Interest‐Based Negotiations in a Transformed Labor–Management Setting

Abstract

The authors introduce a group of essays that evolved from a March 2003 symposium on the path-breaking new partnership and use of interest-based negotiation (IBN) at Kaiser Permanente (KP), one of the largest integrated health care programs in the United States. They briefly trace the history of the IBN approach (both success stories and failures); the growth of this phenomenon; and its use in collective bargaining settings. The KP case, the focus of the symposium (which was jointly sponsored by MIT's Institute for Work and Employment Relations and Harvard's Program on Negotiation), is by far the largest instance of the use of IBN in U.S. labor relations history.

Panacea or Snake Oil? Interest‐Based Bargaining in the U.S. Airline and Rail Industries

“…Displaying trust in a negotiation, which integrative negotiation requires, can be accompanied by significant risks for exploitation or loss (Tyler and Kramer 1996). Previous rounds of largely acrimonious union–management negotiations tend to carry forward and ingrain attitudes that favor traditional bargaining approaches (Fonstad, McKersie, and Eaton 2004; Caverly, Cunningham, and Mitchell 2006). While IBB has been successful in some venues (Preuss and Frost 2003), doubt remains about whether the technique works equally well for labor and management.…”

“…In addition, meta‐analytical studies indicate that males and females differ significantly in the competitiveness they bring to negotiations (Walters, Stuhlmacher, and Meyer 1998). Because fostering the relationship is an important part of IBB (Walton, Cutcher‐Gershenfeld, and McKersie 1994; Fonstad, McKersie, and Eaton 2004), in theory women will be more likely to employ IBB in bargaining. This phenomenon was observed in the earlier FMCS study (Cutcher‐Gershenfeld, Kochan, and Wells 2001).…”

Labor–Management Relations: Understanding and Practicing Effective Negotiations

“…As a result, collective bargaining is generating innovation, but it is not transforming the majority of labor–management relationships (Susskind et al. 1990; Hunter and McKersie 1992; Fonstad, McKersie, and Eaton 2004).…”

“…While interest-based approaches to bargaining have the potential to generate substantial mutual gains, convincing constituents that interestbased negotiations will deliver agreements that are superior to those reached via traditional bargaining is especially difficult when there has been a history of deep adversarial bargaining. As a result, collective bargaining is generating innovation, but it is not transforming the majority of labor-management relationships (Susskind et al 1990;Hunter and McKersie 1992;Fonstad, McKersie, and Eaton 2004).…”

The Walk in the Woods: A Step‐by‐Step Method for Facilitating Interest‐Based Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

“…The literature on interest‐based negotiation has long lauded the advantages of stakeholder interaction and of bargaining that is based on mutual interests and overlapping objectives (e.g., Fisher and Ury 1981; Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991; Fonstad, McKersie, and Eaton 2004). Research in the fields of game theory and decision analysis has supported the premise that each individual player achieves more and with greater security if parties with mutual interests aspire to the common good and with that, invest less on costly and distracting competitive behavior (Raiffa 1982).…”