Participating in the workplace drug testing scenario provided some key lessons to consider in a negotiation. These lessons have influenced the way I approach a negotiation and have changed the way I view conflict in the workplace. It is important to understand that while a negotiation framework is important, the structure of a framework can be flexible. In the exercise, a clear framework was built before the negotiation. Terry, the driver of the truck, tested positive for drugs. He then initiated a meeting with his manager and an advisor in which they would discuss his future at the company. The rule was very clear: motorists must be subjected to drug testing. Initially, I viewed the rule as a policy. There was little room for negotiation due to a strict rule. This may be the result of prejudices raised in a culture of zero tolerance towards drugs at school/workplace. According to the case, if a driver was caught with drugs in his body there were only two options: discharge him or admit him to a treatment center. However, the framework of the negotiation was created to solve the problem that the law attempted to address: the obstruction of road traffic. The rule required random drug testing. To comply with the rule, the company established a policy that imposed a certain limit on the presence of drugs. What I found when examining the scenario is that the policy that implements the process for complying with a rule can be much more flexible. Terry initially had two options, but a flexible framework allowed new facts to emerge, which created the need to consider other actions that might be more appropriate. In Terry's case, even though he wasn't taking drugs, he was in an environment that forced him to test the position... middle of the paper... driver, so there was a level of flexibility in the negotiation. Terry had drugs in his system, but that didn't mean he wasn't fit to drive. On the other hand, if the interest had been in replacing Terry with a lower-paid driver, there would have been no room for negotiation. The superior would not have entered into the situation in good faith and the only result would have been resignation. For my career, this case teaches the need for an awareness of the unintended consequences of politics. The problem is that the rules are never perfect and require a flexible policy. Procedures become obsolete and new information needs to be incorporated. A standard policy is not always applicable to a changing business environment. While managers cannot disobey policy, there needs to be room for exceptions. This is especially necessary when, as we have seen in this case, the policy is systematically flawed