You are on page 1of 4

UNDERSTANDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS By Abdulkadir D. Sani (PhD, ACII) Group Insurance Department Abdulkadir.sani@nnpcgroup.

com Introduction Negotiation has developed into a major mode of decision making in all aspects of social, political and business life. Within any negotiation process, bargaining takes place. In employment relationship, collective bargaining is view as a means or process through which representatives of management and union meet to negotiate a labour agreement (Armstrong, 2006). The essence of the process is not just to consolidate a common ground between management and labour, but to find a new relationship with greater constructive potential than the one that preceded it. This is indeed the cornerstone of industrial democracy. There is however, a growing concern among parties in industrial conflicts about the need to update and sharpen their collective bargaining skills. This paper is therefore, designed to put in better perspective the contemporary bargaining strategies and tactics that will deepen industrial democracy in organizations. Nature and Sources of Conflicts in Employment Relationship The basic approach to collective negotiations depend on the view that conflict of interests is inevitable between employer and employees because there is an authority relationship in which the aims of the two parties will at least sometimes conflict. In this light, negotiation can be view in terms of equally matched protagonists. This means that the power of the two parties may not actually be equal, but they are both willing to behave as if it were. For negotiation to be successful there must be appearance of power equalization in the process. When both parties set out to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to themselves and acceptable to the other, then their power is equalized by that desire. The relative power of the parties is likely to fluctuate from one situation to the other. This is captured by the ritual and face-saving elements of negotiation, where a power imbalance is not fully explored, both to make agreement possible and in the knowledge that the power imbalance may be reversed on the next issue to be resolved. The processes of civilization tend to constrain conflict in employment matters; there is a natural human impulse to behave aggressively to some degree at some time. One common outlet for aggression is in negotiations within the employing organization. This is indeed a splendid arena for the expression of aggressiveness and bravura without actually incurring the physical risks that would be involved in violent combat. A negotiation expert, Dr Johnson summed the attractions of vigorous disagreement when he said: I dogmatized and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions, I find delight.
1

Hence, the main source of industrial relations conflict is divergence of interests between those who are seeking such things as efficiency, productivity and the obedience of others to their own authority on one hand, and those that are equally interested in these things as in the first group, but are more interested in features such as high pay, freedom of action, independence from supervision, scope for the individual and leisure. These two divergence but homo-herogeneous interests invariably conflict. Potential benefits of conflicts in industrial issues amongst others include: clarifying issues, introducing new rules, modifying an unworkable management position and producing better understanding of respective positions. The potential drawbacks of such conflicts on the other hand are the waste of time, emotional stress for participants and the risk of the conflict getting worse if handled badly. Bargaining Strategies The strategies managers and management could adopt in coping with conflict are briefly discussed below: 1. Avoidance: To some extent conflict can be handled by ignoring it. The goal is to prevent the conflict from surfacing or at least delay its manifestation. The risk is that it is harder to deal with when it eventually does erupt. Organizations that attempt to asphyxiate labour activities by not recognizing employee representatives or playing leap service to their demand is directly or indirectly adopting avoidance strategy. This strategy is however becoming difficult to sustain because of increasing legal support for employee representation. This strategy however, has obvious short-term advantages. 2. Smoothing: Smoothing as a bargaining strategy involves resolving conflicts by using sweet words in exhaustation or discussion where the emphasis is on the value of team work. It represents an approach that would have broad employee support in a particular employment context. One drawback of smoothing strategy is that it ignores the real problem. It is akin to giving a message to someone who has suffered a heart attack. 3. Forcing: This involves attacking expressions of dissent and dealing with conflict by stamping it out using forceful and coercive means. 4. Compromise: This strategy can be used in situations where divergence of views is acknowledged and confronted. This could be done by splitting the difference. For example, if the union claim a pay increase of 20% and the management say they cannot afford it, a settlement of 10% saves the face of both parties but satisfies neither. However common this strategy may be, it has one major drawback - both parties fail to win. 5. Confrontation: This perhaps is the most productive bargaining strategy as it gives both parties the opportunity of winning. The strategy involves confronting the issues on which the parties differ by accepting that there is a conflict of opinion or interest and working towards an accommodation of the difference which will provide a greater degree of satisfaction of the objectives of both parties than can be achieved simple compromise.

Bargaining Tactics In preparing for negotiation, it is very important for the parties to review the following tactical issues: 1. Resolution or Accommodation: Conflict can either be resolved or accommodated. If it is resolved, the original feelings of antagonism or opposition over the issues that have brought about the conflict vanish. This type of outcome has a romantic appeal and should frequently be sought in employment relationship conflicts. If on the other hand, the conflict is accommodated, the differences of views will definitely persist, but a modus vivendi, some form of living with the situation, is discovered. In view of the tactical nature of employment relationship conflicts, accommodation has more prospect than resolution. One pertinent question negotiators must however answer when approaching bargaining table is: are we going for resolution or accommodation? The answer to this question will determine to a great extent the bargaining strategy to adopt. 2. Tension Level: Management tend to resort to negotiation only when necessary, and this necessity is usually a crisis. In Nigeria, empirical evidences abound that confirmed the saying: the only language the government understand is strike. This should not be so. A more proactive approach is to initiate encounters when the tension level is at the optimum level. When the tension level is high, negotiators get jitters, are unable to see things straight and over indulgence in excessive interpersonal vituperation. On the other hand, when the tension level is low, the desire to reach a settlement will particularly be at its lowest ebb Therefore, the optimum or ideal timing to initiate encounters is at a point when both parties have a balanced desire to reach a settlement. This perhaps is one of the reasons why employment relationship conflicts in Nigeria are usually unresolved or at best are cosmetically accommodated because the tension level is usually at the highest level. 3. Power Balance: Effective negotiation is rarely limited to the sheer exploitation of power advantage. The best settlement is one in which both sides can recognize their own and mutual advantages. The background to any negotiation includes the relative power of the disputant. Power parity is the most conducive to success. As rightly observed by Walto (1996), perceptions of power inequality undermine trust, inhibit dialogue and decrease the likelihood of a constructive outcome from an attempted confrontation. Hence, the greater the power differential, the more negative the attitudes. 4. Synchronizing: The approaches and reactions of the two parties need a degree of synchronizing to ensure that an encounter is initiated at a time when the other party is ready to deal with it. Management interpretation of managerial prerogative often causes managers to move quickly in search of a solution, virtually pre-empting negotiation. When what they see as positive overture is not reciprocated, they are likely to feel frustrated, discouraged and making themselves in turn unready for overtures from the other party. 5. Openness: Employment relationship conflicts are best handled if the participants are open with each other about the facts of the situation and their feelings about it. In other words,
3

negotiators should own up to feelings of resentment and anger, rather than mask their feelings behind role assumptions of self-importance. Conclusion Effective collective bargaining is one of the key success factors that contribute meaningfully to the bottom line. Hence, stakeholders understanding and application of basic bargaining strategies and tactics will in no small measure promote industrial democracy which will in turn positively affect the realization of the organizations overall objectives. However, for negotiations to achieve the desired result, negotiators should be guided by the following four (4) basic rules to effective negotiation: 1. Separate the people from the problem. Focus on the issues that needs resolution and avoid clash of personalities and bruising of egos; 2. Focus on interests and not positions; 3. Make the pie bigger. Generate other possibilities beyond what the other party is asking for by thinking of options that are of low cost to you and of high benefit to them; and 4. Insist on using objective criteria or standards that can be used by both parties to test the reasonableness of any position that is adopted.

You might also like