LeadershipACSALOGO.jpg
A publication of the Association of California School Administrators
A publication of the Association of California School Administrators

Interest-based bargaining offers a better way

The investment in time pays off in stronger relationships, more effective problem-solving and a healthier organizational culture

By Deborah L. Collins, Jennifer Edic Bryant, and Linda Harding | January | February 2025
Facebook_icon.pngX_Logo.pngLinkedIn_Icon.pngPinterest_icon.pngEmail_share_icon.png
“We may be angry and fight, we may feel kindly and want peace — it is all about the same. The world will be regenerated by the people who rise above both these passive ways and heroically seek, by whatever hardship, by whatever toil, the methods by which people can agree” (Mary Parker Follett, 1868-1933).
The above words, written by Mary Parker Follett more than 100 years ago in the 1920s, still hold true in 2025 in our world, our nation, our communities and our school districts. Fostering collaboration and seeking agreements that prioritize the interests of both parties in a negotiation are especially critical as school districts navigate the fiscal challenges they face in the 2024-25 school year. It is believed that when authentically implemented, interest-based bargaining (IBB) is the process that best addresses the needs and the pressures confronting school districts and the demands that are raised at the negotiations table.
The interest-based bargaining process is not new to school districts and their employees’ associations. In collaboration with their employees’ associations, many school districts in California began implementing the IBB process more than 30 years ago. The driving force to try a new approach to collective bargaining in most districts resulted from tensions and lack of trust beyond the negotiations table. Many school districts were led in their efforts to implement IBB by the services and training provided by the California Foundation for Improvement of Employer-Employee Relations (CFIER). CFIER was created by the California Legislature in 1991 and was a coalition of employee associations, school employer groups and neutral groups. Among the many stakeholder groups involved with the CFIER coalition were ACSA, CSBA, CSEA, CFT, CDE, SEIU and SEA (now SEAC). Through the training provided by CFIER, participants were introduced to the concepts developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Scott Brown as part of the Harvard Negotiations Project and presented in the national best-selling book “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” CFIER also acknowledged the pioneering work of Follet (quoted above), who first wrote about these concepts back in the 1920s. Follett is credited with coining the term “win-win,” often associated with the interest-based bargaining approach.
In today’s climate of division, lack of trust in institutions and organizations, and serious fiscal challenges, there is a better way. The time is here in 2025 for school districts to revisit the value of interest-based bargaining, a win-win process that fosters collaboration and prioritizes the interests of both parties in a negotiation. This article seeks to provide a refresher of the principles and the steps of the IBB process, as well as a discussion of the foundation of trust and the effective leadership that are required for a successful and authentic interest-based approach to negotiations. When implemented successfully, IBB contributes to a better way to work collaboratively to solve problems and to educate students in the best way possible.
Trust as a foundation for successful interest-based bargaining Research shows that leaders who look after the interests of their subordinates are more likely to create an environment where everyone engages positively with each other. The existence of trust is the source of successful collaboration among and between all groups. Simply put, “trust is defined as a willingness to be vulnerable to another party with the understanding that the other party will look out for one’s interests” (Hasel & Grover, 2016, p. 850).
In IBB, the rituals and the process will not be enough unless there is trust in believing what others say and being committed to continuing honest and direct conversations (Sheppard & Kessler, 2017). It is this foundation of trust that is requisite to building a collaborative team that is equipped to openly bargain and reach agreements.
Building and maintaining the collaborative team
Training: Once the association and management teams agree to utilize IBB in their negotiations sessions, all members need to be trained in the philosophical basis, as well as the intentionally delineated process. In addition to providing training for the bargaining team, it is also recommended that management and association leaders, as well as the superintendent, cabinet and the board of education, participate in the training. Keeping the district informed about how the IBB process works in negotiations will help mitigate questions about this potentially misunderstood method of negotiating. After the combined teams have engaged in IBB for a year, they require a refresher training for current team members, as well as new members who have joined the team. Building and maintaining the collaborative team could include other support, such as team-building activities at each negotiations session.
Team-building activities: Trust requires building positive relationships, and team-building activities contribute to the development and maintenance of these relationships. Some examples of team-building activities can include a daily check-in, question of the day and other activities designed to focus on getting to know the team members as individuals and discovering their similarities rather than their differences. For example, during each session, a participant or facilitator may introduce a question of the day for everyone on the team to answer. The questions can cover a range of lighthearted topics. The aim is to encourage team members to get to know each other better while ensuring the questions remain respectful and non-intrusive. As the team grows more comfortable, the topics can naturally evolve.
ADVERTISEMENT
The time spent learning and genuinely committing to this process is an investment that pays off in stronger relationships, effective problem-solving and a healthier organizational culture.
Equitable collaboration Commitment to process: The IBB method works best when there is a commitment to the process. In traditional bargaining, teams can get frustrated and may walk out of the room, whereas in IBB, the teams have a shared goal of keeping the conversation going and working through possible anger or frustration. If the process is followed, it provides the tools for dealing with any situation of disagreement or frustration. The teams just “keep talking” and use various IBB tools to work through being “stuck.” Once success is experienced in this method, confidence is developed in and among the participants, and they will be more willing to use it the next time there is conflict.
Working side-by-side: Working side-by-side means that the status of the employees remains neutral in the collaborative process. It is recommended that the team members distribute themselves throughout the participants in the room so that they alternate seating. This is literally side-by-side and differs significantly from the traditional model of sitting across the table from the other team.
Breaking down systemic inequities: Leaders need to commit themselves to trust and a “genuine desire to develop authentic relationships where leaders are looking after the best interests” of their subordinates (Shields, 2018, p. 61). This commitment has the potential of breaking down a system that is inherently unequal, as reflected by the “management/labor” configuration. Instead, IBB seeks to reconstruct a working relationship that acknowledges the strengths and skills of all employees, regardless of their employment classification. Leadership imperative
What skills are needed? The demeanor of the administrators at the negotiation table, particularly the human resources administrator, needs to reflect a high level of ethical responsibility, including: “respect, honesty, service, justice, and community building” (Northouse, 2016, p. 342). Further, leadership in an IBB environment will be respectful to subordinates and will allow them to be themselves, acknowledging their creative wants and desires. Respecting others not only confirms them as contributing and equal human beings but also gives them a sense of their individual worth and valued differences (Northouse, 2016).
Improving the district’s reputation: The organization that has a goal of supporting a positive and collaborative work environment among all employees will most likely develop a reputation of trust, which will contribute not only to the success at the negotiation table but also to the common good of the district and the community. In turn, the district may become a more desirable workplace to attract and retain well-qualified candidates for all positions and classifications.
Why IBB? It contributes to an organization’s overall culture of equitable collaboration and problem-solving. IBB can be a model for regularly conducting the daily business of an organization. A problem-solving culture embraces this as a way of doing business beyond the negotiations table and not just pulled out to use in negotiations when there is a problem (Sheppard & Kessler, 2017).
The basic principles for problem-solving, according to Sheppard & Kessler (2017) are:
  • Focus on the problems.
  • Understand and appreciate your counterpart’s political reality.
  • Ask yourselves: Is it good for kids?
Applying the basic problem-solving principles found in IBB will assist in solving the daily conflicts that arise.
It maintains positive working relationships. The basic elements of a working relationship, according to Fisher & Brown (1989):
Rationality — Balance emotions with reason. Understanding — Learn how they see things. Communication — Always consult before deciding; and listen. Reliability — Be wholly trustworthy but not wholly trusting; for e.g., improve trustworthiness by improving conduct in the following ways:
  • Be predictable.
  • Be clear.
  • Take promises seriously.
  • Be honest.
Persuasion, not coercion — Negotiate side-by-side. Acceptance — Deal seriously with those with whom we differ.
It contributes to the common good. Choosing IBB as the model for negotiations — as opposed to traditional bargaining — offers numerous benefits to the entire organization, such as fostering a positive environment, building trustful working relationships, providing a structured approach to address conflicts and solve problems and contributing to the overall well-being of the school community.

Comparing IBB to traditional bargaining When comparing IBB to traditional bargaining, it is clear the approaches differ significantly. In addition to the mindset one takes toward bargaining, the outcomes of IBB differ as well. Rather than approach bargaining with an adversarial stance where one seeks to defeat an opponent, IBB asks one to see how collaboration can lead to options and solutions that result in betterment for all.
One of the key differences between traditional bargaining and IBB is a focus on interests rather than positions. Interests are the underlying motivations, needs or desires we have. Interests are not mutually exclusive, which makes them quite different from positions. In traditional bargaining, positions become the predominant focus; these are our demands and stances around an issue. Positions are mutually exclusive, blocking our discovery of common interests and the ability to develop multiple options to address an issue. Interests, on the other hand, unlock possibilities that neither side would have thought about; multiple options that address all parties’ interests emerge. In traditional bargaining, positional thinking leads to arguments and attempts to persuade others to accept a position.
Power and compromise become influential in traditional bargaining, while IBB uses mutually agreed-upon standards to identify solutions. As settlements are made in traditional bargaining, at least one party inevitably feels as if they have “lost” while the other may feel as if they have “won” or worse, they too may feel as if the settlement is a loss. The win-lose mindset in traditional bargaining contributes to an ongoing cycle of one-upping and competition. On the other hand, IBB results in an “elegant” solution where both sides feel as if they have won when reaching an agreement because their interests are part of that solution. The solution is “elegant” in that it effectively addresses the issue and maintains positive relationships moving forward. The diagram below illustrates these differences between IBB and traditional bargaining.
What does IBB look like in practice?
Implementing IBB is grounded in shared principles, beliefs and a structured process that begins with a commitment from district leadership, including the board of education and the employee associations. All stakeholders must understand IBB and commit to learning and full faith implementation of IBB. The principles, beliefs and process described below draw on the foundations developed by Fisher, Ury and Patton in “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” and refined for use by the California Foundation for Improvement of Employer-Employee Relations (CFIER) and the School Employers Association of California (SEAC).
IBB principles:
  • Focus on issues, not people.
  • Focus on interests, not positions.
  • Creating options that satisfy both mutual and separate interests.
  • Evaluating opinions with agreed-upon standards rather than power.
IBB beliefs:
  • Collaborative problem-solving enhances our relationships, understanding and outcomes.
  • Both parties can win and help each other win.
  • Open discussion expands mutual interests and options.
  • Agreed-upon standards can replace power relative to solutions.
IBB training:
  • Exploring the principles and beliefs.
  • Learning the steps in the process that keep parties focused on the principles and beliefs.
  • Developing a commitment of stakeholders to the process.
The IBB process These process steps create a roadmap for negotiating, reducing apprehension about the unknown.
1. Clarify the issue and gather information: Team members tell the story, including history and experiences with the topic. All perspectives are shared so that everyone clearly understands the background of the issue.
2. Identify interests: Parties list their interests related to an issue, they answer the question “Why?” and identify those interests shared between the two teams.
3. Clarify the question: The teams identify the specific question they are trying to answer or the problem they want to solve.
4. Create options: The teams brainstorm options that could be possibilities for answering the clarifying question. No value is ascribed to options, and all participants are encouraged to create as many options as possible. Options are not agreements, only possibilities.
5. Narrow the options: Teams narrow the list by identifying which options best meet their interests and align to the agreed-upon standards.
6. Find the elegant solution: After narrowing the options, the team selects the best choice, given shared knowledge and understanding. Using consensus, the teams select the best option, the elegant solution where interests are met.
For IBB to be effective, all participants at a negotiations table must bring an attitude that values and nurtures openness to mutual information sharing and trust building. They must be willing to support the IBB efforts and the team through both good and challenging times. Once parties have been thoroughly trained in IBB, they are ready to implement it in their negotiations and witness its transforming impact on decision-making and relationships.
Because adhering to the steps of the IBB process is critical, teams often use a trained facilitator to guide them through negotiations. Facilitators support teams in three ways: a) support in effectively implementing the IBB process, keeping them focused on authentic implementation; b) provide a neutral participant who can contribute to shared understanding; and c) allow for ongoing learning/growth, especially for new users of IBB.
A final note about IBB beliefs, principles and process: Structure and steps alone will not take the teams to collaborative problem-solving. Every member of the negotiations team must work to build and maintain trust, the foundation of effective IBB.
Conclusion Ultimately, there is a better way to negotiate with bargaining units, and the better way is through interest-based bargaining. When asked, “Is IBB worth the time?” The answer is a definitive yes. The time spent learning and genuinely committing to this process is an investment that pays off in stronger relationships, effective problem-solving and a healthier organizational culture.
References CFIER (1998). Workshop Binder Materials. Sacramento, CA.
Fisher, R. & Brown, S. (1989). Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate. Penguin Books.
Hasel, M.C. & Grover, S.L. (2016). An integrative model of trust and leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Vol. 38(6), 849-867.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice, 7th Ed. Sage.
Sheppard, M. & Kessler, B. (2017). Win-win bargaining. Perspectives on Work, Vol. 21, 46-47.
Shields, C. M. (2018). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable and socially just change in an uncertain and complex world. Routledge.
Deborah L. Collins, Ed.D., is a retired human resources administrator, adjunct faculty member at Concordia University and Cal Poly Pomona, and IBB facilitator/trainer for School Employers Association of California (SEAC). Jennifer Edic Bryant, Ed.D., is a full-time education consultant, former district administrator, and currently serving as an IBB facilitator/trainer for SEAC. Linda Harding, Ph.D., is a retired human resources administrator, HR consultant, and IBB facilitator/trainer for SEAC.
ADVERTISEMENT