就沒命了，’這樣做其實只會適得其反，” 沃斯說。

????在這個節(jié)點上，卷入NBA談判的球員和老板一旦做出讓步的話，是非常難堪的。球員們甚至有可能覺得自主權(quán)受到了威脅。沃斯說：“人們往往會竭力捍衛(wèi)說“不”的權(quán)利，即使這樣做可能傷及自身。”老板們錯誤地假定，球員不會做傷害其切身利益的事情，比如采取有可能讓整個賽季報銷的法律行動。但許多人往往寧可拿自己的錢途冒險，也不愿意當眾受辱，沃斯說。

????While both the players and the owners would flunk out of Conflict Resolution 101, Stern has made classic negotiation mistakes during discussions; not necessarily in the terms he's presenting, but in the way he's presenting them.

????"I wish the union hadn't done this," Stern told SportsCenter last Monday, regarding the players' decision to disband their union to file anti-trust lawsuits. "Their timing is not very good, and their rhetoric is almost humorous. [They] seem hell-bent on self-destruction and I think it's very sad."

????That sounds like finger-pointing. Leaders who think they're coming across as no-nonsense often come off as condescending, says Chris Voss, an adjunct professor at Georgetown's McDonough business school. "David Stern says the players are going to miss paychecks," Voss says, "but the players already know that, so they take that as a threat."

????If Stern were to say instead that he understands that players are concerned about job security during what tends to be a short career, that would start to ease tensions without coming across as capitulation.

????A productive discussion starts when one side accurately restates the other's argument, Voss says. By saying, "I understand that you are upset because of 'X,'" you put the other side in a position where the only response they can say is "yes, that's right." It's a tiny tweak, and it actually doesn't change the content of the message, but it helps quiet some of the emotional noise around a discussion.

????Voss used to handle hostage negotiations for the FBI and has since founded Black Swan, a business advisory firm that specializes in negotiations. "In the law enforcement world, we had negotiation teams talk to someone in a situation where they're surrounded by police who were basically saying, 'surrender or die,'" Voss says. "That was really counterproductive."

????At this point, both players and owners enmeshed in the NBA talks will be embarrassed if they back down. The players might even feel like their autonomy is threatened, Voss says: "People will fight really hard, at a detriment to themselves, for the right to say no." And the owners falsely assume that players won't make a decision that will hurt them financially, like taking legal action that threatens the season. But many are often wiling to risk financial suicide over public humiliation, Voss says.