Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The aim of this chapter is to explore the role of trust and conflict management in Industrial Relations (IR) within organizations. First, we offer a short review of trust and conflict management from different theoretical perspectives. Secondly, this chapter offers an overview of key empirical studies on trust and conflict management in the specific context of industrial relations. We summarize findings relevant for the different partners and set an agenda for future research.

Introduction: Trust and Conflict Management

The autumn of 2014 was dramatic for Air France-KLM; one of Europe’s largest airlines, was the protagonist of the longest airlines’ strike since 1998. After the announcement from Air France-KLM of their intention to cut out 800 positions and carry on other supplementary savings in order to better resist the wild competition from low cost companies, the Air France pilots reacted going on a strike which lasted 2 weeks. This resulted in an estimated loss of over €500 million, which together with the already poor financial results that book year, was enough to wipe more than a fifth off its estimated full-year core profit (Mediapart 2014).

Trust from co-workers in the company’s management politics was already very weak, and this last announcement resulted in further uncertainty and destruction of an already damaged relation between management of Air France and their employees. The conflict management of the French pilots was said to be competitive, aiming to win on the expense of the company; however, despite continued deadlock with managers over the development of the firm’s low-cost operations, pilots suspended the strike when the final decision was not taken.

A break down on trust, at all levels, resulted from these negotiations which ended up with unfulfilled expectations over the table of Air France. Also, tensions between different groups of employees (pilots, crew and ground staff), and between Air France and KLM increased. This case shows the strong interconnection between competitive conflict management (in the form of forceful reorganizations, strikes, and power play between the parties) in a context with already original low levels of trust, and the resulting further break downs of an already stressed social climate.

Could these industrial relations have been more constructive? We believe indeed, this was possible. Let’s go back a few years, and across the channel, to the UK, for a second case.Footnote 1

Employment relations at ‘PCT’ -a primary care NHS trust in the UK- were anything but friendly. Conflicts of interest were dealt within an adversarial and confrontational manner. As one union representative put it: “It was ‘them and us’, batter the barricades the old fashioned way. If there was a problem just hit it head on”. Union-management relations were characterized by mistrust and suspicion and, in consequence, issues were directly dealt with through formal channels. Furthermore, when these formal grievance and disciplinary hearings took place, they were conducted in an adversarial manner.

This was the scenario before Saundry and colleagues in 2008 implemented training in mediation for both HR managers and union representatives. The focus of this training was on shifting attitudes, bringing issues out, and encouraging an open and informal dialogue. A union representative explained that this acknowledged the fact that they do have issues and promoted trust development between both parties. The development of trusting relationships between the HR professionals and trade union representatives involved in the mediation scheme shaped attitudes to conflict and fostered a much clearer focus on resolution as opposed to confrontation. This attitude also passed on to other employees, as they observed and learnt from behaviors of key actors, who represented them and who they trusted. Even union recruitment saw a positive impact due probably to an improvement of the image of unions, now seen as collaborative and effective.

The case study at PCT is an example of how investing in constructive attitudes in order to foster high-trust relations and particularly to encourage a more co-operative approach to conflicts pays off in many ways, such as an improvement in the company’s ability to resolve disputes or higher and better union recruitment.

The limited availability of resources for organizations (Carley and Marginson 2010) together with tendencies towards deregulation, more flexible labor arrangements and individualized contracts (so called i-deals), has placed labor negotiations more at the organizational level, certainly in Europe (Glassner et al. 2011). More conflictive issues are now at the table of works councils and other bodies of employee representation, such as health and safety committees. The attitudes and abilities of both parties when managing conflicts, combined with the conflict strategies they implement, will determine in practice the quality of the agreements they will reach and therefore the improvements for both workers and organizations (Elgoibar 2013; European Commission 2012; Visser 2010).

That being the case, a review on what has been researched on trust and conflict behaviors by the different parties at the table, is essential to understand the decision making processes that will lead to labor agreements in the short future. We start with defining the key concepts, and present the limited research afterwards.

Defining Trust: The Long-Term Perspective

Industrial relations traditionally have developed on a basis of fundamental conflict and adversarial relationships between parties. The history of industrial relations is full of the struggle for workers’ rights, and during the industrial revolution, relations were typically not based on trust (Van der Brempt 2014). Also today, we see in many societies and organizations opposition against unionization of employees, and even hostile relations between unions and organizations. Furthermore, the challenges of the current global market create a hostile environment in which distrust is as likely to be created as trust (Lewicki et al. 1998; Lewicki, Elgoibar and Euwema, Chap. 6 in this volume). Trust within industrial relations, trust between employers and employees, therefore is not evident. However, at the same time, employers trust employees to work in their organizations, and vice versa. Many companies recognize the vital importance of good relations, and the investment in developing such relations (Euwema et al. 2015). On the other hand unions emphasize the need of cooperation and trusting relations with employers (Munduate et al. 2012). There evidently is also a base for trust between these social partners, and for organizations to exist, cooperation is essential.

Some definitions of trust emphasize expectations, predictability, and confidence in others’ behavior (Dasgupta 1988; McAllister 1995; Sitkin and Roth 1993). Yet other definitions emphasize that trust involves expectations of other’s benevolent motives in situations that involve a conflict between self and collective interests (Holmes and Rempel 1989; Mayer et al. 1995; Rousseau et al. 1998). A generally accepted meaning of trust is the inclusion of vulnerability that involves acting in anticipation of positive behaviors of the other party in the future. In this sense trust is commonly defined as a belief (or expectation) about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Boon and Holmes 1991; Holmes and Rempel 1989; Hosmer 1995; Rempel et al. 1985; Rousseau et al. 1998).

Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Rousseau et al. 1998, p. 395).

Lewicki and colleagues (1998) point out that trust should be differentiated from distrust (see Lewicki, Elgoibar and Euwema, Chap. 6 in this volume). Trust concerning positive expectations of the other party and distrust concerning negative expectations from the other party.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) serves as a framework for exploring this relationship to understand how trust, loyalty and mutual commitment are evolved over time (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). The SET framework is primarily concerned with the factors that mediate the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of exchange relationships and the dynamics within them. Trust plays an important role in this framework. Both Blau (1964)Footnote 2 and Holmes (1981) identified trust as a key outcome of favourable social exchanges (see more in Munduate, Euwema and Elgoibar, Chap. 13 in this volume). When relationships conform to the norms of reciprocity and when the pattern of exchange is perceived as being fair, parties are more likely to believe that they will not be exploited (Blau 1964). Trust is proposed to be important in relationship development because it allows parties to be less calculative and to see longer-term outcomes (Scanzoni 1979). Put another way, through trust a party is able to expect fairness and justice in the long-term and therefore does not have to demand it immediately.

The long term perspective between social partners is an important issue in industrial relations not only for trust development but also for the structurally interdependent situation between them. How parties negotiate over interests, such as collective labor agreements or conditions for reorganization, or how they solve conflicts when it comes to (violations of) rights, depends to a large extend to the BATNAs (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreements) of parties. This is the perceived best alternative to negotiating. Usually within organizations, the BATNAs of employers and employees are interdependent. They are linked, so that in case of impass one party’s best alternative is the worst alternative for the other party. And what is more important, if one executes his best alternative in case of impass, this situation directly affects and seriously damages the other party and viceversa. Typical BATNA’s for employers are to close a production plant and move it to another –low wages-country, or replace groups of workers for other categories of workers, with usually less rights. BATNA for collectives of employees usually is limited to actions hindering the employer (i.e. going on strike). In the Air France-KLM conflict described above, the 2 weeks strike by Air France pilots had very negative consequences both for the financial outomes and the social climate of the company as well as for the trust relationship between parties, in the same way that a potential lockout would have been disastrous for pilots. The example also shows that parties try to limit or weaken the alternatives of the other party, through making specific deals with sub-contractors, or using publicity to influence other stakeholders. Therefore, in the industrial relations field negotiations between parties should focus on how to minimize the financial and social cost of disputes, including damage in trust relationships, more than maximizing gains.

Defining Conflict and Conflict Management

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions, neither inevitable nor innately bad, however commonplace (Deutsch 2006; Schellenberg 1996). Conflict in the context of industrial relations is often approached as an intergroup conflict: capital versus labor, employers versus employees. Also at the organizational level, ‘management’ versus ‘workers’ has been a classic distinction. However, managers nowadays usually also are employees of the company. And management and employees together might line up against ‘capital’, for example in cases of multinational companies intending to close local branches. So, more blurred lines occur. Works councils are in many countries composed of both, employer and employee representatives (from now on referred to as ERs), which defines the classic labor-management conflicts now as a special form of intragroup or intra-organizational conflict, instead of inter-group conflict (Van der Brempt 2014). In organizations, management and ERs meet in different bodies. Here, the factional group paradigm might be helpful. Factional groups are defined by Li and Hambrick (2005, p. 794) as: “groups in which members are representatives, or delegates, from a small number of (often just two) social entities and are aware of, and find salience in, their delegate status”. The intergroup conflicts in the organization are thus represented at an intragroup level, in bodies such as the works council.

Social conflict has been defined in many ways. In this chapter we use the definition by Van De Vliert et al. (1995) who consider a conflict between two or more parties, when at least one of these parties is frustrated or annoyed by the other party. Conflict management is the response to this experience, according to the same authors. Comparably, conflict behavior is often defined as one parties’ reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch 1973; Carnevale et al. 1981; Rubin et al. 1994). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu et al. 2001; Van de Vliert 1997). Conflict management encompasses the cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses in conflict situations. In the context of industrial relations at organizational level, parties typically meet to negotiate. However, this can include all kinds of different responses, varying from highly competitive, to highly cooperative. In the next paragraph we elaborate three theories on conflict management, before exploring the specific studies from our literature review in the context of industrial relations.

Conflict Management Theories

Several theories have addressed conflict management and conflict behavior. We discuss here shortly three of the most relevant theories, which are: the theory of cooperation–competition (Deutsch 1973), the Dual-Concern model (Blake and Mouton 1964), and the Conglomerate Conflict Behavior theory (Van de Vliert et al. 1995).

Theory of Cooperation and Competition

Deutsch’ classic theory of competition and cooperation proved useful analyzing conflict in many contexts, including management and employees, and identifying constructive ways to managing it (Deutsch 2002; Elgoibar 2013; Tjosvold and Chia 1989). This well verified theory of the antecedents and consequences of cooperation and competition hardly had been used to study industrial relations in organizations, however allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes, also in employment relations (Elgoibar 2013; Munduate et al. 2012). The core of the theory is based on the perceived interdependence of parties. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance, less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining (Tjosvold et al. 2014).

Dual-Concern Model

Among the most popular and broadly validated classifications of conflict behaviors is the dual-concern model (Blake and Mouton 1964; Pruitt and Rubin 1986; Rahim 1983; Thomas 1992; Van de Vliert et al. 1999). The model implies that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described, and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests). These two concerns define usually five different conflict management strategies: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising and problem solving (De Dreu et al. 2001).

This model is used both as a contingency model: describing under what condition what conflict management strategy is used best (Van de Vliert et al. 1995); however also as a normative model: promoting the idea that “integrating or problem solving” is the most effective strategy to manage conflicts, particularly for joined outcomes and long term relations (see more in Tjosvold, Tang and Wan, Chap. 4 in this volume; De Dreu et al. 2001; Tjosvold and Chia 1989; Tjosvold et al. 1999, 2014; Tjosvold and Morishima 1999).

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior theory

In industrial relations and in negotiations more generally, integrative solutions not necessarily imply also a strong impact on the decision making by both parties. Particularly when it comes to negotiations and decision making on conflictive issues between management and employees, competitive actions sometimes are needed to achieve a power balance. This was already recognized by Walton and McKersie (1994) and developed in the theory of Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB) (Van De Vliert et al. 1995)

Tjosvold et al. (1999), define forcing and problem solving strategies as opposed. Other authors (Thompson and Nadler 2000) argue that parties in a conflict, in order to achieve their own outcomes and reach mutual agreements at the same time, try to combine both types of conflict behaviors (cooperative and competitive) (Elgoibar 2013). This is the basic assumption of the Conglomerate Conflict Behavior Theory (Van de Vliert et al. 1995; Munduate et al. 1999). This theory states that most conflicts and negotiation situations are complex and mixed motive. Therefore, the combination of different conflict management strategies is most common, and can be beneficial. Strategies, being either cooperation and competition, or forcing, avoiding and problem solving, are combined sequentially or simultaneously, or both. Several studies have demonstrated that competing behaviors (such as forcing), and cooperative behaviors (such as problem solving) do not necessarily exclude one another, however the combination of strategies contributes to effective outcomes (Euwema and Van Emmerik 2007; Komorita and Parks 1995; Munduate et al. 1999; Sheldon and Fishbach 2011). Most of these studies were conducted in organizational conflicts, however not related to industrial relations, including worker representatives and management.

Trust and Conflict Management in the Context of Industrial Relations: A Review

Trust and conflict management have received a lot of attention in the academic literature during the past 20 years, particularly in the field of organizational behavior. Surprisingly however, the organizational behavior studies focus on direct relations within organizations, while industrial relations typically focus more on trust and conflict between employers and unions. In this search we focus on the organizational level, and see what empirical studies have been conducted on trust and conflict management between employer/management on one side, and worker representatives on the other. We conducted a systematic literature review.Footnote 3

We reviewed the literature of the past 20 years. The criteria for inclusion of papers was that they were published in peer reviewed journals and were referring to the organizational level. We included in our search both qualitative and quantitative studies. We found in total 11 papers addressing trust, 5 papers addressing conflict management, and 14 papers addressing both topics simultaneously. A selection of studies using quantitative data are summarized in Table 3.1. A selection of the studies analyzing qualitative data are summarized directly in the text.

Table 3.1 Previous studies analyzing trust and conflict management in industrial relations
Full size table

Trust in the Context of Industrial Relations

The empirical literature on trust in the context of industrial relations is surprisingly thin and are mostly case studies. We describe shortly the papers presented in Table 3.1. Bartram et al. (2008) used a sample of Australian nurses to study how trust in management and union commitment affected the likelihood of becoming an ER, amongst other relationships. They found that low trust in the employers’ good will made it more likely for employees to become representatives. Union commitment was also found to be positively related to the likelihood of becoming an ER.

Guest et al. (2008) explored in the UK if partnership at work led to increased trust at different levels of the organization. The results indicated that representative participation was not associated to any of the measures of trust. Employees reported lower trust when these types of representation were present compared to the organizations in which they were absent. Direct participation however did relate positively to higher levels of trust.

Holland et al. (2012) used Social Exchange Theory to examine the relationship between direct and union voice arrangements, perceived managerial opposition to unions and employees’ trust in management. Using cross-sectional data from a sample of Australian employees. They found a positive relationship between direct voice and employees’ trust in management. They also found that union voice and perceived managerial opposition to unions were negatively related to employees’ trust in management.

Kerkhof et al.’s longitudinal study (2003) explored the antecedents of trust in management among works council members in The Netherlands. ERs were more likely to trust managers who provided them with fair treatment, whereas providing them with influence in the decision making processes was deemed less important.

Nichols et al. (2009) analyzed the data from the British 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey to see what factors affected trust in management. Following their expectations, they found that employee trust in management deteriorates with greater length of service (that is, years of workplace exposure).

Trust was seen as an antecedent of preference for decentralized bargaining in a study by Nienhueser and Hossfeld (2011) among 1000 personnel managers and work councilors in Germany. They found no effect of trust from the management’s perspective. However, for works council members mutual trust had positive effects on the preference for decentralized bargaining and for bargaining at the plant level.

Yoon-Ho et al. (2015) collected surveys from 1.353 Korean labor representatives and managers to examine weather mutual trustworthiness – ability, integrity, and benevolence- between employee representatives and management is an important antecedent for the adoption of high performance work systems (HPWS). The results indicated that all three components of mutual trustworthiness had a positive relationship with the adoption of HPWS.

In addition, Timming carried out two qualitative studies in this topic. In the first one (Timming 2006) he addressed trust in a European work councils and found that trust relations were characteristically sub-optimal both between worker and employers’ representatives and also among the workers themselves. The second case study explores the dynamics of cross-national trust relations between workers’ representatives, finding a low level of trust between the two delegations of workers –one in the UK and one in The Netherlands- of the case (Timming 2009).

Conflict Management in the Context of Industrial Relations

Conflict in the context of industrial relations in organizations can be related to a variety of issues. As we observe in the studies found, these issues include: reaching agreements, the compliance to agreements, negotiating working hours or policies on inclusion. Handling complaints that the agreements on working hours are not respected by management, or grievances about injustice in the workplace, are however also classic conflictive issues related to formal industrial relations in the organization (Gordon and Miller 1984; Euwema et al. 2015).

Bacon and Blyton (1999) surveyed British union representatives in order to explore the different outcomes resulting from cooperative vs. competitive industrial relations. They found that cooperative relations were related to some positive outcomes for employees, such as better conditions and involvement. However, they didn’t find a link with other HRM aspects nor with a greater role of trade unions.

Bacon and Blyton (2007) studied among twenty-one departments (across two integrated steelworks) conflict for mutual gains and negotiation patterns of union negotiators. They concluded that when union negotiators adopted more conflictual bargaining tactics, more employees reported pay increases and greater satisfaction with team working agreements. ‘Mixed’ bargaining approaches used in other departments resulted to be less successful. Another key finding was that managers secured lower staffing and increased productivity in negotiations both in departments characterized by cooperation and by conflict. Mutual gains were secured only where union negotiators pursued conflict tactics during bargaining.

Another study (Elgoibar 2013) among 2,304 European ERs explored the antecedents and conflict behaviors of European ERs. ERs use conflict patterns rather than single behaviors, supporting the CCB theory (Van de Vliert et al. 1995). More specifically, in Spain ERs use mostly competitive patterns while Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands’s ERs use more cooperative patterns. ERs’ commitment to the company and to the union showed to affect cooperative conflict management differently depending on the industrial relations system, this was showed in a comparison between Spain and Germany.

Based on the theory of cooperation and competition, Tjosvold, Morishima and Belsheim (1999) explored whether cooperative goals promote open-minded negotiations between employees and supervisors, which in turn lead to better resolutions for both parties. To do so they carried out interviews with supervisors and union employees in British Columbia. The hypotheses were supported and the authors concluded that cooperation and open-minded negotiation skills can facilitate integrative solutions to workplace conflicts. The study by Tjosvold and Morishima (1999) on grievance’s resolution between management and union representatives concluded, that cooperative goals promote direct, open-minded consideration of opposing views which leads to quality solutions. Cooperative goals also induced an open-minded discussion of diverse views resulting in high-quality and integrative solutions. When management and ERs perceive competitive goals, this leads to close-minded interactions, defaulting efficient agreements. This study signaled the need to structure cooperative interdependence and guide skill training in grievance handling.

Regarding qualitative studies, Cutcher‐Gershenfeld (2011) studied escalated collective labor conflicts, through a case study method where more than 300 negotiators were involved in negotiations on how to bargain, and first reach agreement on this in order to overcome intractable conflicts. This study focused on the importance of being able to differentiate between intractable and manageable conflicts.

Lewin et al. (2012) also carried out a qualitative study, in this case to focus on what makes dispute resolution procedures work. Based on process and outcome assessments, they argue that public sector labor and management best use mutual gains negotiations. Dennison, Drummond, and Hobgood (1997) studied collaborative bargaining in two public universities through the follow up of the development of interest-based bargaining. Process and outcomes were assessed. In doing so they adopted a process which enabled them jointly to: identify the issues, analyze the interests underlying those issues, develop options reflecting those interests, evolve the means of assessing the options, and finally articulate outcomes deemed efficient, legitimate, mutually acceptable, supportive of collaboration, and worthy of joint commitment.

Studies Addressing Both Conflict Management and Trust

The number of quantitative studies addressing the relationships between different levels of trust and conflict management in the context of industrial dialogue appear to be scarce. Elgoibar et al. (2012) used the Spanish industrial relations context for exploring the conflict pattern from worker representatives and the relation to trust in management and union support. Surveys among 719 representatives showed that Spanish representatives use mostly a competitive conflict pattern combined with a cooperative behavior, and that the low level of trust in management is related to a greater use of the competitive behavior. Additionally, the high level of union support in Spain seems to stimulate competitive conflict behavior. Focusing this time on the perceptions of employers, Euwema et al. (2015) surveyed more than 600 European managers and interviewed 110 managers from 11 EC member states on their perceptions of the role, attitudes and competencies of ERs. They found that trust between managers and ERs is strongly related to a cooperative conflict management style by ERS, however not related with competitive conflict management. Additionally, the results showed that high level of trust between ERs and management together with ERs’ cooperative conflict management were two factors related to the achievement of better agreements. Furthermore, competitive conflict management by ERs was related to more influence on traditional collective bargaining issues, while cooperative conflict management was related to more influence on innovative issues.

Van der Brempt (2014) used both qualitative and quantitative data with the aim of shedding light on the demographic and contextual antecedents of works council effectiveness at the team-level. A multiple case study of six Belgian works councils led to the development of a comprehensive framework of cooperation between management and ERs in a works council setting. Consequently, this framework was tested through two empirical studies using a dataset of 640 Belgian works councils. The results showed that procedural justice and perceived organizational support may positively affect trust within works councils and in doing so, it reduces the negative impact of factional distance in ideology on trust and cooperation. Additionally, it was found that as the distance in ideology between managers and employees in WCs increases, ERs’ trust in management decreases, and so does group effectiveness. This negative relationship is moderated by the organizational and industrial context of the works council.

Several authors used case studies to understand the role of trust and conflict management in labor relations. Butler et al. (2011) explored the resilience of partnerships in companies which were downsizing. Trust moderates the relation between influence of trade unions, competitive strategies and the stability of the partnership. Trust was high at local level, however it was the limited trust at national level that hindered negotiations. Multilevel trust therefore is important to achieve a constructive negotiation climate.

Caverley et al. (2006) analyzed how the degree of trust affects an integrative collective bargaining process in two Canadian public sector cases. They conclude that the level of trust was based on previous negotiations and the expertise and negotiation style of the negotiators.

Danford and colleagues (2014) assessed the efficacy of partnership in the context of ‘expert labor’ sectors through three case studies analyzing the cooperative relationship between union representatives and management, the influence of unions in these settings, and the attitudes of coworkers towards these cooperative attitudes. The study finds that in all three cases the union is seen by its members as a weak, insubordinate entity in terms of collective influence over management policy. In the two organizations characterized by high-trust and cooperation, they saw partnership to be more effective for individual member representation than for collective influence.

Ericsson et al. (2015) interviewed 78 Swedish managers and blue- and white-collar workers to find out how they managed the financial crisis. One of the conclusions from this study was that trust between employer and employee was an important ingredient in creating the conditions for loyalty and for reaching integrative agreements.

The labor-management partnership cases of Borg Warner and British Airways were reviewed by Evans et al. (2012) in order to examine whether cooperation, mutual trust and mutual gains can be achieved in partnership contexts in the UK.The authors analyzed why neither of the cases resulted in mutual gains. They stated that the lack of manager support of union membership in both cases led to low trust of employees in management, which made satisfaction with the outcomes almost impossible.

Garaudel et al. (2008) explored two French restructuring cases using Walton and McKersie’s theoretical framework and providing evidence of the potential of integrative bargaining in restructuring. They argue that any restructuring situation, even in an unfavourable context displays an integrative potential, in that employers’ and employees’ risks are closely interrelated and these risks can be successfully addressed in a cooperative way.

In line with this, Miller et al. (2010) show the benefits of interest based bargaining in a US case. This study showed the success of the 2000 interest-based contract negotiation at Kaiser Permanente, however not free of future challenges to this approach to negotiation. Among the key factors enhancing this achievement were an effective coordination in a complex environment, deadline pressure, good management of internal negotiations, investment in training, effective leadership accompanied by facilitation, as well as creative brainstorming and a solid establishment of ground rules, and the role of interest-based processes in an organization’s daily routine.

Korshak (1995) studied how to create labor-management cultural change during labor negotiations for twelve different companies which were heavily unionized and had a history of confrontational labor relations. Among the key learnings was that a shared vision of labor relations makes it easier to accomplish the common goal of creating a better relationship with the workers and unions. Moreover, it became key to avoid creating a bureaucracy that would turn that movement for cultural change into an entity seeking only to perpetuate itself and the status quo. Trusting and empowering the principal players over agents, helped to establish a constructive conflict culture.

McKersie et al. (2004) examined a case of an agreement based on interest-based negotiations (IBN) in the company Kaiser Permanente. In their first case study, they analyzed what enabled effectiveness of a complex labor-management negotiation. McKersie and colleagues (2008) also carried out a case study regarding IBN based on the 2005 national contract negotiations between Kaiser Permanente and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions. They found that IBN techniques were used more and were effective when the parties shared interests, however when they were in greater conflict they would tend to use more traditional positional bargaining. High levels of trust facilitated using IBN, but tensions between the parties first had to be released before any type of tactic, IBN or traditional, could be effective.

Conclusions and Future Research

Summarizing our literature search, we come to eight conclusions.

  1. 1.

    There is a lack of empirical, and particularly quantitative studies relating trust and conflict management between management and ERs in organizations. Also, the complexities in this context, such as typically multiparty, multi issue, representative negotiations, are rarely addressed in these studies.

  2. 2.

    Looking at the outcome of the studies on trust, we can conclude that trust has deserved more attention, than distrust. All studies underscore the relevance of trust to develop constructive relations, also in the context of industrial relations in the organization. Less is clear what types of trust and what interventions contribute to the development of trust. Rebuilding trust after industrial relations conflicts has received very little attention so far (see Lewicki at al., Chap. 6 in this volume). Several studies emphasize to focus on trust as a multilevel issue, particularly in large companies.

  3. 3.

    The conglomerate conflict behavior model offers a good perspective to analyze conflict behavior in industrial relations agents, as this model emphasizes the combination of different conflict management strategies in complex conflict situations.

  4. 4.

    There is a lack of descriptive studies at the level of trust and conflict management strategies by ERs in Europe, as well as worldwide. It is important to assess these levels, as both parties at the table tend to use stereotypes of the trust, trustworthiness and conflict behaviors. These stereotypes usually are negative, and reinforce competitive patterns, depending on the context.

  5. 5.

    Future studies should integrate trust and conflict management by both sides at the table in sound empirical studies to gain a better understanding of the conflict dynamics, and related outcomes, both in the short and long terms.

  6. 6.

    The proposition based on our review is that organizations investing in a trusting relation with ERs, empowering these representatives in decision making, and introducing models of constructive controversy, will have more constructive conflict management, reach more integrative and innovative agreements, which results in long term effectiveness of the organization.

  7. 7.

    Investing in a culture of constructive controversy for industrial relations gives a foundation to manage crisis, and search for integrative potential even in threatening conditions. This requires the empowerment and inclusion of principal parties, in addition to agents (representatives).

  8. 8.

    Trust and constructive conflict management go hand in hand. Accepting the dual realities of trust and distrust, cooperation and competition offers the best base to develop long term constructive relations in organizations.