Page 228 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Notes After the training was completed the negotiators began the IBB process of brainstorming and
searching for mutually agreeable solutions. They reached a solution within 12 months and
agreed to set aside the arbitrator’s decision in favor of their own new solution. In the three years
under the solution, which became a wage and benefit memorandum of understanding (MOU)
several remarkable achievements were realized: In 2001 a new five-year extension of the MOU
was signed; the use of IBB was institutionalized as a business practice to resolve workplace
differences; not a single grievance was filed during the first three years of the MOU, a first in the
history of the city; more than $1 million in overtime costs was saved under the MOU; and the
union actively participated in the selection of the new fire chief. According to Flint, however,
the most remarkable achievement was replacing the previous hostile workplace environment
with one that utilizes joint problem solving to address new problems—and the practice spread
to other city departments in Alameda. Another interesting use of IBB occurred in Irvine, California.
In only two days the city and three employee groups revamped the city’s retirement plan. Judy
Vonada, assistant city manager, credited IBB with giving the parties involved “So much good
will, that it was almost like a scene from The Twilight Zone.” And, Vonada noted, “We couldn’t
have done it if we were negotiating the old way. But we built relationships that allowed us to do
this.” How widespread is the practice of interest-based bargaining? Joel Cutcher- Gershenfeld
and Thomas Kochan reported the first comprehensive study of IBB in labor relations in 2004. The
study was commissioned by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and included
responses of 1,557 union and management negotiators. The survey results are presented in
Table 10.3 and include some interesting findings. For example, joint training in IBB principles
and practices occurred in about one-third of the cases where IBB was utilized, and further analysis
indicates that the training was essential to the use of IBB in negotiations. Second, during bargaining
there was substantial use of brainstorming, sharing of information, and consensus decision
making—all essential elements of the IBB process. Third, at the conclusion of bargaining a
substantial percentage of both union (67.5%) and management (42.0%) negotiators reported that
they continued to use IBB in future negotiations. However, a substantial percentage of each
group (58% union, 57.2% management) also reported that at the end of negotiations, usually
when only the most difficult issues such as wages, health care, and job security remain, they
shifted back to traditional bargaining methods and even received some backlash or criticism of
the IBB process (19.8% union, 17.0% management). The study also reviewed the agreements that
were negotiated and found that IBB had positively affected the outcomes of issues including pay,
profit sharing, increased worker input into decisions, team-based systems of work, and joint
problem-solving committees. Other interesting results of the study included the fact that female
union negotiators were more likely to bargain for new language that provided for worker
input, and initial contracts were more likely to include such provisions. The authors concluded
that IBB does encourage a problem-solving process in negotiations, and determined that
atmosphere is more likely to provide a “supportive umbrella” for innovative provisions in
agreements.

Table 10.3: Union and Management Negotiators’ Reports on IBB Activities

Contd....

222 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY