Which is of course not to say you can't have a more measured negotiation. But it can be hard to walk back from give me X or I do Y, especially if there isn't a lot of middle ground between giving you X or not giving you X.
Then you aren't bluffing.
It can be to my benefit in negotiation for the other party to think that I am in such a situation, and so I may still say "give me X or I will leave."
If I do not intend to follow through, I am clearly bluffing.
If I intend to follow through, but absent this gambit I have preferred to stay even in the absence of X, I think we can still call it a bluff in a weaker sense - I am not misleading about my future actions, but I am misleading about the strength of my preferences.
I disagree with this. It's really the only way to negotiate, pretty common. The wording is important here. If you word it as "Do X or I'll quit" it sounds childish, if you word it as "I believe the company should X, otherwise I can't see myself working here comfortably and will have to consider my resignation" it sounds professional, but the idea is the exact same.
Yes, in that they are both childish. Your version just added more weasel words. The second you bring up the "R" word as a threat you have played your hand; everything else is window dressing.
As I point out in another comment[1], not only is this not true, negotiation experts universally criticize this as a way to negotiate.
If an employee is adversary toward the company, the trade off needs to be made no matter how much valuable the employee's work is.
This is a non-issue tbh. She wants to leave. Company wants her to leave. They both agree to part way because the premises are fulfilled (i.e. company can't meet her requirements).
If you want to get technical, I'd bet her employee's status is still in tact for 2 weeks; she just doesn't have access to laptop and etc.
[1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364736457240577
It's fairly standard to let the employee leave the building immediately but still on payroll for 2 more weeks.
Again, I think it's a non-issue. Both wants to part way. Either party can singlehandedly make that date earlier.
It seems one side brings up this point because other points are not salient, so they try to make it like "you see they fire me today. I actually want to leave in 10 days instead. This is unethical!!". It's a weak point and muddles the main point.
And, from what I understand, that she wanted to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation (which she was on at the time.)
EDIT: I point this out because I think that this potentially recasts the whole communication from an non-negotiable ultimatum to something more like a fair warning to avoid blindsiding anyone going into an in-person discussion in which negotiation is implicitly anticipated.
Then, she should have said that.
It would be ridiculous for Google to let her hang out at the company.
"Oh we cannot meet your meet ultimatum for sure. But please feel free to hang around and finish your vacation. We'll wait for you, a disgruntled employee, to choose when to leave."
"Effective today" has legal meaning. It's an issue because it shows Google acting in bad faith.
What would be bad is letting a disgruntled employee hanging around company accessing company's material.
I strongly encourage people to read some books on negotiations - as well as read up on legal ramifications to some negotiations.
Pretty much all books/courses on negotiations say: Ultimatums have their place, but are a minefield (i.e. they can blow up on you), and should be used as a last resort. From a negotiations standpoint, the response was adequate - which is why they all caution against using such an approach.
As for the 2 week thing, this is a convention, but not a requirement. In my company, it's not unusual for someone to be shown the door the same day they announce they plan to leave to another company (it's not the norm, but not at all unusual). The manager/company always ponders whether there are risks in keeping the employee for a few more weeks vs the gains, and this is the question Jeff pondered - that he did this is quite normal. Will the employee provide anything useful to us in those two weeks (e.g. handoff work to others, etc)? Could he/she cause problems (bad mouth people to fellow employees, steal IP, etc). If it's a disgruntled employee, they are usually shown the door the same day. In Timnit's case, it's unlikely there was any value in letting her stay for 2 more weeks.
I once intended to leave the company I was working for. The night before, I took out everything of (personal) value from my cubicle, as well as from my work machine. Only then did I have the discussion with my manager.
Having seen how she communicates and handles difficult situations, I think she really should read those kinds of books. Sometimes her behaviors are textbook examples of what not to do.
(Hint: If you're trying to influence someone, or a whole industry, you are negotiating, whether you choose to think of it that way or not).
- Bargaining For Advantage (https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation-Stra...)
- Negotiation Genius (https://www.amazon.com/Negotiation-Genius-Obstacles-Brillian...)
- Getting To Yes (https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Wit...)
- The Coursera course from the University of Michigan (and not the Yale one).
- Getting Past No (https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Past-Negotiating-Difficult-Si...)
- Difficult Conversations/Crucial Conversations/Nonviolent Communications
The last bullet (arguably the last two bullets) are about conversation skills, but that is an essential part of negotiations.
I won't claim to be good at this stuff. It takes a lot of effort and practice to change habits you've formed your whole life. But still, I've improved somewhat. What I do think I've become much better at is identifying why someone's efforts succeeded (or in this case, failed).
I would also recommend Influence by Cialdini. It is not a negotiation book at all, but will make much of the material in those books more meaningful if you've read this book.
Books/courses I discourage:
- Never Split The Difference
- The Lynda course (there may be more than one now, but the one I took years ago was bad).
Possibly because she made a personal problem into a team/department problem by asking their colleagues to stop working ("stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference"). I couldn't imagine a company where such a call for work refusal wouldn't immediately lose you a ton of goodwill.
My guess is they chose the latter because they don't like employees that run such hard negotiation tactics, and she was becoming too internally disruptive. Either way, any employee should know they are at risk after playing those cards, if not in the short term, then in the long term.
> ...if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date.
Google's response to this was not accepting of her terms, it was to force an end-date for her —immediately— and lock her out of their systems ASAP.
It's just unreasonable.