COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING IN OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
AN ANALYSIS OF ITS USE AND PERFORMANCE
P. ANDREW JEWELL
Ohio State Employment Relations Board
FRITZ FEKETE
Ohio Education Association
BETSY CINADR MCCAFFERTY
Ohio School Boards Association
INTRODUCTION
Collective bargaining is an ever evolving process. While most employers and labor
unions still follow the traditional, positional approach to labor negotiations, the collaborative
model is attracting a great deal of interest. Nowhere in Ohio's public sector is this more
evident than in school districts. As school boards and employee organizations operate in an
increasingly complex environment, many have begun to move away from traditional
confrontational labor relations and have adopted what is viewed as a more cooperative
approach to negotiating labor agreements.
Traditional (Positional) Negotiations
Traditional negotiations are often premised on a "we" versus "they" mentality between
employers and unions. Traditional or distributive collective bargaining is comprised to a large
degree of the following factors or steps: 1) When traditional negotiations commence, each
side exchanges positions in the form of opening proposals. 2) Final contracts are reached
through the use of positioning, caucuses, chief spokespersons, compromises, and sometimes
impasse or concerted action. 3) When a settlement is reached, the parties may feel that they
did not get enough or that they gave away too much during the negotiation process. To some
participants, a compromise is considered a loss even if other bargaining objectives are met.
1
Either side may lose, and it is possible that neither will be satisfied with the bargaining
outcome.
Dissatisfaction with traditional negotiations has led labor and management to try
alternative models. Collaborative bargaining, one of these alternatives, has had many names,
such as "Win-Win," "principled," "mutual gains," and "interest-based." The interest-based
bargaining (IBB) model is currently the most common method used for collaborative
bargaining in public schools.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN TRANSITION
Historically, collective bargaining has followed the adversarial, positional model. Private
sector labor negotiations have long been dominated by the use of economic power to
determine bargaining outcomes. The threat of a strike or the ability to withstand a work
stoppage played a key role in the collective bargaining process.
As public employees gained bargaining rights, positional bargaining prevailed as the
predominant method for negotiating labor contracts. Though the right to strike was often
largely controlled, or eliminated altogether, labor and management came to rely on various
impasse procedures, which generally culminated in some manner of third party intervention,
to fashion a final agreement. Even where strikes were allowed, the reliance on bargaining
power was used to achieve favorable outcomes.
Interest-Based Bargaining
In the 1960's Walton and McKersie1 drew attention to the fact that all negotiation outcomes
are achieved through a combination of "distributive," or positional, means and "integrative," or
interest-based, efforts. Collaborative bargaining theorists and practitioners have attempted to
2
reduce, if not completely eliminate, the positional aspect of traditional contract negotiations,
and, instead, focus on interests in achieving a settlement that is mutually beneficial to both
parties.
Interest-based bargaining was first developed in the 1970’s by Jerome Barrett 2 of the
U.S. Department of Labor. The work of Fisher and Ury3 in the 1980's further
contributed to the understanding and development of interest-based principles.
METHODOLOGY AND INTENT
During the summer of 1996, staff of the Ohio Education Association (OEA), the Ohio
School Boards Association (OSBA), and the Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB)
began discussions which centered around the impact of collaborative bargaining in school
districts. Anecdotal evidence gathered from labor relations practitioners representing both
management and labor, seemed to suggest that the collaborative model of collective
bargaining is being used with increasing frequency in Ohio’s school districts. Further, there
appeared to exist some contradictions in terms of satisfaction with the process itself as well as
its outcomes. Through the discussions it was determined that the time was right for a
comprehensive study of school district bargaining in order to provide an empirical foundation
to the existing anecdotal evidence.
A survey was constructed for the purpose of measuring the use of both procedure
types, positional or collaborative, and the level of satisfaction associated with the respective
procedures. The survey includes: perceptual measurements of quality of labor-management
relations before, during, and after collective bargaining; views regarding the distribution of
bargaining power between the parties; identification of specific techniques or practices used in
3
to negotiate labor agreements; estimates of the duration of the collective bargaining process;
perceptions concerning bargaining outcomes; and, levels of satisfaction with the contract and
the procedure used to reach the agreement.
Sample
There are approximately 900 public education bargaining units in Ohio. These
bargaining units include K-12 teachers, education support staff, and higher education faculty.
OEA mailed the survey to the entire population of its 729 local affiliates, and OSBA, likewise,
mailed the survey to administrators and managers representing the same public education
bargaining employers.
A total of 1,500 surveys were sent to labor and management
representatives from the 729 OEA bargaining units.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
Of the 1,500 surveys sent out, there were 724 surveys completed and returned. This
represents a response rate of approximately 50 percent of those surveys mailed. Given the
high level of participation, the authors feel that the research findings are representative of
bargaining conditions throughout Ohio's public school system.
Most negotiation efforts, 63 percent, are still conducted using the traditional, positional
method of bargaining. However, over one-third, 37 percent, of the respondents indicated
having used a collaborative procedure to negotiate the most recent collective bargaining
agreement.
The survey results further suggest that collaborative bargaining may eventually replace
the traditional procedure as the preferred method among Ohio schools. Where indicated, 56
percent of respondents stated that they either intend to use or would like to use a
4
collaborative procedure for the next round of negotiations. Among those who used positional
bargaining for the most recent set of negotiations, over one-quarter expressed a desire to
follow collaborative principles for the next bargaining round. Only four percent involved in
collaborative bargaining indicated that the parties will return to the positional method for the
next set of negotiations.
The reason for the growing interest in collaborative negotiations is evident. Quite
simply, when compared to positional bargaining, collaborative efforts produce much more
positive results.
Overall, a majority of survey respondents view the relationship between labor and
management as constructive. Over half, 55 percent, of all participants categorized the
relationship between the administration and the unit prior to entering the last set of
negotiations as at least somewhat cooperative. Only one-third reported the pre-negotiation
labor-management relationship to be adversarial. Also, more than 60 percent characterized
the tone of the most recent contract talks as cooperative. Less than 30 percent indicated an
adversarial bargaining environment existed.
It was further found that most respondents also hold a favorable view concerning the
quality of the most recent collective bargaining agreement as well as the procedure used to
negotiate the contract. 70 percent of all respondents indicated they were at least somewhat
satisfied with the quality of the contract. Most, 62 percent, felt the outcome of negotiations
was mutually beneficial to both parties. Over two-thirds of the participants expressed some
level of satisfaction with the bargaining procedure that was used to negotiate the agreement.
While on balance the survey group provided largely positive feedback concerning
bargaining and bargaining relationships, stark differences appear when responses are broken
5
down by the type of bargaining procedure followed (see Table 1).
Where positional bargaining was used, less than half of the participants characterized
the tone of the most recent negotiations as at least somewhat cooperative. Also, only onethird of positional bargainers felt that the last negotiations had a positive impact on labor and
management relations. On the other hand, where collaborative bargaining occurred, the vast
majority of respondents felt that both the tone of negotiations was at least somewhat
cooperative and that these negotiations at least somewhat enhanced overall labor and
management relations. Moreover, collaborative bargainers were much more likely to express
satisfaction with both the final contract and the negotiation procedure than were those who
followed the traditional approach to bargaining.
It is generally accepted that collaborative bargaining is more likely to be used where a
good labor-management relationship existed prior to negotiations. The survey findings are
consistent with this view. The pre-negotiation relationship was considered as at least
somewhat cooperative by 63 percent of collaborative bargainers. Where positional bargaining
occurred, 50 just percent of respondents felt a cooperative relationship between the
administration and the association existed prior to entering contract negotiations.
However, a constructive relationship is not necessarily a prerequisite for utilizing a
collaborative bargaining model. Rather, collaborative bargaining may actually help to improve
confrontational relations. For instance, only 20 percent of positional bargainers who viewed
pre-negotiation relations as adversarial, indicated that the tone of contract talks was at least
somewhat cooperative. Where a collaborative procedure was used, 57 percent of those who
considered pre-negotiation relations to be adversarial felt bargaining took place in a
cooperative manner.
6
The survey also revealed that views of association representatives tend to be less
upbeat than those expressed by school administrators. However, as Table 2 demonstrates
both employer and employee representatives offered much more favorable perspectives
when negotiations were conducted collaboratively than for those where positional bargaining
occurred.
Table 1. Comparison of Response by Procedure Type
Percent Favorable Responses
Response Item
Positional
Collaborative
Tone of negotiations
45
86
Impact of negotiations on relations
33
70
Satisfaction with contract
61
83
Satisfaction with procedure
56
87
Table 2: Comparison of Employer and Association Responses By Procedure Type
Percent Favorable
Employer
Response Item
Association
Positional
Collaborative
Positional
Collaborative
Tone of negotiations
51
87
36
84
Impact of negotiations on relations
36
73
30
65
Satisfaction with contract
61
84
60
81
Satisfaction with procedure
56
90
57
83
The research also suggests that collaborative bargaining can reduce the influence of power.
It is commonly accepted that collective bargaining outcomes are more favorable to the side
that possesses greater power. Among survey participants, only 39 percent of those involved
7
in positional negotiations who perceived their side as weaker were satisfied with the quality of
the collective bargaining agreement. Just 36 percent of these individuals felt that the final
contract represented a mutual gain for both parties. On the other hand, 62 percent of
collaborative negotiators who identified the other side as being more powerful were satisfied
with the contract and 58 percent indicated that a mutual gain was achieved.
While one might assume that it would take more time and effort to reach a consensus
than it does to fashion a compromise, another benefit of collaborative bargaining is that it is
often faster than the traditional method. Irrespective of procedure type, for the majority of
negotiations the parties met between three and ten times. However, over a quarter, 26
percent, of positional negotiations required more than ten bargaining sessions before
reaching a final agreement. Where collaborative bargaining occurred, only 15 percent of
negotiations took in excess of ten meetings.
Additionally, 14 percent of collaborative
negotiations were completed in less than three sessions. Only 7 percent of contract talks
were finalized this quickly when the traditional procedure was followed.
Additionally, 27 percent of collaborative negotiations were finished in less than one
month's time, and just eight percent extended to six months or longer. Where positional
bargaining was employed, only 10 percent of negotiations were completed in less than a
month, while 26 percent took at least six months.
Though the research shows that collaborative bargaining appears to offer many
advantages over the traditional approach, there are those who would question the results
arguing that the opinions of collaborative negotiators are influenced by their idealistic view of
the process. Without delving into the merits of this argument, the research was designed in
such a way so as to reduce the possibility of error associated with participant personal bias.
8
Each survey participant was asked to identify techniques, practices, or principles that
were used during the most recent contract negotiations. Some of these characteristics are
associated with positional bargaining and others are typical of collaborative negotiations. The
following items were included on the survey:

Exchange of initial proposals.

Exchange of counter-proposals.

Identification of each side's interests or

negotiations.

Packaging of items for resolution.

Information sharing between the parties.

Use of caucuses.

Brainstorming at the table for ideas to
Compromise on initial positions to resolve
issues.
concerns regarding issues on the table.

Use of a neutral facilitator throughout

Agreement on options that met the
interests of both parties.

Consensus
between
the
parties
in
decision making.
resolve issues between the parties.

Selection of a chief spokesperson for
each side.
Exchange of initial and counter proposals, packaging items, use of caucuses, selection
of a spokesperson, and compromise are considered to be representative of positional or
traditional bargaining. Identification of interests, information sharing, brainstorming, use of a
neutral facilitator, agreement on options, and consensus in decision making are elements of a
collaborative, or interest-based style.
These characteristics can be used to demonstrate that bargaining rarely occurs in a
"pure" procedural form. As Table 3 shows, many characteristics frequently cross bargaining
model lines. Over half of the time that collaborative bargaining was said to have occurred,
initial proposals were exchanged, caucuses were used, or compromises on initial positions
9
were reached. Among positional negotiations, the following collaborative characteristics were
found among the majority of survey responses: identification of interests, information sharing,
and agreement on options that met the interests of both parties.
No collective bargaining procedure is likely to be either entirely collaborative or entirely
positional. Rather, as the data show each individual set of negotiations almost certainly
contains elements of both, even where one style is predominant. Like that pictured below,
bargaining procedures are best viewed as falling on a continuum.
Positional ------------------------------------------------------------------ Collaborative
At the extremes of the continuum are the theoretical "perfect" bargaining models. Typically,
the format of negotiations will lie somewhere between the two extremes.
By using the characteristics included in the survey, a scale was developed to measure
the overall level of positional/collaborative bargaining that took place for each set of
negotiations. A value of either negative one (-1) or positive one (+1) was assigned to each of
the twelve items listed. If an item viewed as positional was indicated, or where a collaborative
measure was not used, then a (-1) was assigned. Conversely, a (+1) was assigned where a
collaborative element was present or a traditional one absent. From this a cumulative score
was calculated. An illustration of this process is provided in Example 1. As the example
shows, with the exception of "packaging items" all of the characteristics associated with
positional bargaining were used during the negotiations. The only collaborative techniques
employed were "information sharing" and "brainstorming." Accordingly, the cumulative score
was less than zero. This means that positional characteristics were predominant in this
particular set of negotiations.
10
Table 3: Frequency of Characteristic By Bargaining Procedure Used
Percent of Respondents
Characteristic
All Responses
Collaborative
Positional
Initial Proposals
80
53
96
Counter-Proposals
70
38
90
Identify Interests
75
92
65
Packaging Items
48
33
56
Information Sharing
78
91
71
Use of Caucuses
79
67
86
Brainstorming
55
83
37
Chief Spokesperson
53
37
64
8
23
0
Compromise
64
56
69
Agreement on Options
69
86
57
Consensus
54
83
37
Neutral Facilitator
The range of scores falls between (-12) and (+12). The former represents a
bargaining process where all positional elements were present and all collaborative
11
characteristics were absent. The latter indicates the converse. Of course, the items
included in the research are not an exhaustive list of bargaining characteristics.
Example 1
Procedure
Used During
Value
Characteristic
Associated With
Negotiations
Assigned
Initial Proposals
Positional
Yes
-1
Counter-Proposals
Positional
Yes
-1
Identify Interests
Collaborative
No
-1
Packaging Items
Positional
No
+1
Information Sharing
Collaborative
Yes
+1
Use of Caucuses
Positional
Yes
-1
Brainstorming
Collaborative
Yes
+1
Chief Spokesperson
Positional
Yes
-1
Neutral Facilitator
Collaborative
No
-1
Compromise
Positional
Yes
-1
Agreement on Options
Collaborative
No
-1
Consensus
Collaborative
No
-1
Cumulative Score:
-6
However, for the purposes of this study a cumulative value of (-12) is considered a
"perfectly" positional procedure, while a total of (+12) is deemed to represent a "perfectly"
collaborative bargaining process. The following is a distribution of cumulative scores:
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
+2
+4
+6
+8
+10
+12
9
21
54
88
104
151
87
59
37
42
45
22
6
Cumulative Score
Total Responses
12
Twice as many scores are less than zero (423) than are greater than zero (211). This
suggests that negotiations using predominantly positional techniques outnumber those
utilizing a prevalence of collaborative characteristics by a margin of two-to-one.
However, as can be seen very few cumulative scores are found at either extreme.
Only two percent of the negotiations fall under the category of either perfectly positional or
perfectly collaborative. Where positional characteristics prevail; that is, a cumulative score of
less than zero, 81 percent of negotiations have combined values falling between (-2) and (-6).
Almost two-thirds of collaborative negotiations (cumulative score greater than zero) are found
in the (+2) to (+6) range. Furthermore, about a quarter of the time where a certain bargaining
procedure was identified as having been used, the associated characteristics were not
predominant.
What this proves is that while a round of negotiations may be labeled as following a
certain procedural model, these models can be, and generally are, altered to fit the dynamics
of a particular bargaining environment. Collaborative bargainers will at times use positional
tools that they are most familiar and comfortable with. And, those involved in traditional
negotiations may employ, as a matter of practicality and common sense, some collaborative
characteristics.
The bargaining scale can be used to further compare the performance of positional
and collaborative bargaining, while at the same time dealing with the issue of participant bias.
This is done by looking at study results based on relative placement on the scale. That is, we
can determine if perspectives with regard to labor and management relations, the quality of
the contract, and the level of satisfaction with the bargaining procedure change as the
continuum moves from perfectly positional to perfectly collaborative.
13
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The research found that collaborative bargaining is widely used, and is gaining in
acceptance. This means additional training and increased awareness of the collaborative
process will be necessary to accommodate the increased demand for its use. Although this
process may not be useful in all circumstances, there is reason to believe that this model will
continue to gain acceptance among labor practitioners.
The reason for this belief is that when compared to traditional bargaining, collaborative
efforts result in contracts viewed as more favorable, and mutually beneficial, by
representatives of both labor and management. Moreover, when collaborative bargaining
occurs the following results: there is greater satisfaction with the procedure; the level of
cooperation that takes place during negotiations is higher; and, the impact of bargaining on
overall labor-management relations is more constructive.
This study provides clear evidence that collaborative bargaining offers promise as an
alternative to the traditional method of negotiating labor agreements. Only time will tell if this
promise will be fulfilled. However, whether viewed as preliminary or conclusive, the evidence
strongly suggests that collaborative bargaining warrants consideration by labor relations
practitioners who represent public schools, other public sector jurisdictions, and private
industry as well as a potential tool for achieving mutually beneficial bargaining outcomes
through cooperative efforts.
14
References
1
Walton, Richard E. Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. 1965.
2
Barrett, Jerome. “Labor-Management Cooperation in the Public Service: An Idea
Whose Time Has Come”(Public Employee Relations Library, No 63)
3
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving in. Penguin USA. 1991.
15