CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

366 FRIEDMAN, HUNTER, AND CHEN
also note that despite the advances in research that we describe, our understanding
of the labor negotiation process in practice remains incomplete:
Research has been limited by difficulty of access to actual labor negotiations
and by a shift from research in field settings toward more laboratorystyle
methods (e.g., highly controlled experiments with student subjects).
New Trends and Alternatives
Interest-Based Bargaining. Recognizing the dysfunctions of traditional
bargaining, some scholars examined what it would take to change the
bargaining process toward one that more effectively addresses the parties’
underlying interests. Friedman (1993) found that the extent and effectiveness
of interest-based bargaining depended on each party’s trust in its
counterpart, and that such trust was especially important for the union
side. The concern among union leaders is that negotiations based on information
rather than power will leave unions at a disadvantage, because
union staffs are typically far smaller than those of companies. Friedman
(1994) also found that negotiator roles and constituent expectations could
impede a shift to interests-based bargaining in labor negotiations; successful
shifts to interest-based bargaining require buffering negotiators
from constituent pressures and bargaining-team role presses.
Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and McKersie (1994) were more optimistic
than Friedman (1994), citing cases in which labor and management
were able to “foster” a more positive relationship, including more interest-based
negotiations. Their case studies in the auto supply and paper
industries in the 1980s and early 1990s suggested that a fostering strategy
may emerge as an original managerial initiative but that a common
alternative scenario was for such “fostering” to follow a period in which
management attempts to force change aggressively, but is rebuffed by the
union. However, Walton et al. noted that in some cases (e.g., International
Paper’s mill in Jay, Maine) management was not restrained by the union:
In these cases, the deployment of power enabled management to achieve
settlements that served its interests but offer relatively little to the union
or workforce.
Decentralized Bargaining. Experiments with interest-based bargaining in
the labor arena have been sporadic. One more substantial trend is a shift
to decentralized bargaining. This is characteristic not only of the United
States. Western European countries that once featured national-level bargaining,
such as Sweden and Germany, have also seen shifts toward industry-
and company-level negotiations, a trend that Traxler (2003) referred
to as “organized decentralization.” In the United States, decentralization
has been taken even further: Since the 1980s, bargaining has shifted from
company and industry-level negotiations to enterprise- or plant-level bargaining
(Katz, 2004).