Abstract
Problem and purpose. Many school districts throughout California have embraced the use of nonadversarial approaches to collective bargaining as the answer to the problems and questions surrounding labor/management relations. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influence continued use of nonadversarial approaches, to examine the perceptions of key stakeholders regarding the factors as well as the relationships among them and other elements. Methodology. This was designed as an ex post facto, descriptive, correlational study. A five-part survey was developed that gathered both interval and ordinal data. Thirty-two districts were identified in the Tri-Counties area of southern California that used some form of nonadversarial approaches. A total of 123 questionnaires was distributed; 87 were returned, representing 71% of the sample. Findings. Key influencing factors included: (1) "knowledge about the process"; (2) "training"; (3) "selection of team members"; (4) "importance of the change process"; (5) "relationship among team members" and "between teachers organization and school board"; (6) "negotiating skill level"; (7) "effort put into the process"; (8) "communication"; and (9) "results achieved." Notable assisting factors included: "use of objective data," "level of commitment to the process," and "level of understanding." Notable hindering factors included "complexity of issues," "turnover in key leaders," and "use of power in negotiations." Significant differences were found between respondents "trained" or "not trained" regarding their perceptions of the factors. Differences were also noted between respondents "somewhat likely" and "very likely" to continue the use of the approaches. Relationships existed between "key influencing factors" and length of time using the approaches. Relationships were also noted between "content factors," "process factors," and "relationship factors." Conclusion. "Content factors," "process factors," and "relationship factors" are all very important, interrelated considerations in using nonadversarial approaches. Key stakeholders view the use of them similarly. Important relationships in districts that use the approaches tend to be positive. Generally, the process works well. Training makes a difference. Districts that use nonadversarial approaches in an effective manner will most likely continue with them. Recommendations. Recommendations from the study include: (1) teams should be carefully selected and trained in using the approaches; (2) teams should put forth "genuine" effort in using the process; (3) relationships should receive ongoing care; (4) communication should be a high priority; (5) constituent groups should be included in the process; (6) outside "help" should be sought when needed; and (7) successes should be celebrated.