Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiations in the Workplace: Overcoming the Problem of Asymmetry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Building Trust and Constructive Conflict Management in Organizations

Part of the book series: Industrial Relations & Conflict Management ((IRCM))

Abstract

This chapter explores the challenge of establishing collaborative negotiations in the workplace. We suggest that asymmetry within key elements of negotiation, such as asymmetry in nature of the management and union constituencies, make it inherently difficult to establish a collaborative dynamic. However, a more constructive cycle of workplace relations can be built through respect, consistency and information exchange.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here we return to the question of the meaning of cooperation. When information is given in support of a position, the expected cooperation is that the other party makes a concession; when it is given as an offer of trust then the expected cooperation is that the other party will similarly offer some information that might put it at risk (eg that notwithstanding their big pay claim a lot of members are concerned for their jobs).

  2. 2.

    A distinguishing characteristic of some European models of industrial relations is the right of employees to have a representative at company board level. The provision of this right brings a greater degree of balance in that a representative of the union/employee negotiators does have direct access to senior management. They do not, however, have access to the management group as a whole to directly explain to them the benefits of the union’s position in the same way that management has access to employees to explain the benefits of the company’s position.

  3. 3.

    Such as declaring the existing company insolvent and establishing a new one, which then buys out the old one (cheaply because it is insolvent) but then recruits new employees. The lawyers who devised the scheme would then be retained to fight off any claims by ex-employees.

Bibliography

  • Ancona, D. G., Friedman, R. A., & Kolb, D. M. (1991). The group and what happens on the way to “Yes”. Negotiation Journal, 7(2), 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, N., & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for mutual gains? Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 814–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander, G. W., & Campbell, M. H. (1994). Forging a labor-management partnership: The Magma Copper experience. Labor Studies Journal, 19(4), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lyte, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgford, J., & Stirling, J. (1994). Employee relations in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust and negotiation effectiveness and efficiency. Group and Organization Management, 24(2), 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caverley, N., Cunningham, B., & Mitchell, L. (2006). Reflections on public sector-based integrative collective bargaining: Conditions affecting cooperation within the negotiation process. Employee Relations, 28(1), 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, N. W., & Kuhn, J. W. (1965). Collective bargaining. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. E. (1994). Bargaining over how to bargain in labor-management negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 10(4), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2011). Bargaining when the future of an industry is at stake: Lessons from UAW-Ford collective bargaining negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 27(2), 115–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Kochan, T., & Calhoun Wells, J. C. (2001). A first look at national survey data on interest-based bargaining in labor relations. Industrial Relations, 40(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deitz, G. (2004). Partnership and the development of trust in British workplaces. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennison, G. M., Drummond, M. E., & Hobgood, W. P. (1997). Collaborative bargaining in public universities. Negotiation Journal, 13(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euwema, M., Munduate, L., Elgoibar, P., Garcia, A., & Pender, E. (2015). Promoting social dialogue in European organizations. Human resources management and constructive conflict behavior. The Netherlands: Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., Harvey, G., & Turnbull, P. (2012). When partnerships don’t match-up: An evaluation of labor-management partnerships in the automotive components and civil aviation industries. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fells, R. E. (2012). Effective negotiation. From research to results. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A. (1985). Man mismanagement. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A. (1993). Bringing mutual gains bargaining to labor negotiations: The role of trust, understanding, and control. Human Resource Management, 32(4), 435–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A. (1994). Front stage backstage. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A., & Gal, S. (1991). Managing around roles: Building groups in labor negotiations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 356–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garaudel, P., Florent, N., & Schimidt, G. (2008). Overcoming the risks of restructuring through the integrative bargaining process: Two case studies in a French context. Human Relations, 61(9), 1293–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A. (2009). Fexicurity – solution or illusion? In M. Gold (Ed.), Employment policy in the European Union (pp. 45–65). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, D. E., & Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at work: Mutuality and the balance of advantage. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2), 207–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher, C. C. (1993). Searching for mutual gains in labor relations. In L. Hall (Ed.), Negotiation. Strategies for mutual gain (pp. 86–104). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher, C., & Hall, L. (1994). Mutual gains and beyond: Two levels of intervention. Negotiation Journal, 10(3), 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. W., & McKersie, R. B. (1992). Can ‘mutual gains’ training change labour-management relationships? Negotiation Journal, 8(3), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial relations. A Marxist introduction. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, S., Ackers, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2009). The British partnership phenomenon: A ten year review. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 636–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R. J., & Ash, R. A. (1974). Accountability and negotiator behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T. A., & Osterman, P. (1994). Mutual gains bargaining. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korshak, S. R. (1995). Negotiating trust in the San Francisco hotel industry. California Management Review, 38(1), 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1985). The power of alternatives or limits to negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 1(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 86–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Minton, J. W., & Saunders, D. M. (2006). Negotiation (5th ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, L. B. (1989). Reconciling “Getting to Yes” and the behavioral model of collective bargaining: A two-pie approach. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 18(2), 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKersie, R. B., Eaton, S. C., & Kochan, T. A. (2004). Kaiser Permanente: Using interest-based negotiations to craft a new collective bargaining agreement. Negotiation Journal, 20(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKersie, R. B., Sharpe, T., Kochan, T. A., Eaton, A. E., Strauss, G., & Morgenstern, M. (2008). Bargaining theory meets interest-based negotiations: A case study. Industrial Relations, 41(1), 66–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosterd, I., & Rutte, C. G. (2000). Effects of time pressure and accountability to constituents on negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munduate, L., Euwema, M., Elgoibar, P., & Nauta, A. (2012). New industrial relations. Best practices proposals to empower European employee representatives. Brussels: EU Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquet, R. (1995). Principled negotiation applied to labour relations. Journal of Public Sector Management, Autumn, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, F. R., & Bennett, R. J. (1994). Use of the collaborative collective bargaining process in labor negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(1), 34–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preuss, G. A., & Frost, A. C. (2003). The rise and decline of labor-management cooperation. California Management Review, 45(2), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepp, J. R., Sweeney, K. M., & Johnson, R. L. (1998). Interest-based negotiation: An engine-driving change. Journal for Quality and Participation, 21(5), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., & Landry, E. M. (1991). Implementing a mutual gains approach to collective bargaining. Negotiation Journal, 7(1), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 27, 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, P. (1973). Psychology and collective bargaining. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Ray Fells

  2. Department of Management, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

    Peter Prowse

Authors
  1. Ray Fells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Prowse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Fells .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IESEG Sch of Mgnt, Paris, France

    Patricia Elgoibar

  2. Faculty of Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Martin Euwema

  3. Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Lourdes Munduate

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fells, R., Prowse, P. (2016). Negotiations in the Workplace: Overcoming the Problem of Asymmetry. In: Elgoibar, P., Euwema, M., Munduate, L. (eds) Building Trust and Constructive Conflict Management in Organizations. Industrial Relations & Conflict Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation