Bargaining Theory Meets Interest‐Based Negotiations: A Case Study¹

Abstract

This is a case study of the 2005 national contract negotiations between Kaiser Permanente and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions. Given the scale and complexity of these negotiations, their successful completion provides an exemplar for collective bargaining in this country. In 1997 Kaiser Permanente and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions formed a labor management partnership, and negotiations were structured around the principles of interestbased negotiation (IBN). Drawing on direct observation of all parts of the bargaining process, interviews with individuals from Kaiser and the Coalition of Unions, and surveys we conducted after bargaining was completed, we conclude that the parties employed a mix of interest-based and traditional negotiation processes across an array of integrative and distributive issues. We find that IBN techniques were used extensively and successfully to reach mutually satisfying agreements when the parties shared interests. When interests were in greater conflict, the parties resorted to more traditional, positional tactics to reach resolution. Strong intraorganizational conflicts limited the use of IBN and favored the use of more traditional positional bargaining. While a high level of trust enabled and supported the use of IBN, tensions that developed limited the use of IBN and required surfacing and release before either IBN or more traditional positional processes could proceed effectively. The use * The authors' affiliations are, respectively, Management Trust Fund has provided funds for this research. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.Bargaining Theory / 67 of IBN tools helped the parties apply the principles underlying the partnership in which these negotiations were embedded. We conclude that IBN served as a way of applying or operationalizing integrative bargaining and affected the process dynamics in ways the Walton and McKersie theory predicted. As such we see IBN as techniques that neither displace nor render obsolete other aspects of bargaining theory or practice but that show considerable promise for helping collective bargaining to address the complex issues and challenges found in contemporary employment relationships.

An empirical study of interest-based negotiation

“…While it is still under investigation in the literature on human negotiation [34], IBN has been adapted to negotiation dialogues between artificial agents [41]. In that context, it is a subclass of argumentation-based negotiation (where the agents may argue about other negotiation related issues, i.e., beliefs, goals or social aspects).…”

Regulating for mutual gains? Non-union employee representation and the Information and Consultation Directive

“…Kochan and Osterman, 1994;McKersie et al 2008) The literature is not entirely prescriptive as to what procedural and/or substantive features of employment are assigned to mutual gains territory, though it is generally thought to incorporate diverse aspects like pay, employment security, training, job redesign, participative or involvement structures. Much of the mutual gains literature has focused on the concept of firm-level 'partnership' (Danford et al 2004;Johnstone et al 2010).…”

Towards mediation: developing a theoretical framework to understand alternative dispute resolution

“…With respect to similarities, if we consider collective dispute resolution and negotiation in the US, there has been a keen interest in a particular approach to collective bargaining in recent years that uses a model of interest based negotiation (IBN) (McKersie et al ., 2004; 2008). IBN's philosophy is similar to mediation in that it aims at…”

“…

… replacing positional negotiations (negotiations where labour and management begin by overstating their real position, followed by a series of offers and counter‐offers en route to an agreement) with a set of techniques for (1) identifying issues and interests critical to each party, (2) gathering and sharing information needed to analyze problems, (3) generating options for resolution, and (4) choosing options that offer the highest mutual gains for the parties [McKersie et al ., 2008: 67].

…”

“…So, while the focus of this article is on individual dispute resolution, the philosophical debates that are affecting approaches to the resolution of individual disputes have their counterpart in collective dispute resolution. McKersie et al . (2008) note in their review of the second round of agreements at Kaiser Permanente that IBN (and we would argue other ADR approaches) offers a vehicle for a different approach to negotiating and resolving disputes that leaves the traditional routes open should they be perceived as more appropriate.…”