Journal of Business Communication

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goering, E. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 4, 383-400 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/002194369703400404

Integration Versus Distribution in Contract Negotiations: An Interaction Analysis of Strategy Use

Elizabeth M. Goering

Indiana University Purdue University - Indianapolis

This study employed interaction analysis to examine the communicative behav ior displayed by management versus labor negotiators at various phases of the collective bargaining process. Nine hundred and nineteen messages uttered during contract negotiations between two bargaining teams (teachers and administrators) were coded using Putnam and Jones's (1982) revision of Walcott and Hopmann's Bargaining Process Analysis (BPA II). Results indicate that, contrary to the first hypothesis, administration and teacher negotiators were surprisingly similar in the communicative bargaining behaviors exhibited. As predicted, however, communication strategies were found to be different at the various phases of negotiations, with earlier stages being more distributive and later phases being more integrative. Finally, the results suggest that in interac tion with phase, strategy use varies by side. Specifically, labor uses more inte grative and defensive strategies early in the negotiations; while management is more apt to employ offensive strategies. In the middle of the negotiations, labor uses more integrative messages and more offensive tactics; while management tends to rely more heavily on defensive strategies. In the final phase, the differences between management and labor in terms of strategy use even out, with both sides being equally likely to use any of the three message tactics.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceHome page
A. Mintu-Wimsatt and J. L. Graham
Testing a Negotiation Model on Canadian Anglophone and Mexican Exporters
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, July 1, 2004; 32(3): 345 - 356.
[Abstract] [PDF]