Good morning. Consider the following case. Jack is an airline pilot. His industry is a highly competitive and international one where management union relations vary considerably from company to company. In some firms they can be described as constructive and cooperative whereas in others they are predominantly antagonistic and conflictual. In KMA where he works, trust between pilots and management has become rather strained after a number of recent skirmishes over restructuring and changes to pay and conditions. Negotiations are continuing on the vexed question of changes to air crew schedules and hours of work. Most pilots like Jack want to avoid a strike. But if bargaining breaks down again, it will probably become the course of action. The main pilots union will recommend. In such a situation, what is the role of third parties? Can negotiations be strengthened by their involvement? Or is there a danger of outsiders upsetting an already delicate intergroup equilibrium? Is there a place here for mediation? As we have described it in previous lectures. To discuss this question we need to first of all note that under the label "conciliation", third party assistance to employers and unions has been part of the industrial relations scenery for many years. It's not just a recent phenomenon. Secondly, the histories of negotiation and conflict, which can differ widely from firm to firm in the same industry, are fundamental. Research shows this clearly for the international airline industry. Patterns of low or high trust negotiations take time to build up and become expressed in cooperation or antagonism. When the union management relationship is strained as in our example of KMA pilots and managers, there is a real danger that the groups become trapped in an interaction that can become intractable in nature. In that type of situation mutual trust stays very low, communication is of poor quality, and negotiations feature aggressive and low ball tactics. Each side may result crude stereotypes or labels in representing the other, or talk of betrayal, lies, and intimidation. In extreme cases, each party comes to see itself as by nature in opposition and in resistance to the other. For example, pilots may believe that managers will never understand the job of flying itself, all they care about is numbers. And managers that, pilots are overpaid, prima donnas, who ignore the realities of competitive business. Outright confrontation in the form of strikes or lockouts can seem quite rational from within such a perspective. But before that state of affairs is reached, third parties can play an important role. Especially if they are contacted early, if they are known to each, if the groups concerned regard them as professionals who are skilled, reliable, and relatively neutral, and if their intervention can be complimentary to and help the formal dispute procedures that exist in the firm. In some firms and sectors, like public transport, recourse to mediation before a conflict escalates, to strike action for example, is instituted as a kind of early warning system. This can work quite well in signalling and need to negotiate or mediate a sensitive and potentially explosive issue before a crisis emerges. The neutrality of any third party that I mentioned earlier will be a crucial issue for any unions involved in the situation. This is logical when we understand their concern that management specialists may want to dominate procedures and to channel actions towards outcomes favorable to them, or to their own view of what is in the firm's interests. The union well often fear being bypassed or co-opted by a process where at the end of the day, employees are poorly represented. Who will mediate, when and how, also needs to be negotiated. A competent mediator cannot of course rewrite history. But whether he or she is inside the company, or an outside figure, whether proposed by management or by unions, skilled intervention at an early stage can defuse an explosive and potentially intractable interaction. Usually, this requires careful attention to identity questions, and to the emotions that pervade the meetings between the parties concerned. When groups are challenged and feel disdained or disrespect from another, their members sense of shared identity can strengthen and trigger emotions like anger and fear. Collective self-esteem seems to be on the line and threatened. A skilled mediator will need to find a way to lower the intensity of these emotions and in some way protect that sense of worth and status. But what can mediators do when a conflict breaks out and runs its course? We'll focus on this issue next time.
