INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U niversity M icrofilm s International A Bell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R o a d . Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U SA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0 O rder N u m b er 9129 5 0 0 M ediation of teacher contract disputes in M ichigan public school districts: An initial study contrasting p articip an t beliefs Spencer, Robert Douglas, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1991 Copyright © 1991 by Spencer, R ob ert D ouglas. A ll rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 MEDIATION OF TEACHER CONTRACT DISPUTES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS: AN INITIAL STUDY CONTRASTING PARTICIPANT BELIEFS By Ro b er t Douglas S p en ce r A DISSERTATION S u b m it te d t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r th e degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1991 ABSTRACT MEDIATION OF TEACHER CONTRACT DISPUTES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS: AN INITIAL STUDY CONTRASTING PARTICIPANT BELIEFS By Ro b er t Douglas S p e n c e r The purpose of th is individuals representing mediation, m ediators, study was to identify beliefs t e a c h e r u n i o n s and sch ool t h e m s e l v e s and ea ch o t h e r . held d istricts This by abo ut inform ation was c o n t r a s t e d and used t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t e f f e c t i v e n e s s b o th mediation about behaviors and m ediators. of individuals A dditionally, representing p articipant the of beliefs disputing parties were c o n t r a s t e d and s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were d i s c u s s e d . Three h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d : H y p o t h e s i s 1 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r uni o n and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n in r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s . H y p o t h e s i s 2 : Th ere a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r uni o n and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m ediator b ehaviors in r e s o lv i n g c o n t ra c tu a l disputes. H y p o t h e s i s 3 : Th ere a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r u n i o n and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e two groups. T ea ch er union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s were i d e n t i f i e d ea ch Michigan K-12 public school d istrict th at used from mediation Ro b er t Douglas S p e n c e r between J u n e 1, 1986, and J u n e 30, 1989. In a l l , from 79 d i s t r i c t s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e s am pl e. was developed, field tested, and mailed to 158 i n d i v i d u a l s A survey instrum ent them. Re sp on se s to q u e s t i o n n a i r e it em s were used i n t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s e s . Major f i n d i n g s were: 1. N e i t h e r t e a c h e r uni o n n o r sch ool d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s b e l i e v e d t h a t e i t h e r th e process o f mediation o r th e r e s u l t s o f m ediation are e f f e c t i v e , n o r d i d t h e y b e l i e v e them t o be i n e f f e c t i v e . 2. Teacher union and school d istrict leaders mediator behaviors r e la te d to solving co n tractu al believed disputes that are, in general, e ffe c tiv e . 3. related T ea ch er union l e a d e r s ’ b e l i e f s behaviors differed sig n ifican tly about t h e i r m e d iatio n from t h o s e of school d i s t r i c t leaders. 4. School district leaders’ beliefs about th eir mediation- r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h o s e o f t e a c h e r union leaders. C o p y r i g h t by ROBERT DOUGLAS SPENCER 1991 T hi s provided classes work is continual dedicated to the enc our ag em ent members and and w r i t i n g my d i s s e r t a t i o n . of support So, my f a m i l y . while and Matthew, and t o my b e s t f r i e n d and l i f e please know t h a t love, patience, and was t o my c h i l d r e n , M olly, your I They taking Andrew, partner, understanding Jill, w hile I co m ple te d t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l always be a p p r e c i a t e d . And l a s t , t o my p a r e n t s , Wendell and C a t h e r i n e Spencer, who i n s t i l l e d in me a r e s p e c t f o r l e a r n i n g and t h e t e n a c i t y t o i n i t i a t e , o r g a n i z e , and c o m pl et e t h i s r e s e a r c h . I d e d i c a t e t h i s work t o you. Thank you f o r b e i n g t h e r e . v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS S u p p o r t and enco ur ag em ent f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s were r e c e i v e d from many i n d i v i d u a l s . In p a r t i c u l a r , research I would l i k e t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e cha ir ma n o f my d i s s e r t a t i o n co m m it te e, Dr. Samuel Moore I I . encour ag eme nt during my y e a r s His s t e a d y opti mis m and c o n t i n u a l as a graduate student S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y p r o v i d e d me w i t h a c o n t i n u a l at Michigan source o f energy fo r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f my d o c t o r a t e d e g r e e . A dditionally, individuals C harles I would l i k e t o acknowledge t h e h e l p o f t h e o t h e r on my d i s s e r t a t i o n Blackman, and D r . co m mi tt ee: D aniel Dr. K ruger. s u g g e s t i o n s p r o v i d e d me w i t h v a l u a b l e g u i d a n c e . vi Jan T heir Alleman, Dr. constructive TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................................................................... x Chapter I. II. III. SETTING OF THE PROBLEM.................................................................. 1 Introduction .................................................................................... S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Problem ........................................................ Pur pos e .................................................................................................. R es ear ch Q u e s t i o n s ...................................................................... H yp oth es es ......................................................................................... Assumptions ......................................................................................... L i m i t a t i o n s and D e l i m i t a t i o n s ............................................... L i m i t a t i o n s .................................................................................... D e l i m i t a t i o n s ............................................................................... D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ...................................................................... Summary o f P r o c e d u r e s U s e d .................................................... C o l l e c t i o n o f D a t a .................................................................. A n a l y s i s o f Data ...................................................................... O v e r v i e w ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 10 10 11 12 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................... 13 Introduction .................................................................................... H i s t o r i c a l Background o f M e d ia t io n ................................. P u r po se s o f M e d ia t io n .................................................................. R oles o f M e d i a t o r s ...................................................................... The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f M ed ia t io n .......................................... The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f M e d i a t o r s .......................................... Summary .................................................................................................. 13 14 18 20 27 29 30 DESIGN OF THE STUDY........................................................................... 33 Introduction .................................................................................... R es ear ch Q u e s t i o n s ...................................................................... H y p o t h e s e s ......................................................................................... The P o p u l a t i o n and S a m p l e ........................................................ I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ............................................................................... Development o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ................................. V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y .................................................... The F in a l V e r s io n o f t h e MBDQ.......................................... 33 33 34 34 37 37 41 42 v ii Page IV. V. VI. D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n P r o c e d u r e s .................................................... D a t a - A n a l y s i s Methods .................................................................. Determination of E ffec tiv en e ss ...................................... S u m m a r y ................................................................................................... 43 46 48 51 ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...................................................................... 52 Introduction .................................................................................... Demographic and Background I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e R e s p o n d e n t s .................................................................................... R e s u l t s o f H y p o t h e s i s T e s t i n g ............................................... Hypothesis 1 H y p o t h e s i s 2 ................................................................................ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ................................................................................ A n a l y s i s o f Re sponses t o Open-Ended Q u e s t i o n . . . T e a c h e r Union L e a d e r s ’ Responses ................................. School D i s t r i c t L e a d e r s ’ Res ponses..... ............................ S u m m a r y .................................................................................................. 52 52 72 72 78 85 90 90 92 94 THE RESEARCHER.................................................................................... 95 Introduction .................................................................................... The Background o f t h e R e s e a r c h e r ...................................... 95 95 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS......................................................................................... 99 Introduction .................................................................................... S u m m a r y .................................................................................................. P u r p o s e .............................................................................................. The P o p u l a t i o n and S a m p l e .................................................... M e t h o d o l o g y .................................................................................... Demographic Data and Background I n f o r m a t i o n . . . F i n d i n g s R e l a t e d t o t h e R es ear ch Q u e s t i o n s and H y p o t h e s e s .................................................................................... A d d i t i o n a l F i n d i n g s .................................................................. C o n c l u s i o n s ......................................................................................... Recommendations ............................................................................... Recommendations f o r A p p l i c a t i o n ...................................... Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r R es ear ch ........................ R e f l e c t i o n s ......................................................................................... 99 99 100 100 101 102 107 120 120 123 124 125 127 APPENDICES A. MEDIATION BELIEF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE B. MICHIGAN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT MEDIATED TEACHER UNI0N-SCH00L BOARD CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES BETWEEN JULY 1, 1986, AND JUNE 30, 1989 viii ................... . 131 138 Page C. CORRESPONDENCE..................................................................................... 140 D. WILCOXON MATCHED-PAIRS RANKED-SIGN TEST ....................... 148 E. UNSOLICITED COMMENTS ....................................................................... 150 F. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT MBDQ RESPONDENTS......................................................................................... 151 ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT MBDQ RESPONDENTS......................................................................................... 152 G. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ ix 153 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Page Major F u n c t i o n s and R o l e s / R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f M e d i a t o r s .............................................................................................. 23 2.2 M ediator S t r a t e g i e s ............................................................................ 26 2.3 Seven P a r a m e t e r s o f M e d i a t o r E f f e c t i v e n e s s ......................... 31 3.1 Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s C o n t a c t e d and Actual Response . 45 4.1 D istribution o f Res pon den ts by Gender ................................. 53 4.2 D istribution o f Res po nd en ts by Age ............................ 4.3 D istribution o f Res po nde nt s by School D i s t r i c t Type 4.4 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respon den ts by Years o f Teach ing E x p e r i e n c e ............................................................................................. 56 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Res po nde nt s by Years o f A d m i n i s t r a ­ t i v e E x p e r i e n c e ............................................................................... 57 4.6 D istribution by Degree S t a t u s ................... 58 4.7 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respo nde nts by E x p e r i e n c e as a T e a c h e r Union N e g o t i a t o r ................................................................ 59 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Res po nde nt s by N e g o t i a t i n g E x p e r i ­ en c e as a School D i s t r i c t Leader ............................................ 61 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Res po nde nt s by E x p e r i e n c e as a S po ke s pe rs on o f Te a c h e r Union C o n t r a c t N e g o t i a t i o n Teams ........................................................................... 62 4 . 1 0 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respo nde nts by E x p e r i e n c e as S p o ke s pe rs o n o f t h e School D i s t r i c t C o n t r a c t N e g o t i a t i o n T e a m ............................................................................... 63 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.11 o f Res pon den ts . . . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Res pon den ts by E x p e r i e n c e as a T e a c h e r Union N e g o t i a t o r in M e d i a t i n g C o n t r a c t D i s p u t e s .................................................................................................. x 54 . 55 64 Page 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 F.l G.l D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respon den ts by E x p e r i e n c e a s a School D i s t r i c t N e g o t i a t o r i n M e d ia t in g C o n t r a c t D i s p u t e s ........................................................................... 65 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Res pon den ts by P a r t y R e q u e s t i n g M e d i a t i o n .............................................................................................. 66 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respo nde nts by t h e Number o f N e g o t i a t i n g S e s s i o n s B ef o r e M e d i a t i o n ............................ 67 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respon den ts by t h e Number o f U nr es olv ed T e a c h e r Union I s s u e s Th at Were Brought t o M e d ia t io n ...................................................................... 68 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Re sp on den ts by t h e Number o f U nr es olv ed Board o f E d u c a ti o n I s s u e s That Were Brought t o M e d ia t io n ........................................................ 69 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respon den ts by t h e Number o f M ed ia t io n S e s s i o n s Held B ef o r e S e t t l e m e n t o f Contractual Disputes ............................................................. 71 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respo nde nts by S t r i k e O c c u r r e n c e B ef o r e S e t t l e m e n t o f C o n t r a c t u a l D i s p u t e ......................... 72 C o n t r a s t i n g o f Mean MBDQ Responses Con cer ni ng B e l i e f s About t h e P r o c e s s o f M ed ia t io n .............................. 73 C o n t r a s t i n g o f Mean MBDQ Responses Concern ing B e l i e f s About t h e R e s u l t s o f M ed ia t io n .............................. 74 C o n t r a s t i n g o f Mean MBDQ Responses Con cer ni ng B e l i e f s About M e d i a t o r s ............................................................. 79 C o n t r a s t i n g o f Mean MBDQ Responses Concern ing B e l i e f s About T ea ch er Union Le ad er M e d i a t i o n R e l a t e d B e h a v i o r s ................................................... 86 C o n t r a s t i n g o f Mean MBDQ Responses Concern ing B e l i e f s About School D i s t r i c t Le ad er M e d i a t i o n R e l a t e d B e h a v i o r s ........................................................................... 88 Summary o f Demographic I n f o r m a t i o n About MBDQ R e s p o n d e n t s ......................................................................................... 151 A d d i t i o n a l Demographic I n f o r m a t i o n About MBDQ R e s p o n d e n t s ......................................................................................... 152 xi CHAPTER I SETTING OF THE PROBLEM Introduction C o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g has become t h e most common p r o c e d u r e f o r establishing term s and c o n d i t i o n s p u b l i c - s e c t o r employees. of Columbia have of employment for L e g i s l a t u r e s i n 40 s t a t e s and t h e D i s t r i c t enacted com prehensive co llectiv e-b arg ain in g s t a t u t e s a p p l y i n g t o p u b l i c employees (Ros s, 19 8 3) . are intended to unionized promote uninterrupted These s t a t u t e s g ov ern me n tal services by encouraging la b o r peace. Michigan p u b l i c school t e a c h e r s have had t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o form u n io n s and b a r g a i n collectively since 1965. This authority r e s u l t e d from l e g i s l a t i v e en ac tm en t o f P u b l i c Act 379, t h e Michigan P u b l i c Employment R e l a t i o n s Act ( P u b l i c and Local A c t s . 1 96 5 ) . The agency the responsible Michigan for adm inistering Employment R e l a t i o n s th is Commission, leg islatio n commonly r e f e r r e d is to as definition of MERC, a d i v i s i o n o f t h e Michigan Department o f Labor. An i m p o r t a n t mechanisms resolved, portion by w h i c h assuming r e s o l v i n g them. of P u b l i c Act 379 p u b lic-secto r the parties is bargaining themselves are the disputes not may be successful in Each y e a r s i n c e P u b l i c Act 379 was e n a c t e d , t e a c h e r union and p u b l i c school d istrict leaders 1 have used t h e mechanisms 2 f o r r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e s p r o v i d e d un d er t h e Act t h r o u g h t h e services of MERC. effectiveness in Mediation resolving is one of contractual these mechanisms. disputes Its was the primary about the beliefs focus of t h i s re s e a rc h . S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Problem Currently, held by there M ichigan concerning the is a lack of teach er union effectiveness inform ation and school o f mediation d is p u te s , the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f m ediators, in d istrict settling lead ers contractual and t h e m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o such d i s p u t e s . T h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o i d e n t i f y and c o n t r a s t t h e b e l i e f s h e l d by t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s w i t h t h o s e h e l d by school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s . It i s r e l a t i v e l y e a s y t o d e s c r i b e t h e ways i n which m e d i a t i o n is designed to assess and the function. effect outcomes It is o f mediation (Lewin, much more d i f f i c u l t , however, on c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g Fevilie, & Kochan, 19 81 ). to processes Lewin et al. explained: Much o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y p ro bl em s : t h e problem o f d a t a , and t h e problem o f v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e (p. 231) Typically, settling mediation contractual is c a n be t r a c e d t o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l obtaining the re le v a n t operational c o n tro llin g the m ultitude o f other b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s e s and out comes, the disputes illeg ality M e d ia t io n the probably re s o lu tio n procedure. procedure in Michigan p u b l i c This is because o f th e is in itial most and least be sch oo l of teacher s trik e s used to used in d istricts. in t h e s t a t e . studied dispute- 3 The u s a g e r a t e an d t h e relativ e lack of system atic in v e stig a tio n are not s u rp ris in g , . . . considering t h a t: (1) m ediation is th e l e a s t v i s i b l e o f a l l th e v a rio u s [ d is p u te r e s o l u t i o n ] p r o c e d u r e s , w i t h t h e m e d i a t o r working p r i v a t e l y and i n f o r m a l l y t o a s s i s t t h e p a r t i e s i n r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t; (2) i t s b e h i n d - t h e - s c e n e n a t u r e makes i t v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r r e s e a r c h e r s t o o b t a i n p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ; and (3) m e d i a t o r s seem t o be c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e i r u n s t r u c t u r e d c r a f t i s more " a r t " t h a n " s c i e n c e " and hence a r e n o t v e r y amenable t o s y s t e m a t i c i n q u i r y and r e s u l t a n t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . (Lewin e t a l . , 1981, p. 235) Thus, a need e x i s t s concerning parties m ediation, for relevant data m ediators, to m ediation. and These d a t a regarding individuals can be used user beliefs representing by members of the the Michigan Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission and by Michigan S e n a t e and House Labor Committee leg islatio n . Further, Michigan E d u c a ti o n members in professional A ssociation School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , the as well d ev el op m en t education and the of policy groups Michigan such and as A ssociation the of as s c h o o l s o f e d u c a t i o n , can use t h e fin d in g s of t h i s study to stre n g th e n understanding about m ediation, m ediators, and related behaviors of participants in mediation. Potentially, increased understanding of m e d ia tio n - re la te d behaviors by in persons leadership lead ersh ip -train in g programs positio ns w ill for involved those resu lt in in improved future public- secto r contract negotiations. Purpose The f o c u s o f t h i s s t u d y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e b e l i e f s h e l d by Michigan t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s a b o u t m e d i a t i o n , m e d i a t o r s , and each o t h e r . were to investigate The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s p u r p o s e s in t h i s beliefs of concerning m e d iators, m ediation, members of the research study sample and m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s o f 4 in d iv id u a ls re p re s e n tin g the p a r t i e s during m ediation. th is inform ation d istrict about lead ers was the beliefs contrasted of teacher for these In a d d i t i o n , un io n tw o and school groups, and c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n and m e d i a t o r s were drawn. Last, behaviors of participants’ teach er beliefs union and about school the m ediation-related d istrict leaders i d e n t i f i e d , c o n t r a s t e d , and used t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s . were P articipants’ b e l i e f s were i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n e d for th is study, called the M ediation B elief D escrip tio n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (MBDQ). Res ear ch Q u e s t i o n s The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e p r e s e n t t h e m a jo r a r e a s of in te r e s t in t h i s r e s e a r c h . 1. leaders What a r e t h e b e l i e f s concerning the o f t e a c h e r un io n and sc ho ol effectiveness of mediation in district resolving contractual disputes? 2. leaders What a r e t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r un io n and scho ol concerning the effectiv en ess of m ediator district behaviors in resolving contractual disputes? 3. beliefs Do t e a c h e r union and sch oo l concerning the d istrict m ediation-related r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e two g r ou ps ? leaders behaviors of have s i m i l a r individuals 5 Hy po the se s The f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s , using data gathered s t a t e d in t h e n u l l form, were t e s t e d through th e q u e s ti o n n a ir e . Hypothesis 1 ; T he r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r uni o n and sch oo l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d ia ti o n in r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t u a l disputes. H ypothesis 2 : Th ere a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and scho ol d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g the e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f m ediator behaviors in resolving contractual d isp u tes. Hypothesis 3 ; Th ere a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r uni o n and sch oo l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e two groups. In a l l analyses, for s ta t is tic a l the .05 a l p h a l e v e l was used a s t h e c r i t e r i o n significance. Assumptions In conducting this study, the researcher made t h e following assumptions: 1. Each p a r t i c i p a n t in t h e r e s e a r c h had p e r s o n a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d m e d i a t i o n w h i l e employed in a Michigan p u b l i c sch ool d istrict from J u n e 1986 t h r o u g h Ju ne 1989. 2. P articipants were e i t h e r teacher union leaders or school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s who were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s and c o n c e r n s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e g ro up s a t t h e b a r g a i n i n g t a b l e . 3. P articipants provided accurate r e s p o n d i n g t o items on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . and honest inform ation in 6 4. Participants co llectiv ely , in the sin cerely mediation d esired to process, resolve individually th eir and contractual d i s p u t e s w i t h o u t an e s c a l a t i o n i n t h e d i s p u t e s . 5. A positive response to a survey-instrum ent statem ent i n d i c a t e d a b e l i e f in t h e t r u t h o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t and a b e l i e f t h a t the converse o f th e s t a t e m e n t was u n t r u e . In a s i m i l a r vein, a n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e t o a s u r v e y - i n s t r u m e n t i t e m i n d i c a t e d a b e l i e f in t h e l a c k o f t r u t h o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t and a b e l i e f in t h e t r u t h o f t h e converse of the statem ent. Thus, it was assumed th at, when a p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e gr oup mean r e s p o n s e r e s u l t e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r MBDQ s t a t e m e n t , it was n o t possible for the gr oup to be neutral concerning b e l i e f s about th e converse o f t h a t state m e n t. 6. The d a t a c o l l e c t e d and s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s used were n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e e x i s t e n c e o f u n p a i r e d r e s p o n d e n t s from p a r t i c i p a t i n g sch ool s y s t e m s . 7. unio n S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e b e l i e f s h e l d by t e a c h e r and contrasted school group district mean leaders responses to existed specific when differences MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s in were o u t s i d e t h e c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l e s t a b l i s h e d by s e t t i n g a l p h a = .05 . L i m i t a t i o n s and D e l i m i t a t i o n s Lim itations 1. In r e s p o n d i n g t o it em s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , an i n d i v i d u a l might have c o n c e a l e d h i s / h e r r e a l b e l i e f s , d e s p i t e t h e as s u m p ti o n t o the contrary. 7 2. survey An i n d i v i d u a l items. Thus, mi gh t have his/her been answers ambivalent to those about items specific would not r e f l e c t t h a t a m b iv a le n c e . 3. beliefs An i n d i v i d u a l mi gh t n o t have been a b l e t o recall specific a b o u t t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s . h is/h er responses would be based on in accu rate Thus, memories or fantasies. 4. greatly The amou nt o f m e d i a t i o n among r e s p o n d e n t s . experience could have v aried T h i s v a r i a n c e i n e x p e r i e n c e m i g h t have influenced p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ responses to q u e s tio n n a ire items. 5. Survey r e s p o n d e n t s might have g iv e n i n a c c u r a t e r e s p o n s e s t o s u r v e y q u e s t i o n s , n o t w an ti n g t o r e v e a l t h e i r t r u e b e l i e f s . D elim itations 1. T h i s s t u d y was l i m i t e d to Michigan public school union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s who had p e r s o n a l l y been teacher involved in t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s between J une 1986 and J u n e 1989. 2. On ly mediation of ind iv id u als a Michigan d i s p u t e between J u n e 1, the study. M ed ia t io n who teacher 1986, p ersonally p articip ated union-school and June 30, experience before d istrict 1989, J un e in contractual were i n c l u d e d 1, the 1986, did in not e x c l u d e an i n d i v i d u a l from t h e s t u d y as long as h e / s h e a l s o had such e x p e r i e n c e between Ju n e 1, 1986, and J un e 30, 1989. No a t t e m p t was made t o i d e n t i f y and s u r v e y i n d i v i d u a l s whose m e d i a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e occurred after Ju n e 30, 1989. The r e s e a r c h e r l o n g e r t h e ti m e between a p e r s o n ’ s p a r t i c i p a t i n g believed that the in m e d i a t i o n and 8 responding to the survey, the more suspect would be h is/h er responses. Thus, no one whose m e d i a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e o c c u r r e d s o l e l y b e f o r e J u n e 1, 1986, was i n c l u d e d in t h e s u r v e y samp le. 3. Individuals involved in mediation in the private sector were n o t i n c l u d e d in t h i s r e s e a r c h . 4. O t h e r p u b l i c sch oo l employee union l e a d e r s , in c u s t o d i a l , food s e r v i c e , tran sp o rtatio n , such as t h o s e and s e c r e t a r i a l unions, were n o t i n c l u d e d in t h e s t u d y . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The f o l l o w i n g te rm s are d efin e d in th e c o n te x t i n which t h e y a r e used in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . A ttitudinal e n ts ’ beliefs D escription scale. abo ut An i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t a particular Q uestionnaire subject. (MBDQ) was The d ev el o p ed respond­ M e d ia t io n for this B elief study to o b t a i n r e s p o n d e n t s ’ b e l i e f s a b ou t m e d i a t i o n o f c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s ; i t i s c o n s i d e r e d an a t t i t u d i n a l s c a l e . Ba r g a i n i n g d i s p u t e . negotiation process, A d i s a g r e e m e n t a r i s i n g from t h e c o n t r a c t - i n which n e i t h e r p a r t y a g r e e s w i t h t h e o t h e r ’ s b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n on c e r t a i n i s s u e s b e i n g n e g o t i a t e d . B eljef. A c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e t r u t h o f s o m e t h in g . Respondents’ b e l i e f s a f f e c t t h e way t h e y answer s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s , and t h e s e b e l i e f s a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e , which i s an " e v a l u a t i o n ; e x t e n t o f l i k i n g o r d i s l i k i n g ; p o s itiv e or negative feeling; 1986, the and v a l u i n g o r d i s v a l u i n g " purposes of th is research, (M ueller, respondents’ p. 215). b eliefs For about 9 questionnaire items were interpreted as a t t i t u d e to w ar d t h e c o n t e n t o f t h o s e reflected a positive b elief were an item s. indication Thus, in terp rete d of their responses as that indicating a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to w ar d t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t a t e m e n t , and v i c e v e r s a . Contract. of a teach ers’ A w r i t t e n document approv ed by t h e e x e c u t i v e board union an d a M ichigan public school e d u c a t i o n , which d e l i n e a t e s t h e wages, h o u r s , t e r m s , board of and c o n d i t i o n s o f employment o f t e a c h e r union members. Dispute r e s o l u t i o n . A p r o c e s s used by t h e p a r t i e s t o a t e a c h e r c o n tra c t to re so lv e b a r g a in in g -ta b le d isag ree m en ts, u ltim ately r e s u l t i n g in an ag ree me nt approv ed by bo th p a r t i e s . E ffectiv en ess. The e x t e n t to which d e l i b e r a t e l y a c t i o n s a n d / o r p r o c e s s e s a r e b e l i e v e d by an i n d i v i d u a l planned o r group of in d iv id u a ls to bring about d e s ire d r e s u l t s . M ediation. un io n and A p r o c e s s in which a n e u t r a l t h i r d p a r t y h e l p s t h e management negotiators resolve bargaining disputes by r e a c h i n g a v o l u n t a r y c o n t r a c t u a l ag ree me nt (Kochan, 19 80 ). Expenses for unit using the m ediation process are paid for who serves by a of gov ern me nt. M ediator. A go ver nm en tal employee as a neutral t h i r d p a r t y t o a b a r g a i n i n g d i s p u t e , whose p r e s e n c e i s r e q u e s t e d by one o r both o f t h e d i s p u t i n g resolution. parties in an a t t e m p t to help reach 10 Public school. tu itio n -free A publicly education fund ed institution w ithout r e s t r i c t i o n s to that all provides school-age children. Rejection of estab lish ed as the null the c rite rio n for s ig n ific a n t differences rejection of a null existence of Class hypothesis. I, Class alpha le v el determ ining in r e s p o n s e s hypothesis The .05 statistic ally t o MBDQ s u r v e y resulted I I , and in the Class III was items. Thus, rejection errors of that the might e x i s t to the e x ten t p o s sib le a t t h i s confidence le v e l . School d i s t r i c t l e a d e r . sch oo l d istrict who i s An o f f i c i a l responsible for i n a Michigan K-12 p u b l i c representing e d u c a tio n in t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s the bo ar d of and 1 a b o r - r e l a t i o n s activ ities. S ignificant differences estab lish ed differences leaders. as in the in b e l i e f s . c r ite r io n for beliefs held statistic ally by t e a c h e r When used in t h i s document, The .05 a l p h a l e v e l un ion and was sig n ifican t school district t h e word " s i g n i f i c a n t " means t h a t t h i s c r i t e r i o n has been met. Te a c h e r union l e a d e r . The p r e s i d e n t o r n e g o t i a t o r o f a t e a c h e r union whose members a r e employees o f a Michigan K-12 p u b l i c school district. Summary o f P r o c e d u r e s Used C o l l e c t i o n o f Data A survey instrum ent, the M ediation B elief D escription Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , was d e v e l o p e d w i t h t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f p e r s o n s w ith 11 knowledge and experience r e s o l u t i o n i n M ichi gan. in the field of public-sector dispute A copy o f t h i s s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t was m a il e d t o 158 i n d i v i d u a l s , 79 t e a c h e r uni o n l e a d e r s and 79 sc ho ol d i s t r i c t leaders, representing 79 Michigan p u b l i c sch ool d istricts. These i n d i v i d u a l s had been i d e n t i f i e d as ha vi ng had d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for and in v o l v e m e n t teacher 1986, union-school and J u n e 30, c o m p le te the survey in the mediation d istrict 1989. of contractual return the public dispute Each o f t h e s e and t o a sch oo l between individuals com pl et e d was sy ste m June 1, as k ed to instrum ent in an envelope provided. In the instructions, answers to statem ents in beliefs about m ediation, teacher union leaders, each respondent five areas: beliefs and as k ed demographic a b ou t beliefs was m ediators, about school op en- end ed q u e s t i o n t h e y were a l s o asked t o to provide inform ation, b eliefs abo ut leaders. indicate In an any prob lems t h a t might have e x i s t e d i n s c h e d u l i n g m e d i a t i o n s e s s i o n s . fin al v s i s o f Dat.a Information rece iv ed from r e t u r n e d s u r v e y s was h an d- co de d and t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o com puter memory a t t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Computer Center. The analysis of these data was based on the r e s p o n s e s o f t e a c h e r u ni o n and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s t o t h e same survey questions. The mean responses of these two groups were c a l c u l a t e d and p u t i n t o t a b u l a r form in o r d e r t o c o n t r a s t them more readily. 12 A Wilcoxon procedure, was m atched-pairs co m p le te d ranked-sign using the test, a S tatistical nonparam etric Package for the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , v e r s i o n X. T h i s was done t o i d e n t i f y s i m i l a r i t i e s and s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in s p e c i f i c survey s ta te m e n ts. I d e n t i f i e d s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s the respondents’ b e lie f s regarding were t h e n used t o f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t r e s p o n d e n t b e l i e f s as th e s e conclu sio n s p e r ta in e d to th e purposes o f th e r e s e a r c h . Overview C h a p t e r I i n c l u d e d an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e s t u d y , a s t a t e m e n t o f the problem questions and t h e and delim itations, researcher’s hypotheses, purpose and d e f i n i t i o n s o f key t e r m s . relevant methodology conducting used in to the the are described, a n aly sis techniques are explained. p r e s e n t e d in C h a p t e r IV. p r o v i d e d in C h a p t e r V. the ma jor findings, study. research p o p u l a t i o n and sample a r e d i s c u s s e d , questionnaire the assum ptions, r e v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e the in study, research lim itatio n s and Chapter II c o n tain s a In C h a p t e r is III, the described. The deve lo pm ent and v a l i d a t i o n and data-collection and of data- Results of th e data a n aly sis are A b r ie f d e scrip tio n of the research e r is A summary o f t h e s t u d y , c o n c l u s i o n s ba se d on recommendations for application r e s e a r c h , and r e f l e c t i o n s a r e found in C h a p t e r VI. and further CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Lewin the most glamorous a r e n a f o r a n a l y s i s i n p u b l i c - s e c t o r l a b o r r e l a t i o n s . Th is is so, et they al. said, (1981) b ec a u se negotiation disputes parties and the ma n ag em e n t indicated it is that in mediation the resolution o r im pa sse s t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l public is greatest relatio n sh ip s most is and t h e apparent. of effect v isib ility In contract- larg e on t h e of u n io n - part, th is p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t and v i s i b i l i t y stem from t h e s t r i k e p r o h i b i t i o n and concom itant experim entation w ith procedural altern ativ es for reaching s e ttle m e n ts . Simkin (1986) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t , crucial part of the only lim it e d e f f o r t s fairly national labor although la b o r m ediation policy, researchers have to understand or analyze the process. is a made It is s im p l e t o d e s c r i b e how m e d i a t i o n mechanisms a r e d e s i g n e d t o function. However, it is more d i f f i c u l t to assess the effect m e d i a t i o n on t h e u l t i m a t e s e t t l e m e n t o f a b a r g a i n i n g im p a s se . d i f f i c u l t y e x i s t s b ec a u se i t can and do a f f e c t Thi s i s ha rd t o o b t a i n r e l e v a n t o p e r a t i o n a l d ata concerning th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m ediation, variables of and numerous o t h e r t h e outcomes o f c o l l e c t i v e (Lewin e t a l . , 1981). 13 bargaining 14 The r e v i e w o f l i t e r a t u r e i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o f i v e m a j o r s e c t i o n s . The e v o l u t i o n o f m e d i a t i o n as a d i s p u t e - r e s o l u t i o n t e c h n i q u e used in Michigan K-12 sectio n . The public school second and syst em s th ird is discussed sectio n s in contain a the first review of l i t e r a t u r e on t h e p u r p os e o f m e d i a t i o n and t h e r o l e s o f m e d i a t o r s , respectively. R es e a r c h on the effectiveness of mediators and em ployees and m e d i a t i o n i s r ev ie we d i n t h e f i n a l two s e c t i o n s . H i s t o r i c a l Background o f M ed ia ti on The concept of m ediating disputes between em plo yer s was f i r s t d e a l t w i t h in Michigan law b e f o r e t h e t u r n the labor century. stove, In and legislation coal response to in d u stries, the in M ichigan the construction, le g islatu re passed in t h e 1890s c r e a t i n g a m e d i a t i o n and a r b i t r a t i o n (Brey, 19 87 ). The p u r p o s e o f t h i s m e d i a t i n g employment d i s p u t e s . disbanded strife shortly after from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . its board board was t o min imi ze s t r i f e Thi s bo ar d was i n e f f e c t i v e establishm ent due to of lack of by and was f u n d in g The Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e e s t a b l i s h e d a second m e d i a t i o n board in 1911, b u t f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s i t , t o o , was s h o r t ­ l i v e d (Br ey, 1987). In 1935, t h e U n ite d S t a t e s Congress e n a c t e d t h e N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Act ( P u b l i c Law 198 o f 1935 ), a l s o known as t h e Wagner Act ( Federal S tatu tes at Large. 1935). This leg islatio n c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s t o p r i v a t e - s e c t o r em p lo y ees . was the escalation mass in organization the number o f of p riv ate-secto r strike th reats A result w orkers and a c t u a l gave and an strikes by 15 u n io n s and t h e i r members. The p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Wagner Act d i d n o t e x t e n d t o p u b l i c - s e c t o r em plo yee s. In 1939, t h e Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d P u b l i c Act 179, which created a new M e d ia t io n Agency (Phillips statu te reflected belief leg islato rs’ & S ta t h a m , that, to 19 87 ). serve the Th is public i n t e r e s t , a mechanism was needed t o e x p e d i t e t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f l a b o r disputes th a t p erio d ically arose. Through t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , a s t a f f o f p r o f e s s i o n a l m e d i a t o r s was e s t a b l i s h e d whose t a s k was t o promote l a b o r pe a c e in M ichigan. of the Michigan employees did These m e d i a t o r s s e r v e d un d e r t h e a u s p i c e s Labor not M e d ia t io n yet have Board. Because bargaining rights, public-sector these mediators e s s e n t i a l l y so ugh t t o r e s o l v e d i s p u t e s in t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r . P u b l i c - s e c t o r employees were emerging as a p o l i t i c a l force in t h e s t a t e and d e s i r e d c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e in the private legislature Act (Van strikes sector. In r e s p o n s e 1987 ). Prim arily, by p u b l i c - s e c t o r d iscip lin ary Act m ediate t h e i r conditions. that p a s s e d P u b l i c Act 336 o f 1947, Lopik, H u tc h in so n to em plo yee s; action for did provide grievances any strik in g public t h e Michigan known as t h e H ut ch in so n this it demand, leg islatio n also established em ployee. employees c o n c e rn in g wages, prohibited with automatic H o w e v er , a mechanism hours, the to and w o r k i n g Thus, t h e s t a t u t e was an a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e a means f o r resolving public-sector e m p lo y e e s ’ c o n c e r n s w h i l e avoiding strikes. P u b l i c employees c o u l d p e t i t i o n t h e Labor M e d ia t io n Board to assign a mediator to a p a r t i c u l a r d is p u te s i t u a t i o n . illegal In e s s e n c e , 16 t h e H u tc h i n so n Act i n t r o d u c e d m e d i a t i o n a s a mechanism f o r s o l v i n g p u b l i c - s e c t o r l a b o r d i s p u t e s in Mich ig an. At t h e federal level, the Taft-H artley A c t, passed in 1947, r e p r e s e n t e d an a t t e m p t t o b a l a n c e t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e Wagner A c t . provided for C onciliation the establishm ent Service, an of the in d e p e n d e n t Federal It M ediation g ov er n m e n ta l agency and charged w i t h m e d i a t i n g l a b o r d i s p u t e s between employee g r o u p s and em p lo y er s involved in interstate commerce. This leg islatio n gave further c r e d e n c e t o t h e c o n c e p t o f m e d i a t i n g e m pl o ye e- em pl o ye r d i s p u t e s . E x e c u t i v e O rd er 10988, s i g n e d by P r e s i d e n t John F. 1962, was a m a jo r c a t a l y s t (C allaghan, encouraging 1987). federal in t h e growth o f p u b l i c - s e c t o r un io n i sm In itially , the employees t o b e h a l f o f t h e i r members. fo r federal la b o r unions, Kennedy in It order form l a b o r also provided mechanisms u n io n s bargain established instituted federal to election on procedures agencies to implement and o p e r a t e t h e e x e c u t i v e o r d e r g u i d e l i n e s , and gave publ i c - s e c t o r u n io n s to at the federal level the authority file unfair-labor- p r a c t i c e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e gove rn me nta l agency s e r v i n g in t h e r o l e o f t h e em pl o ye r. All o f t h e s e were i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e s . most effect significant encoura gem ent and of direction Executive to state O rd er 10988 However, t h e was legislatures to to provide establish b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s f o r p u b l i c - s e c t o r employees a t t h e s t a t e and l o c a l levels. Thus, public-secto r S hortly a legal clim ate em ployees th ereafter, encouraging was e s t a b l i s h e d state le g islatu res bargaining at the began rights federal enacting e s t a b l i s h i n g b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s f o r p u b l i c - s e c t o r em plo yee s. for lev el. laws 17 In 1965, t h e Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e Michigan P u b l i c Employment R e l a t i o n s Act ( P u b l i c Act 379 o f 19 65 ). t h i s a c t i o n was f e d e r a l E x e c u t i v e O r de r 10988. two g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s : e n a c t m e n t , and (b) t h a t The b a s i s for The law was ba s e d on ( a ) t h a t t h e p u b l i c would b e n e f i t from i t s i t would r e s u l t in equa l p ro te c tio n o f the law f o r t h e s t a t e ’ s p u b l i c em plo yee s. The " e q u a l protectio n " determ ination th a t same degree requirements of of individual bargaining Public concern 379 S i g n i f i c a n t p r o v i s i o n s were t h a t good f a i t h (b) that o v e r h o u r s , wages, public officials the leg islato rs’ p u b l i c employees d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e power Act reflected did equalized (a ) terms, must as be the em ployer. that bargaining t h e em ployer must The power. bargain in and c o n d i t i o n s o f employment; signatory to the collective- b a r g a i n i n g agree men t and t h a t t h e agree ment must be in w r i t i n g ; and ( c ) t h a t p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s must a b i d e by and l i v e un d e r t h e te rm s and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e w r i t t e n a gr ee m en t. The Michigan P u b l i c Employment R e l a t i o n s Act i s a co m pr e he ns iv e s t a t u t e in t h a t i t c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g i m p o r t a n t p r o v i s i o n s : 1. bargain I t s t a t u t o r i l y g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t f o r p u b l i c employees t o collectively o v e r wages, hours, term s, and c o n d i t i o n s of employment. 2. I t e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e s by which employee r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are selec ted . 3. I t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Michigan Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission t o a d m i n i s t e r P u b l i c Act 379. 18 4. It provided procedures for both public-sector unions and provided for em plo yer s t o f i l e u n f a i r - 1 a b o r - p r a c t i c e c h a r g e s . 5. Most i m p o r t a n t i n te rm s o f t h i s research, it d i s p u t e - r e s o l u t i o n mechanisms d e s i g n e d t o m in im iz e t h e e s c a l a t i o n o f public-sector contract disputes. These mechanisms are m ediation, f a c t f i n d i n g , and co m pul so ry a r b i t r a t i o n . P u r p o se s o f M e d ia t io n M e d ia t io n union and is a process management by which a n e u t r a l negotiators resolve reaching a voluntary co n tra c tu a l a g r e e m e n t. of voluntary mediation is to achieve a third bargaining party helps disputes by The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e settlem ent between the disputing p a rtie s . Many p e o p l e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a r t o f m e d i a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t t o learn and (1981) impossible stated understood that the research mediation procedure suggest th a t to for usage is (Kochan, probably resolving rate and 1988 ). Lewin t h e most used disputes. relativ e They lack of et al. and l e a s t went on to system atic i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f m ediation are not s u r p r i s i n g because: 1. M e d ia t io n i s t h e l e a s t v i s i b l e o f a l l t h e v a r i o u s d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , w i t h t h e m e d i a t o r working p r i v a t e l y and i n f o r m a l l y t o a s s i s t t h e p a r t i e s i n r e a c h i n g an a g r ee m en t; 2. I t s b e h i n d - t h e - s c e n e n a t u r e makes i t v e r y d i f f i c u l t r e s e a r c h e r s t o o b t a i n p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ; and 3. M e d ia t o r s seem t o be c o nv in ce d t h a t t h e i r u n s t r u c t u r e d c r a f t i s more " a r t " t h a n " s c i e n c e " and hence a r e n o t v er y amenable t o s y s t e m a t i c i n q u i r y and r e s u l t a n t g e n e r a l i z a ­ t i o n . (p. 235) for 19 Kochan (1988) pointed out that almost all existing s e c t o r b a r g a i n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n c o v e r i n g s t a t e and l o c a l suggests im p a s s e s . Thus, t h e r e i s s t r o n g r e l i a n c e on m e d i a t i o n in t h e p u b l i c m a in ly because, as in the the vast in itial step go ver nm en tal employees sector, mediation public- m ajority of in resolving public-sector employment s i t u a t i o n s , employees do n o t have t h e r i g h t t o s t r i k e . The f u n c t i o n o f m e d i a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y t o h e l p f i n d a r e a s o f compromise and agreement in r e s o l v i n g an im p a s se . W a l t e r Maggiolo ( 1 9 8 5 ) , a m e d i a t o r and t r a i n e r o f m e d i a t o r s , e x p r e s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g four fundam ental p rin cip les of effective m ediation: (a) u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e problems c o n f r o n t i n g t h e p a r t i e s , (b) imparting to the p a r t i e s appreciates their p r ob le m s , minds as t o t h e v a l i d i t y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m e d i a t o r knows and (c) of the creating doubts positions they in the parties’ have assumed w ith r e s p e c t t o such p r ob le m s , and (d) s u g g e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e ap p ro a c h e s t h a t may f a c i l i t a t e agreement (p. 9 1 ) . With t h e e x p a n s io n o f p u b l i c - s e c t o r b a r g a i n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n come t h e i n c r e a s e d use o f t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s , commonly used method o f resolving This i s understandable in l i g h t imp as se s of i t s in success. has p r o b a b l y t h e most the public sector. In an e i g h t - y e a r s t u d y o f p u b l i c - s e c t o r d i s p u t e s in Iowa, Hoh (1984) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t 78% o f d i s p u t e s were s e t t l e d t h r o u g h m e d i a t i o n . One r e a s o n m ediation is successful is th at it m inim ally i n t r u d e s i n t o th e l o n g - t e r m r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r t i e s bec a us e t h e m e d i a t o r l a c k s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o f o r c e any a c t i o n o r s e t t l e m e n t on t h e d i s p u t a n t s . In a d d i t i o n , mediation is com paratively qu ic k 20 (compared t o a r b i t r a t i o n and f a c t f i n d i n g ) , o rien ted tow ard problem solving, a nd i t is not c o s tly , it gives disputants o p p o r t u n i t y t o be c r e a t i v e in s o l v i n g t h e i r own p r o b l e m s . is also well suited to situations in which it the is an Mediation disputants are engaged i n ongoing r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Kolb & Rubin, 1 9 8 9) . Roles o f M e d ia t o r s I n c l u s i o n o f a m e d i a t o r among t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a t a b a r g a i n i n g t a b l e does n o t a l t e r t h e fundamental f a c t th a t mediation continues t o be e s s e n t i a l l y a t w o - p a r t y p r o c e s s (Simkin & F i d a n d i s , 1 9 8 6 ) . a very general disputing sense, parties the settle role th eir of the mediator differences is to help voluntarily. In the However, w h i l e p r o v i d i n g t h a t a s s i s t a n c e , t h e m e d i a t o r has a v a i l a b l e a number of strategies and may p e r f o r m different roles, d e p en di n g on the circum stances. When mediators are asked a b ou t their r e s p o n d by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between 1 9 8 3 a ). in p a r t i c u l a r , Labor m e d i a t o r s , passive roles, and a c t i v e they tend tasks to (Kolb, d e s c r i b e t h e i r work as an a r t (Kolb, 1989; Meyer, 196 0). Those m e d i a t o r s who a r e most s u c c e s s f u l between d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s sk ills In the to control heat disputants of do n o t battle, listen t a l k p a s t one a n o t h e r , eac h o t h e r . a r e t h e ones who use t h e i r interactions the in s e c u r i n g a g r ee m en ts to between d i s p u t a n t s when one e m ot io ns another’s switch to p i c s Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , often, are communication (Donahue, at comments; a pe a k , rather, and t e n d t o 19 89 ). the th e y interrupt a m e d i a t o r must us e h i s / h e r 21 communication s k i l l s t o manage i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e d i s p u t a n t s , who v e r y l i k e l y have d i f f e r i n g v a l u e and b e l i e f s y s t e m s . As a r e s u l t o f h e r r e s e a r c h , Kolb (1989) p r o v i d e d i n s i g h t s i n t o m e d i a t i o n and m e d i a t o r s in d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . She d e f i n e d these con texts as: . . . t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g i n which m e d i a t o r s work, t h e i r s t a t u s and p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e i d e o l o g y t h a t g u i d e s p r a c t i c e , t h e k in d s o f p a r t i e s r o u t i n e l y e n c o u n t e r e d , t h e i n t e r p l a y between p a r t i e s and t h e i r d e s i r e s , and t h e i s s u e s b r o u g h t and outcomes s o u g h t , ( p. 93) With r e g a r d t o m e d i a t o r s and t h e i r r o l e s , she w r o t e : L a b o r m e d i a t i o n i s an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p a r t o f l a b o r management c o n f l i c t . Labor m e d i a t o r s have w e l l - d e f i n e d r o l e s in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , b u t t h e r e a r e c o n s i s t e n t c o n t r a s t s in t h e way t h e r o l e i s u n d e r s t o o d and e n a c t e d . . . . Labor m e d i a t o r s d e f i n e t h e i r t a s k as l e a r n i n g t h e i s s u e s in d i s p u t e , t y p i c a l l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e l a s t p r o p o s a l made by e a c h s i d e , a s s e s s i n g which issues are of h ig h e st p r i o r i t y , and t h e n e n c o u r a g i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o make moves in th e ir positions. . . . S t a t e l a b o r m e d i a t o r s s e e t h e m s e l v e s more in t h e r o l e o f d e a l - m a k e r s , a t t e m p t i n g t o shap e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e dev el op me n t o f t h e ag re e m e n t, ( p. 94) As parties d ea l ma kers, separated state w hile labor they mediators serve as keep the disputing a go-betw een, build in g momentum by c l a r i f y i n g key i s s u e s and by p r e s s u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s f o r movement early in the mediation process. Kolb (1989) further d e f i n e d t h e i r r o l e as f o l l o w s : S t a t e l a b o r m e d i a t o r s work in t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r , where p a r t i e s l a c k t h e e x p e r i e n c e and h i s t o r y o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and where l e g a l s t r i k e s a r e m o s t l y p r o s c r i b e d . Thus, t h e y d e v e l o p a s t y l e t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e comp ens ate s f o r t h e m i s s i n g dyn amics. S t a t e l a b o r m e d i a t o r s , a s d e a l m a k e r s , o f t e n make m i s t a k e s , which j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r s t a n d i n g w i t h t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s bec a us e t h e y t r y t o a c t i v e l y p r e s s u r e b ot h s i d e s i n t o a f a i r settlem ent. . . . 22 Labor m e d i a t o r s u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r r o l e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f th e c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t preceded t h e i r involvement. Labor m e d i a t i o n t h u s r e s e m b l e s , in s t r u c t u r e , l a n g u a g e , and a c t i v i t y , a form o f a s s i s t e d n e g o t i a t i o n , ( p . 107) Kolb (1985) c l a im e d neutral in dealing attem pt to maintain that with the this labor mediators disputing im pression. are parties, "The seldom t o t a l l y even kinds th oug h they cases they of m e d i a t e and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e y have w i t h some c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r s mean t h a t t h e y o f t e n have d e c i d e d p r e f e r e n c e s f o r c e r t a i n kinds of outc om es , ones t h a t a i d t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l interests o f t h e s e c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r s " (Kolb, 1989, p. 1 0 8 ) . they have th eir own in terests, lab o r o rg a n iz a tio n a lly o u tsid e the d isp u te . However, a l t h o u g h m ediators are still Accor ding t o Kolb: Labor m e d i a t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s , b u t in so d o i n g , t h e y a l s o r e i n f o r c e c e r t a i n n o r m a t i v e b i a s e s t h a t e x i s t in t h e sy st em . When m e d i a t o r s s h a r e a p r o f e s s i o n a l co m m u n it y o f i n t e r e s t w i t h c h i e f n e g o t i a to r s , they support th e se i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s through the a c tio n s they ta k e . S u b stan tiv e is s u e s t h a t are important t o c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r s , which u s u a l l y c o n c e r n c o m pa r ab le wages and o t h e r economic b e n e f i t s , a r e g i v e n more c r e d e n c e t h a n l o c a l and o f t e n i d i o s y n c r a t i c work i s s u e s . Th is b i a s i s e v i d e n t in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , b u t i t i s m o b i l i z e d in m e d i a t i o n t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f i n n o v a t i o n and ch ang e, (p . I l l ) In their assessment of the roles and responsibilities of m e d i a t o r s , Simkin and F i d a n d i s (1986) c l a s s i f i e d m e d i a t o r f u n c t i o n s into th ree procedural, (c ) categories: (a) functions that (b) f u n c t i o n s i n t e n d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e functions that may be more r e g a r d t o t h e i s s u e in d i s p u t e . affirm ative and are essen tially com mu n ic a tio n, substantive and w it h 23 A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f m e d i a t o r r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t help f u l f i l l each o f t h e s e f u n c t i o n s distinctions between clear nor absolute. various Rather, i s given in T a b l e roles/responsibilities the table contains 2.1. The are neither a broad, general d e s c r ip t io n of the v ario u s fu n ctio n s, of a m ediator w hile he/she is i n v o l v e d in m e d i a t i n g a c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e . T a b l e 2 . 1 . - - M a j o r f u n c t i o n s and r o l e s / r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f m e d i a t o r s . Function PROCEDURAL FUNCTIONS R ole/R esponsibility Schedule m ediation m eetings. Recess m e d i a t i o n m e e t i n g s . A r r an g e j o i n t and s e p a r a t e m e e t i n g s . Influence th e d u ratio n o f continuous meetings. E s t a b l i s h m e e ti n g l o c a t i o n s . C h a i r m e e t i n g s and m a i n t a i n o r d e r . Pr op o se d i s c u s s i o n se q u e n c e o r g r o u p in g of issues. S u g g e s t s u b c o m m it t e e s . Ar ran ge f o r r e c o r d k e e p i n g . Pr op o se and d e v e l o p p r o c e d u r e s f o r c o n ­ t r a c t e x t e n s i o n s o r s t r i k e p o s tp o n e m e n t s . P ro po se and d e v e l o p p r o c e d u r e s f o r deferred settlem ent of lim ited issues. Fend o f f o t h e r o u t s i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n . C o n ti n u e n e g o t i a t i o n s a f t e r a s t r i k e begins. Create a l t e r n a t i v e d e a d lin e s. 24 Table 2 . 1 .--C o n tin u ed . F u n c ti o n R ole/R esponsibility COMMUNICATION FUNCTIONS Keep communication c h a n n e l s open. Informally explore p o s sib le concessions w i t h ea ch p a r t y . A s s e s s t h e r i g i d i t y o f each p a r t y ’ s position. A s s e s s n e g o t i a t o r s ’ a b i l i t y and commit­ ment t o " s e l l " a g r ee m en t t o t h e i r c o n ­ stituencies. Ar ran ge f o r d i r e c t t o p - l e v e l communica­ tion. MORE AFFIRMATIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE FUNCTIONS Identify p r i o r i ti e s . D e f l a t e extre me p o s i t i o n s . Offer c re a tiv e s o lu tio n s to s p e c if ic issues. Weigh t h e c o s t o f a s t r i k e a g a i n s t t h e value o f remaining i s s u e s . Maintain m ediator i m p a r t i a l i t y . Recommend a package s e t t l e m e n t . In an toward exploratory th eir craft, study of K ressel the attitudes (1972) of id en tified labor mediators the follow ing s t r a t e g i e s used by t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s : 1. m ediator Reflexive bec om es strateg ies: o riented to groundwork f o r f u t u r e a c t i v i t i e s . Those the strateg ies d isp u te and by which the estab lish es the 25 2. N ondirective strateg ies: Those attem pts increase probability m ediator p a r tie s w ill to the strategies that by which the the disputing f i n d an a c c e p t a b l e s o l u t i o n , w i t h minimum i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e m e d i a t o r . 3. D irective stra te g ie s: Those strateg ies by w h i c h the m e d i a t o r a c t i v e l y and d i r e c t l y p r e s s u r e s o r m a n i p u l a t e s t h e p a r t i e s i n t o e n di ng t h e d i s p u t e . Examples o f t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s K r e s s e l identified are g iv e n in Tabl e 2.2. Regarding these strategies, K r e s s e l s u g g e s t e d t h a t , d epe ndi ng on t h e s t a g e a t which t h e m e d i a t o r became i n v o l v e d in t h e n e g o t i a t i o n d i s p u t e - - i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e , m i d d le s t a g e , o r l a t e reflexive, the in t h e p r o c e s s - - e f f e c t i v e m e d i a t o r s would use nondirective, or d i r e c tiv e s t r a t e g i e s , respectively. In e s s e n c e , t h e r e f l e x i v e s t r a t e g i e s a l lo w t h e m e d i a t o r t o b u i l d t r u s t and r a p p o r t w i t h t h e d i s p u t a n t s , n o n d i r e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a i d in t h e com m unication p r o c e s s , p a r tie s to s e t t l e Rubin, 1989 ). and d i r e c t i v e strateg ies encourage by m o di fy in g t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e i s s u e s the (Kolb & 26 Table 2 . 2 . --M ediator s t r a t e g i e s . Strategy REFLEXIVE STRATEGIES Tactic E x p lic itly s t a t e the ro le o f the mediator. E x p l i c i t l y s t a t e concern about th e existing dispute. Speak t h e " la n g u a g e " o f t h e p a r t i e s . Use humor e f f e c t i v e l y . Dem on str at e com pet enc e. Show empathy f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f each disputant. Identify the real le a d e rs. U n der sta nd t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d is p u ta n ts . Id en tify the "real" issu es. NONDIRECTIVE STRATEGIES Create a fav o rab le c lim a te f o r nego­ tiations. Educate t h e p a r t i e s a b o u t e f f e c t i v e bargaining p r a c t ic e s . Keep t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s p r i v a t e . Help t h e p a r t i e s i d e n t i f y t h e s i g ­ n ific a n t issues. P r o v id e a r e a l i s t i c "p ace " f o r n e g o ­ tiations. Handle a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t a i l s . 27 Table 2 . 2 . --C ontinued. Strategy Tactic DIRECTIVE STRATEGIES Force t h e p a r t i e s t o f a c e " r e a l i t y . " I d e n t i f y a r e a s o f compromise. Make s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s e t t l e m e n t . Apply p r e s s u r e f o r s e t t l e m e n t . S ell a proposed s e tt le m e n t to th e n e g o t i a t i o n te am s. Kochan positively and Jick associated (1978) with found the that mediator probability of experience settlem ent. f i n d i n g was c o r r o b o r a t e d by McLaughlin, C a r n e v a l e , was Th is and Linn ( 1 9 8 8 ) , who a l s o found t h a t : C e r t a i n m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t ki n d s o f out comes. The use o f e i t h e r r e f l e x i v e , c o n t e x t u a l / t r u s t , c o n t e x t u a l / a g e n d a , o r s u b s t a n t i v e / f a c e - s a v i n g t a c t i c s was p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e t t l e m e n t , m e d i a t o r outc om es , and improvement o f t h e p a r t i e s ’ r e l a t i o n s h i p ; b u t t h e m e d i a t o r s ’ r e p o r t e d use o f e i t h e r s u b s t a n t i v e / p r e s s o r s u b s t a n t i v e / s u g g e s t i o n t a c t i c s , a l t h o u g h p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h me di­ a t o r out comes, was u n r e l a t e d t o s e t t l e m e n t and improvement in t h e p a r t i e s ’ r e l a t i o n s h i p . A second n o t e w o r t h y f i n d i n g was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between male and fema le m e d i a t o r s : male m e d i a t o r s were more l i k e l y t o use s u b s t a n t i v e / p r e s s and s u b s t a n t i v e / s u g g e s t i o n t a c t i c s t h a n fem a le m e d i a t o r s , ( p. 249) The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f M e d ia t io n The r e s u l t s for the B ritish o f two f i e l d A d v is o r y , s tu d ie s o f la b o r m ediation conducted C onciliation (ACAS) a r e r e p o r t e d in t h i s s e c t i o n . and A rbitration Service The f i r s t o f t h e s e s t u d i e s was based on d a t a from 260 m e d i a t i o n c a s e s com p le te d by t h e ACAS i n 1981 28 and 1982. The second s t u d y was based on d a t a mediation cases c o nd uc te d by t h e ACAS in collected from the chief used this H iltrop (1989) determinants of successful management research m ediation. 1985. and to union determine the contractual from 213 These d a t a were representatives. the situational Four o f t h e s e d e t e r m i n a n t s were (a ) t h e t y p e s o f i s s u e s i n t h e d i s p u t e , re q u e st f o r mediation, collected (b) t h e s o u r c e o f t h e (c ) t h e t i m i n g o f t h e m e d i a t o r ’ s e n t r y i n t o dispute, and (d) the ch aracteristics of the disputants. H i l t r o p ’ s f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g each o f t h e s e s i t u a t i o n a l d e t e r m i ­ n a n t s were as f o l l o w s : 1. The t y p e o f i s s u e : I s s u e s i n v o l v i n g pay and r e l a t e d m a t­ t e r s more r e a d i l y le n d t h e m s e l v e s t o compromise s o l u t i o n s th an do i s s u e s t h a t do n o t i n v o l v e a c o n t i n u o u s s c a l e . D i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g r e c o g n i t i o n o r m a t t e r s o f h i r i n g and f i r i n g , p o s i t i o n a l commitments and d e d i c a t i o n t o p r i n c i p l e s o f t e n i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e exchange o f c o n c e s s i o n s . 2. The s o u r c e o f t h e m e d i a t i o n r e q u e s t : M ed ia ti o n i s l i k e l y t o be more s u c c e s s f u l when t h e r e i s a j o i n t r e q u e s t f o r a s s i s t a n c e th a n when i n t e r v e n t i o n i s a r e s u l t o f t h e me di­ a t o r ’ s i n i t i a t i v e , (p. 248) 3. The t i m i n g o f t h e m e d i a t o r ’s e n t r y i n t o t h e d i s p u t e . Research i n t o t h e two ACAS s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t m e d i a t i o n i s most s u c c e s s f u l when " t h e d i s p u t a n t s a r e w ell i n t o t h e fin a l stages of t h e i r n e g o tia tio n s , or u n til a bargaining impasse has o c c u r r e d and t h e p r e s s u r e t o s e t t l e i s mount­ i n g . " (p. 249) 4. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e d i s p u t a n t s : The r e s u l t s o f th e se s tu d ie s in d ic a te t h a t the following d is p u ta n t c h a r ­ a c t e r i s t i c s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w it h n o n s e t t l e m e n t in m e d i a t i o n : (a) t h e b a r g a i n e r s have u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s , (b) t h e n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t i e s a r e h o s t i l e toward each o t h e r , (c) t h e r e i s low m o t i v a t i o n t o s e t t l e on t h e p a r t o f e i t h e r o r both n e g o t i a t i n g tea ms , (d) t h e n e g o t i a t i n g teams a r e i n e x p e r i e n c e d , (e ) t h e n e g o t i a t i n g teams a r e u n e n t h u s i a s t i c about m e d i a t i o n , and ( f ) t h e n e g o t i a t i n g teams a r e d i s ­ t r u s t f u l o f t h e m e d i a t o r , (p. 249) 29 In addition, H iltrop’s research into the ACAS d a t a provided i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c o n d i t i o n s un de r which v a r i o u s m e d i a t o r t a c t i c s were likely to be e f f e c t i v e . In r e p o r t i n g her fin d in g s, H iltrop indicated th a t: O v e r a l l , t h e t h r e e most p o s i t i v e t a c t i c s w ere : m e e ti n g t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e l y t o e x p l o r e t h e i s s u e s and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e b a r g a i n e r s ; s e r v i n g as a communication l i n k between t h e p a r t i e s ; and h e l p i n g t h e d i s p u t a n t s in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w it h th e ir co n stitu en ts. M e d ia to r p r e s s u r e t a c t i c s such as t h r e a t e n i n g t o q u i t and e m p h a s i z i n g t h e n e e d t o make c o n c e s s i o n s were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o s e t t l e m e n t in h i g h h o s t i 1 i t y c a s e s and when t h e p a r t i e s ’ b o t t o m - l i n e p o s i t i o n s were f a r a p a r t . In c o n t r a s t , s u g g e s t i n g p o s s i b l e ag ree me nt s proved h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e when t h e p a r t i e s were un d er s t r o n g p r e s s u r e t o r e s o l v e t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s , and when t h e number and ma gnitude o f t h e o b s t a c l e s t o a s e t t l e m e n t were r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , (p. 259) The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f M e d ia t o r s "The f i e l d o f m e d i a t i o n i s haun te d by t h e l a c k o f an a c c e p t e d understanding (H onoroff, research, co n stitu te of Matz, the the sk ills required & O’ C o n n e r , w riter attempted 1990, to m ediator e f f e c tiv e n e s s t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t to p. m ediate 37). ascertain In the by a n a l y z i n g leaders effectiv ely " the present behaviors the that b eliefs of a bo ut m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s during m ediation. In a s tu d y o f t h e p er fo rm an ce o f i n d i v i d u a l m e d i a t o r s , Honeyman (1990) id en tified three m e d i a t o r s ’ pe r f or m a nc e: perform ance), performance), (b) criteria (a) opinions that have r a te of settlem ent of p arties (good and (c) t h e m e d i a t o r ’ s r e p u t a t i o n good p e r f o r m a n c e ) . been used ( h ig h to rate r a t e = good opinions = go od (good r e p u t a t i o n = Honeyman i n d i c a t e d , however, t h a t each o f t h e s e 30 c o n v e n t i o n a l methods c o n t a i n s f l a w s . Thus, he s e t o u t t o d e t e r m i n e what b e h a v i o r s c o n s t i t u t e e f f e c t i v e m e d i a t o r p e r f o r m a n c e . In 1988, Honeyman c o n d u c t e d "an e x h a u s t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e way m e d i a t o r s a c t u a l l y behave when working" ( H o n o r o f f , Matz, & O’ Connor, 1990, p. 3 8 ) . As a r e s u l t o f h i s work, Honeyman i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c ch aracteristics of m ediator behaviors during m ediation influenced th e m e d iato rs’ e ff e c tiv e n e s s or lack th e r e o f . th at Honeywell cautioned: What i s o f f e r e d h e r e i s n o t a f u l l - b l o w n s y st em o f e v a l u a t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l m e d i a t o r s in a l l s i t u a t i o n s , b u t r a t h e r a kind o f k i t o f p a r t s , from which a g i v e n program might as s em bl e a [ m e d i a t o r - e v a l u a t i o n ] s y st em s u i t e d t o i t s p a r t i c u l a r n e e d s , (p. 27) The seven p a r a m e t e r s o f m e d i a t o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s offered by Honeyman a r e shown i n Tabl e 2 . 3 . In t h e i r research, Honeyman’ s p r o p o s i t i o n s Honoroff e t al. (1990) tested concerning the e f f e c t iv e n e s s several of o f m ediators. They c o n c l u d e d t h a t : In t h e d e s i g n o f a s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s f o r o u r program . . . Honeyman’ s framework proved v i t a l and a d a p t a b l e w i t h o n l y minor i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The framework t h u s shows some o f t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e f l e x i b i l i t y and p r o m i se t h a t Honeyman s u g g e s t e d , (p . 46) Summary In t h e r ev ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e , the w r i t e r provided a h i s t o r i c a l background on m e d i a t i o n , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r o l e s o f m e d i a t i o n and mediators, m ediation and findings and m e d i a t o r s . of In research summary, m e d i a t i o n and m e d i a t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t : into the the effectiveness literatu re relating of to 31 Table 2 . 3 . --Seven p a ram eters o f m ed ia to r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Parameter D escription INVESTIGATION E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i d e n t i f y i n g and s e e k ­ ing o u t r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t to the case. EMPATHY Co ns picuous aw ar en es s and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e needs o f o t h e r s . INVENTIVENESS AND PROBLEM SOLVING P u r s u i t o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e s o l u t i o n s , and g e n e r a t i o n o f i d e a s and p r o p o s a l s c o n ­ s i s t e n t w i t h c a s e f a c t s and w o r k ab le f o r op po s in g p a r t i e s . PERSUASION AND PRESENTATION SKILLS E ffe c tiv e n e ss o f verbal e x p ressio n , g e s t u r e s , and body l a n g u a g e in communi­ c a t in g with p a r t i e s . DISTRACTION E f f e c t i v e n e s s in r e d u c i n g t e n s i o n s a t a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e s by t e m p o r a r i l y diverting p a r ti e s ’ atten tio n . MANAGING THE INTERACTION E ffe c tiv e n e ss in developing a s t r a t e g y and managing t h e p r o c e s s . SUBSTANTIVE KNOWLEDGE E x p e r t i s e in t h e i s s u e s and t y p e o f dispute. S o u r ce : C. Honeyman, "On E v a l u a t i n g M e d i a t o r s , " N e g o t i a t i o n J o u r n a l 6 ( J a n u a r y 19 9 0) : 27- 30. 32 1. proceeds M ed ia t io n t h a t r e s u l t s in r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l d i s p u t e through id en tifiab le stag es. M ediation in w hich no s e t t l e m e n t i s a c h i e v e d does n o t g e t beyond p r o c e s s and excha nge o f inform ation. 2. M e d ia t io n i s n o t an i n t r u s i v e d i s p u t e - r e s o l u t i o n mechanism b e ca us e t h e m e d i a t o r has no a u t h o r i t y t o impose a s e t t l e m e n t . 3. for M ed ia t io n disputes is viewed a s a f a i r in s i t u a t i o n s p r o c e s s and i s w el l i n which t h e disputing parties suited have a l o n g - t e r m , ongoing r e l a t i o n s h i p . 4. M ed ia t io n is effective in resolving disputes in which p r i n c i p l e s and p e r s o n a l i t i e s a r e n o t i n v o l v e d . 5. M ediators use reflex iv e, n o n d irectiv e, or d irectiv e s t r a t e g i e s , de pen di ng on t h e s t a g e o f t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s . 6. M e d ia t o r s can h e l p t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s " s a v e f a c e . " 7. The most successful m ediators are skilled in controlling communications and i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i s p u t e . 8. M e d ia t o r s must manage meaning between d i s p u t a n t s who do n o t s h a r e t h e same v a l u e s o r b e l i e f s . 9. Mediators find it easier to resolve disputes involving wages th a n t h o s e c e n t e r i n g on union o r management r i g h t s . 10. influence dispute. Outside f a c t o r s , th a n mediator such as t h e economy, strategies on may have a g r e a t e r settling or prolonging a CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The s t u d y d e s i g n is explained in t h i s q u e s t i o n s and h y p o t h e s e s a r e r e s t a t e d , the p o p u l a t i o n and s a m p l e . instrum ent, The developm ent for processing and of the Q uestionnaire as i s t h e method used t o p i l o t t e s t procedures The r e s e a r c h f o l l o w e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e Mediation B e l i e f D e sc rip tio n is discussed, The chapter. analyzing survey (MBDQ), and v a l i d a t e the data are it. also explained. Resear ch Q u e s t i o n s The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s were posed t o g u i d e t h e c o l l e c t i o n of d a ta fo r t h i s study: 1. leaders what a r e t h e concerning beliefs the o f t e a c h e r union and effectiveness of school mediation in district resolving contractual disputes? 2. le ad ers What a r e t h e concerning beliefs the o f t e a c h e r union and effectiveness sc h oo l of m ediator d istrict behaviors in resolving contractual disputes? 3. Do t e a c h e r union and school d istrict leaders have s i m i l a r b e l i e f s concerning m e d ia ti o n - r e la t e d behaviors o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e ­ s e n t i n g t h e two g r o up s ? 33 34 Hypotheses The f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s , s t a t e d i n t h e n u l l for m, were t e s t e d using d a ta gath ered through th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . H y p o t h e s i s 1 : T her e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r un ion and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of m ediation in r e s o lv i n g c o n t r a c tu a l disputes. H y p o th e s is 2 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g the e ffe c tiv e n e ss o f m ediator b eh av io rs in resolving contractual d isp u te s. H y p o th e s is 3 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e two groups. The P o p u l a t i o n and Sample The sc hoo l population fo r this study included all Michigan p u b l i c p e r s o n n e l who had p e r s o n a l l y been i n v o l v e d in t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s between June 1, 1986, and June 30, 1989. Individuals la ck ­ ing such e x p e r i e n c e , t h e r e f o r e , were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n . The r e s e a r c h e r identify used the population information for the obtained study. from two s o u r c e s The f i r s t Michigan Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission (MERC), Michigan Department o f Labor. office Michigan been 1989. of MERC, public requested No s u c h helped sch ool during d istricts period inform ation s o u r c e was t h e a division of the James Amar, o f t h e D e t r o i t , Mich ig an, obtain the to inform ation that id en tified in which m e d i a t i o n services from O c to b e r through concerning 1988 requests for the had June m ediation s e r v i c e s made b e f o r e O c to b e r 1988 had been e n t e r e d i n t o t h e Michigan 35 Department o f Labor com puter d a t a banks and t h u s , purposes, was n o t a v a i l a b l e . This for all practical i n f o r m a t i o n was r e f e r r e d t o as " l i s t i n g s o f n o t i c e s r e c e i v e d " and i s a p a r t o f t h e case-management system used by the M ichigan Employment R e l a t i o n s . mediation, "Notices received" w h e th e r o r n o t m e d i a t i o n provided. public D epartm ent o f From school O c to b e r teach er unions include a l l services 1988 th r o u g h Labor’ s and/or requests we re, in J u n e 30, 1989, school Bureau o f fact, for ever 76 Michigan boards requested m e d i a t i o n s e r v i c e s th r o u g h t h e Lansing and D e t r o i t o f f i c e s o f MERC. The second s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b ou t t h e Michigan public Education’ s school (MDE) When n e g o t i a t i n g d istricts O ffice w ith d istricts are required regarding the status of was T enu re , use o f m e d i a t i o n in t h e Michigan Department N egotiations, and em ployee g r o u p s , M ichigan by law t o information of contact submit bargaining. of Hearings. public school periodically This inform ation, p r o v id e d on MDE form OS-2708, Survey o f S t a t u s o f T e a c h e r C o n t r a c t N egotiations, indicates, on a monthly basis, school districts in which m e d i a t i o n has been both r e q u e s t e d and p r o v i d e d . In form ation about m ediation public school d istricts as services reported provided to M ichigan on MDE form OS-2708 for the p e r i o d June 1986 th r o u g h J u n e 1989 was o b t a i n e d from t h e O f f i c e o f Te nur e, N e g o t i a t i o n s , and H e a r i n g s . The i n f o r m a t i o n from b ot h MERC and t h e Michigan Department o f E du ca tio n i n d i c a t e d t h a t 79 Michigan public school d istricts mediating a contractual employing board actually dispute of education participated between a between J u l y in the teacher 1, 1986, process union of and the and J u n e 30, 36 1989. Thus, the sample Michigan p u b l i c school size was d istricts influenced by the in which m e d i a t i o n number services of were a c t u a l l y p r o v id e d by MERC m e d i a t o r s d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r v a l . To id en tify members of the sample group, the researcher t e l e p h o n e d t h e o f f i c e o f t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f each o f t h e 79 school d i s t r i c t s and o b t a i n e d t h e names o f one t e a c h e r un ion l e a d e r and one school d istrict contractual named lead er negotiations individuals who for had their constituted the prim ary respective study resp o n sib ility group. samp le. Thus, Th is for these selection method en s u r e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s had b ot h d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y the c o n tra c t-n e g o tia tio n s mediation as a p r o c e s s and p e r s o n a l technique to resolve experience contractual for in u s in g disputes that existed. By s e l e c t i n g one t e a c h e r union l e a d e r and one school leader from each approxim ately of 15% of a l l K-12 r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e s t u d y . This sample H assett, was, 1982) in rather 79 M i c h i g a n public d istricts school in the d istrict d istricts, state were (The d i s t r i c t s a r e l i s t e d in Appendix B.) reality, th a n a a sample random of sample convenience b ec a u se i t (Weiss & included members o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n who had used m e d i a t i o n s e r v i c e s o n ly s i n c e Ju ne 1986, r a t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e t i m e in which m e d i a t i o n has been p r o v id e d . E x pe r i en ce in l a b o r r e l a t i o n s , specialization of re s p o n sib ili­ t i e s u s i n g m e d i a t i o n s e r v i c e s as a t e c h n i q u e f o r r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c ­ tual disputes, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in m e d i a t i o n a f t e r Ju ne 1, 1986, 37 were the s am pl e. m a jo r This criteria us ed selection in selecting procedure was individuals intended to for result the in a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous gr ou p o f r e s p o n d e n t s whose members had b o th e x p e r i e n c e and e x p e r t i s e in u s i n g t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s . Instrum entation Development o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e T h i s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n and m e d i a t o r s r e q u i r e d t h e u s e o f an i n s t r u m e n t w it h which t o m e asu re a t t i t u d e s o r b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e m - - i n o t h e r words, what i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e in m e d i a t i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e d a b o u t m e d i a t i o n , m e d i a t o r s , and each o t h e r . These b e l i e f s were c o n s i d e r e d t o r e f l e c t the in d iv id u a ls ’ a t t i t u d e s . B e s t (1959) i n d i c a t e d : I t i s d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e , t o d e s c r i b e and mea sur e attitude. The r e s e a r c h e r s must depend upon what t h e i n d i v i d u a l s a y s as t o h i s b e l i e f s and f e e l i n g s . T h i s i s an a r e a o f opinion. Through t h e us e o f q u e s t i o n s , o r by g e t t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s e x p r e s s e d r e a c t i o n t o s t a t e m e n t s , a sample o f h i s opinion is obta in ed . From t h i s s t a t e m e n t o f o p i n i o n may be i n f e r r e d o r e s t i m a t e d h i s a t t i t u d e - - w h a t he r e a l l y b e l i e v e s , (p. 155) C ertain ly , intended to th ere measure circum stances. exist lim its attitudes or to any beliefs type about of a instrum ent given set of Best (1959) c i t e d some o f t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s : An i n d i v i d u a l may c o n c e a l h i s r e a l a t t i t u d e and e x p r e s s s o c ia l ly acceptable opinions. An i n d i v i d u a l may n o t r e a l l y know how he f e e l s a b o u t a s o c i a l i s s u e . He may n e v e r have given th e idea s e rio u s c o n s id e r a tio n . An i n d i v i d u a l may be u n a b l e t o know h i s a t t i t u d e abo ut a s i t u a t i o n in t h e a b s t r a c t . U n t i l c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a r e a l s i t u a t i o n , he may be u n a b l e t o p r e d i c t h i s r e a c t i o n o r b e h a v i o r , (p. 157) Although i t i s n o te d t h a t t h e r e i s no s u r e method o f d e s c r i b i n g and m e as ur in g opinions, in many instances those me asurements or 38 d e s c r i p t i o n s may be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s r e a l or a t t i t u d e s . exist. S e v e r a l methods o f g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on o p i n i o n s T h i s r e s e a r c h e r d e c i d e d on t h e w r i t t e n gathering beliefs such d a t a . s u r v e y ap p r o ac h t o Res po nd en ts were as ke d t o react to s p e c if ic s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t m e d i a t i o n and m e d i a t o r s by i n d i c a t i n g t h e d e g r e e t o which they agreed or disagreed with each item. This became a measure o f o p i n i o n , a r e f l e c t i o n o f b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s . It they is possible to feel However, about ask -in d iv id u als d i r e c t a topic analyzing and th ereb y a number o f cases beyond t h e r e s e a r c h e r ’ s r e s o u r c e s . questions elicit using a such about free an how response. ap p ro ac h was Thus, t h e method chosen f o r use in t h i s s t u d y was what B es t (1959) r e f e r r e d t o as t h e L i k e r t method of summated ratings. With the Likert method of investigating a t t i t u d e s , a w r i t t e n s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t can be used t o c a r r y o u t t h e research. As Best n o t e d : The f i r s t s t e p in c o n s t r u c t i n g a L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e c o n s i s t s o f collecting a number o f s t a t e m e n t s a bo ut a s u b j e c t . The c o r r e c tn e s s o f th e statem ents is not im portant. I f th e y e x p r e s s o p i n i o n s h e l d by a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f p e o p l e , th e y may be us ed . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e y d e f i n e f a v o r a b l e n e s s or u n f a v o r a b l e n e s s t o a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t o f view. (p . 157) The t e c h n i q u e used in d e v e l o p i n g t h e MBDQ was e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t suggested by B est. statem ents that The pertained researcher to the mediation p ro cess. e d i t e d and r e v i s e d into th ree d i s t i n c t , categ o ries: m ediation process behaviors behaviors. as the perceived by co nstructed individual b u t sometimes and r e s u l t s , p articipants, a number These of were overlapping, p articip an t and mediator 39 A further consideration in designing the instrum ent was the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t o use a randomized q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m a t a s i t m ig ht a f f e c t involving scale r e l i a b i l i t y th ree d ifferen t and v a l i d i t y . stu d ies, In an S chriesheim , investigation Kopelman, and Solomon (1989) examined t h e e f f e c t s o f a gr ouped v e r s u s randomized q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m a t on s c a l e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . that neither format was clearly better than the They found other. They reported: The e x i s t i n g e v i d e n c e . . . s u g g e s t s t h a t g r o u p i n g i t e m s does n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y improve any p s y c h o m e t r i c p r o p e r t y and may, i n some i n s t a n c e s , i m p a i r m e a s u r e m e n t q u a l i t y . As al m o s t a l l o f t h e me asures used in e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h have been s t a n d a r d i z e d w i t h a randomized form at and s t i l l employ t h i s form at, it w o u ld seem i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o s u g g e s t making f o r m a t chang es ba se d upon t h e a cc um u la te d r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e , (p. 506) Thus, the researcher decided to use a randomized questionnaire fo r m a t in t h e MBDQ. Items in t h e p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e were d e r i v e d t h r o u g h a s e a r c h o f l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g t o t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and t h e r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f m e d i a t o r s t h e m s e l v e s . A p i l o t t e s t of the p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n o f t h e MBDQ was c o n d u c t e d u s i n g who had e x p e r i e n c e in t h e mediation A s s o c i a t i o n UniServ d i r e c t o r s , labor-relations Department of attorneys, Labor. school process: These Michigan adm inistrators, and m e d i a t o r s individuals 21 i n d i v i d u a l s E d u c a ti o n public-sector employed by t h e were asked f o r m a t and c o n t e n t o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , to Michigan review the respond to the s t a t e m e n t s in P a r t I I , and make recommendations f o r a d d i t i o n a l it em s 40 and/or suggest m o d ific a tio n s in th e in stru m en t. E i g h t e e n o f t h e 21 in d i v id u a l s responded. One o f t h e U niServ d i r e c t o r s rec o m m en d ed elim in atin g all q u e s tio n s concerning th e respondents* b e l i e f s about m e d ia to rs . person’s rationale respondents was might th at, actually in answ ering assess an such questions, in d iv id u al m ed iato r’s p e r s o n a l i t y r a t h e r than m e d iato r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . discussing this recommendation with the Th is other However, persons after who were considering the prelim inary q u e s tio n n a ire , the r e s e a r c h e r decided to i n c l u d e it em s c o n c e r n i n g r e s p o n d e n t b e l i e f s a bo u t m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s b ec a u se t h e s e b e l i e f s a r e i m p o r t a n t t o r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e s . All other developing recom m endations a revised, for m odifications content-validated form o f the r e v i s e d v e r s i o n o f t h e MBDQ was t h e n p i l o t t e s t e d to six additional individuals with experience were used MBDQ. in Thi s by s u b m i t t i n g i t in public school c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and m e d i a t i o n , b u t who had n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d in the first p ilo t test. Like t h o s e in the first p ilo t-test gro u p, t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s were asked t o r e v ie w t h e f o r m a t and c o n t e n t o f t h e MBDQ, respond it em s and/or instrum ent. opinions, to the belief m odifications These there was survey in strum ent. six no statem ents, in format in dividuals need for and and recommend content indicated additional of th at, additional the in m odification Thus, no f u r t h e r cha nges were made. survey th eir of the 41 V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y The p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n o f t h e MBDQ was used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e content v a l i d i t y o f the instrum ent. A cc o r d in g t o M es si ck ( 1 9 8 9 ) : C o n t e n t v a l i d i t y i s ba se d upon p r o f e s s i o n a l ju d g m en ts a b o u t t h e relevance of the t e s t content to the content of a p a r ti c u la r b e h a v i o r a l domain o f i n t e r e s t and a b o u t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s w i t h which it e m o r t a s k c o n t e n t c o v e r s t h a t domain. Thus, content v a l i d i t y provides j u d g m e n ta l e v i d e n c e in s u p p o r t o f domain r e l e v a n c e and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e t e s t i n s t r u m e n t , ( p . 17) The r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e MBDQ, which i s t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e instrum ent would y i e l d the same results on repeated a s s e s s e d u s i n g t h e Spearman-Brown s p l i t - h a l f p r o c e d u r e . trials, was For s c o r i n g p u r p o s e s , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s p l i t i n t o h a l v e s , u s i n g an odd-ev en procedure. Each r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d two s c o r e s , of the q u estio n n aire. The r e s u l t i n g one f o r ea ch h a l f The two s e t s o f s c o r e s were t h e n c o r r e l a t e d . correlation coefficient indicated the r e l i a b i l i t y of r e s p o n s e s t o each h a l f - l e n g t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Because c o r r e l a t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h associated with q uestionnaire reliab ility the w o u ld than tests, be ofthe questionnaire, expected a half-length length q u e stio n n a ire half-length length l e n g t h ( M u e l l e r , 19 8 6 ) . the to have one. can be e s t i m a t e d using v a r i a n c e and v a r i a n c e i s a a full-length slig h tly The r e l i a b i l i t y from t h e Spearman-Brown reliab ility formula Th at f or m u l a i s : R e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e whole = of 2 x r e lia b ility of half ---------------------------------------1 + r e lia b ility of half for higher a fullof the d o ubl ed 42 T h i s s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y method was used b e c a u s e i t p r o v i d e s a r e a d i l y a t t a i n a b l e e s t i m a t i o n o f r e l i a b i l i t y and r e q u i r e s o n l y one a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o group members. Using t h i s p r o c e d u r e w i t h t h e r e s p o n s e s o f t h e 21 i n d i v i d u a l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e f i r s t p i l o t t e s t i n g of the instrum ent r e s u l t e d t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c ie n t of 0.93. w it h t h e r e s p o n s e s o f t h e c o e f f ic ie n t of 0.93. (1986) cited as actual R e l i a b i l i t y was a g a i n checked s t u d y sample and a g a i n y i e l d e d This c o e f f i c ie n t the in a whole- criterio n is for a a above t h e r a n g e M u e ll e r w el1 -c o n s tr u c te d scale ( r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n t o f 0.8 to 0 .9 ). The F in al Ve rs ion o f t h e MBDQ A fter m ak ing the suggested changes in the prelim inary q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e r e s e a r c h e r p r e p a r e d t h e f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e MBDQ ( s e e Appendix A). The q u e s t i o n n a i r e contains two p a r t s , each o f which i s d i s c u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s . Demographic and background i n f o r m a t i o n . MBDQ was designed to obtain The f i r s t p a r t o f t h e background inform ation r e s p o n d e n t s ’ inv olvement and e x p e r i e n c e w ith m e d i a t i o n , certain demographic information e x p e r i e n c e in e d u c a t i o n , or urban). problem s sessions. Th is and school section respondents (age, ha d also gender, as well educational d is tr i c t type--ru ral, contained encountered an open-en de d in scheduling about as level, s u b ur b an , item abo ut m ediating Although t h e background and demographic i n f o r m a t i o n was no t used in t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s e s , ab ou t t h e sample members. i t did provide useful insights 43 S t a t e m e n t s ab out m e d i a t i o n . Items i n t h e s eco nd p a r t o f t h e MBDQ c o n c e r n e d t e a c h e r un ion and school d istrict Items p e r t a i n i n g t o b e l i e f s a b o u t m e d i a t i o n f e l l leaders’ b eliefs. in to the following four general c a te g o rie s: 1. B e l i e f s a bo ut t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s ’ b e h a v i o r s r e l a t i n g to t h e m e d i a t i o n o f c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s (13 i t e m s ) . 2. B eliefs a b ou t sch ool district le a d e r s ’ behaviors relating t o t h e m e d i a t i o n o f c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s (13 i t e m s ) . 3. B e l i e f s a b ou t m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s e x h i b i t e d d u r i n g m e d i a t i o n (32 i t e m s ) . 4. process B eliefs itself about (9 m ed iatio n --b eliefs items) and about the about results the m ediation o f mediation (12 item s). D a ta -C o lle c tio n Procedures After the r e v ie w i n g U n iv ersity the research proposal C o m m i t t e e on R e s e a r c h and the Involving questionnaire, Human S u b j e c t s (UCRIHS) g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o s u r v e y t h e i n d i v i d u a l s in t h e sample group ( s e e Appendix C f o r ap pr ova l l e t t e r ) . The questionnaire was mailed Michigan p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s these d i s t r i c t s is contained to 158 individuals i n c l u d e d in t h e s t u d y . in Appendix B.) in the 79 (A l i s t of Seventy-nine o f the i n d i v i d u a l s were t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s , and t h e o t h e r 79 were p u b l i c sch ool d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Thus, one sc h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r and one t e a c h e r union l e a d e r from each o f t h e 79 sc h oo l d i s t r i c t s i n c l u d e d in t h e s t u d y . were In u n d e r t a k i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n f o r t h i s 44 study, the researcher used the total design method for mailed s u r v e y s s u g g e s t e d by R o s s i , W r ig h t , and Anderson ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A o n e - p a g e c o v e r l e t t e r was p r e p a r e d t o accompany t h e In i t , the w r ite r explained t h a t a s o c ia lly useful conducted, why e a c h respondent c o m p le te t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . was r e s p o n s e s would be c o n f i d e n t i a l s t u d y was b e i n g im portant, Participants and t h a t survey. and who were a s s u r e d should th at the id e n tif ic a tio n their number on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s o l e l y f o r m a i l i n g p u r p o s e s . They were no t told adm inistrator that b ot h a teacher union leader and a sc h oo l from t h e i r d i s t r i c t were b e i n g c o n t a c t e d . The l e t t e r s were p r i n t e d on t h e s p o n s o r i n g a g e n c y ’ s l e t t e r h e a d stationery. L e t t e r s were i n d i v i d u a l i z e d by t y p i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t ’ s name and a d d r e s s a t t h e t o p . The r e s e a r c h e r s i g n e d each l e t t e r . The p a c k e t t h a t was m a il ed t o p a r t i c i p a n t s letter, questionnaire, com pleted survey. individually ty pe d and The on an e n v el op e re c ip ie n t’s the envelope, in which name and included th e cover to and return the address first-class were postage was affixed. One week a f t e r t h e f i r s t m a i l i n g , a p o s t c a r d r e m i n d e r was s e n t to all weeks recipients after questionnaire of the the first were sent questionnaire m ailing, to a ( s e e Appendix second cover e v er yo n e who had n o t C). le tte r responded. Three and Two weeks l a t e r , t h e r e s e a r c h e r t e l e p h o n e d n o n r e s p o n d e n t s and en co ur ag ed them t o c o m pl et e and r e t u r n t h e i r s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s . up procedures were employed to m inim ize the These f o l l o w effect of 45 nonparticipation on the reliab ility of inform ation received from respondents. The number o f i n d i v i d u a l s c o n t a c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s t u d y and t h e a c t u a l number o f r e s p o n s e s a r e shown in T a b l e 3 . 1 . 158 questionnaires returned, for that were a response sent rate to sample o f 88%. Of t h e members, S ev en t y 139 were respondents were t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s , and 69 were school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s . Ta b l e 3 . 1 . --Number o f i n d i v i d u a l s c o n t a c t e d and a c t u a l r e s p o n s e . M ai l in g Number o f Individuals C o n ta c te d A ctual Response Percent Response F i r s t mailing Second m a i l i n g 158 41 117 22 74% 54 158 139 88% T ot al Paired responses were received from 65 of the 79 Michigan p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s i n t h e s t u d y - - a p a i r e d r e s p o n s e r a t e o f 82%. In o t h e r words, one t e a c h e r union leader and one school l e a d e r from each o f 65 s e p a r a t e d i s t r i c t s w it h r e s p o n s e s t o MBDQ i n q u i r i e s . teacher union received. leader From but four no more provided the district researcher From f i v e a d d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t s school d istrict d istricts, leader school response d istrict r e s p o n s e s were r e c e i v e d b u t none from t e a c h e r un io n l e a d e r s . from one d i s t r i c t no r e s p o n s e was r e c e i v e d from e i t h e r a was leader Last, individual 46 who was s e n t MBDQ i n f o r m a t i o n . the to ta l Thus, 74 scho ol districts, 94% o f in t h e s t u d y , were r e p r e s e n t e d by MBDQ r e s p o n s e s . Borg and Gall (1989) i n d i c a t e d : I f more t h a n 20 p e r c e n t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e n o t r e t u r n e d . . . i t i s v e r y l i k e l y t h a t most o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y c o u l d have been a l t e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y i f t h e n o n r e s p o n d i n g group had r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and had answered i n a mark ed ly d i f f e r e n t manner t h a n t h e r e s p o n d i n g g ro u p , ( p. 210) Thus, bec a us e t h e n o n r e s p o n s e r a t e in t h i s s t u d y was o n l y 12%, i t i s u n likely th at n o n re s p o n d e n ts ’ answers w o u ld have altered the findings. D a t a - A n a l v s i s Methods Responses spreadsheets from and the questionnaires were coded entered into th e M ichigan mainframe computer sy ste m . Data f o r sch ool o n to S tate d istrict com puter U niversity and teacher unio n l e a d e r s were gr ouped s e p a r a t e l y . R espondents indicated th eir b eliefs about s t a t e m e n t s by u s in g a f i v e - p o i n t L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g 1 represented strong disagreement. The actual higher scores except that statem ent. measure In many individuals’ regarding statements Best (1959) agreement and n u me ric al indicated situations, i t beliefs 5 ratings greater is scale in which represented strong had little meaning disagreement d ifficu lt on a n u m e ri ca l q uestionnaire with or im possible scale. This is a to true c o n t a i n e d in t h e MBDQ. n o te d t h a t r e s p o n s e s on a L i k e r t summated r a t i n g s c a l e may be a n a l y z e d in s e v e r a l ways: A s im p l e way t o d e s c r i b e b u t n o t measu re o p i n i o n i s t o i n d i c a t e the percentage of responses on each it e m . Th ree o f f o u r teachers agree; 80 p e r c e n t o f male t e a c h e r s a g r e e w i t h the 47 statem ent. The a c t u a l L i k e r t s c a l i n g t e c h n i q u e a s s i g n s each p o sitio n a scale value. S t a r t i n g w i t h a p o i n t o f vie w, a l l s t a t e m e n t s f a v o r i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n would be s c o r e d : Statements S co r e Value a . Agree b. Tend t o a g r e e c. Neutral d . Tend t o d i s a g r e e e. Disagree (pp . 158-59) 5 4 3 2 1 P a r t i c i p a n t s were as ke d t o u s e a s i m i l a r s c a l e - v a l u e f o r m a t in r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e 79 it em s included in Part II s c a l e was m o d i f i e d f o r t h i s s t u d y as f o l l o w s : Response a. b. c. d. e. o f t h e MBDQ. A ss ig n e d Value Strongly agree Tend t o a g r e e Cannot s ay Tend t o d i s a g r e e Strongly d is a g re e Certain The it em s in 1 2 3 4 5 the MBDQ were stated negatively so that r e s p o n d e n t s would n o t be b i a s e d toward one end o f t h e s c a l e o r t h e other. Thus, responses to the statem ents s c o r e d on t h e b a s i s o f a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e , in t h e i n s t r u m e n t were on which 1 i n d i c a t e d strongly p o s itiv e re a c tio n to the statem ent, 3 a neutral value, a and 5 a s tro n g ly negative re a c tio n to the statem ent. The d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e MBDQ were o r d i n a l o n ly the order of the responses d i s t a n c e between two r e s p o n s e s interpretation. does was not meaningful. lend was used The itse lf Thus, a n o n p a r a m e t r i c p r o c e d u r e , based o n l y on o r d e r and r a n k , in n a t u r e b ec a u se in t h i s to n u m e ri ca l practical using inform ation study because t h i s t e c h n i q u e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t e d t o measurements ba se d on an o r d i n a l 48 scale. A ccording t o Weiss and H a s s e t t ( 1 9 8 2 ) , t h e Wilcoxon matched- p a ir ranked-sign t e s t , better than a a nonparametric procedure, t-test if data are collected i s as good as o r from a sym me tri c, non-normal p o p u l a t i o n . To t e s t t h e h y p o th e s e s f o r m u l a t e d f o r t h i s s t u d y , r e s p o n s e f o r t e a c h e r un ion l e a d e r s and f o r sch ool was calculated contrast the nonparametric With t h i s teacher for each paired response Wilcoxon test, statement and s c h o o l II from d istrict of the ordinal ranked-sign test leaders MBDQ. To data, the was us ed . between t h e mean r e s p o n s e f o r t h e d istrict a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r num eri cal Part means matched-pairs the d iffe re n c e s union in a gr oup mean values, lead er groups without regard were to ordered signs; the r an ks a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e r e s p o n s e s were th e n added t o g e t h e r f o r t h e t e s t s t a t i s t i c , which i s s t a t e d as a 7,-s cor e. (F u rth e r inform ation on t h e Wilcoxon m a t c h e d - p a i r s r a n k e d - s i g n t e s t i s found in Appendix D.) The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , V e r s io n SPSS-X (SPSS, study. 1988), was used in performing The .05 a l p h a l e v e l statistical the was e s t a b l i s h e d data as analyses the for the criterion for significance. Determination of E ffec tiv e n e ss For p u r p o s e s o f t h i s study, effectiveness e x t e n t t o which d e l i b e r a t e l y pla n ne d a c t i o n s was d e f i n e d as the a n d / o r p r o c e s s e s were b e l i e v e d by an i n d i v i d u a l o r group o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o b r i n g a bo ut t h e desired r e s u l t s . Co n cl u si o n s abo ut t h e effectiveness of mediation 49 and m e d i a t o r s were based on t h e extent to which responses indicated p ositive, n eu tral, concerning statem ents in o f t h e MBDQ. Part II or the group negative mean b eliefs The q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s c a l e and v a l u e s a s s i g n e d t o each r e s p o n s e were a s f o l l o w s : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Response A ssi gne d Value Strongly agree Tend t o a g r e e Cannot say Tend t o d i s a g r e e Strongly d isagree 1 2 3 4 5 To d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r a p a r t i c u l a r group mean r e s p o n s e i n d i c a t e d a positive, n e u t r a l , o r n e g a t i v e b e l i e f abo ut a s p e c i f i c MBDQ it em , t h e f o l l o w i n g was used: Value Range f o r Group Mean Response t o MBDQ Item D e s c r i p t i o n o f Group B e l i e f Response 1.00-2.33 2.34-3.66 3.67-5.00 A p o sitiv e indicated the statem ent. Positive N eu tr al N e g a ti v e group mean respondent For example, response group’ s to b elief a in MBDQ Item 19 s t a t e s , committed t o havi ng m e d i a t i o n r e s u l t specific the MBDQ truth of item that "The board team was in a s e t t l e m e n t . " The group mean r e s p o n s e o f school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s t o t h i s s t a t e m e n t was 1.92 8 (SD = 1 . 0 7 5 ) . statement Further, was Therefore, positive, i t was assumed, the school indicating they leaders’ believed response it to to be based on t h e i r p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o this true. Item 50 19, that sch ool d istrict leaders believed the converse of that in d icated the s t a t e m e n t t o be u n t r u e . A neutral mean response to an MBDQ item r e s p o n d e n t g r o u p ’ s b e l i e f t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t e m was n e i t h e r t r u e nor untrue. An example o f a n e u t r a l r e s p o n s e t o an MBDQ s t a t e m e n t was t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s ’ r e s p o n s e t o e f f e c tiv e process." (SD = 1 . 3 8 2 ) , untrue. Item 25, " M e d ia t io n was an T h e i r mean r e s p o n s e t o t h i s s t a t e m e n t was 3.0 5 7 i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t i t was n e i t h e r t r u e nor Likewise, th e converse o f a statem ent re c e iv in g a neutral mean r e s p o n s e was assumed t o be n e i t h e r t r u e n o r u n t r u e . A third MBDQ i t e m possibility indicated was t h a t the a n e g a t i v e mean r e s p o n s e respondent p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e m e n t was u n t r u e . group’ s An example o f t h i s r e s p o n s e was g iv e n by t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s mediator leaked c o n fid e n tia l statem ent was not true. here, this kind o f group Likewise, the converse as s um pt io n would mean i t of a the MBDQ w e r e id en tified "The statement In t h e example c o u l d be c o n c l u d e d t h a t inform ation. P o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t s of the I t in d ic a te d t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t the th e m ediator did not leak c o n f id e n tia l II an T h e i r mean r e s p o n s e t o i d e n t i f i e d as n e g a t i v e would be assumed t o be t r u e . cited th at t o MBDQ Item 87, inform ation." t h i s ite m was 4. 0 0 0 (SD = . 9 1 7 ) . b elief to and used to draw in P art conclusions c o n c e r n i n g both t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n and t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s in r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s . A dditionally, in this t e a c h e r un ion and school research, d istrict significant leader beliefs differences in about m ediation, 51 mediator behaviors, and m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s of individuals r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e s e two g r o u p s were i d e n t i f i e d , a n a l y z e d , and u se d t o draw conclusions hypotheses. about These the research sig n ifican t questions differences i d e n t i f i e d by e s t a b l i s h i n g a l p h a = . 05 . ta iled ), sig n ifican t and d ifferen ces in Thus, the in related null b eliefs were when p < .0 5 (two- beliefs of the two c o n t r a s t e d g r o up s e x i s t e d . Summary The chapter. the used in the study was explained in this The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and h y p o t h e s e s were r e s t a t e d , population testing, The methodology and validation, data-collection sample were delineated. and c o n t e n t o f t h e and data-analysis Development, and p ilo t i n s t r u m e n t were d i s c u s s e d . procedures were R e s u l t s o f t h e d a t a a n a l y s e s a r e r e p o r t e d in C h a p t e r IV. described. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The w r i t e r ’ s p u r p o s e i n t h i s s t u d y was t o i d e n t i f y t h e b e l i e f s about m ediation, teach er union participated contractual m ediators, and in and t h e school the parties d istrict mediation of to leaders a teacher mediation who had by personally union/school d i s p u t e in a Michigan K-12 p u b l i c sch ool held district sy ste m and t o use t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f b o th the section mediation of th is process chapter and contains i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . that were perfor me d second s e c t i o n . to test Each n u l l mediator the behaviors. dem ographic The r e s u l t s hypotheses The and background of the data are presented hypothesis is r e s t a t e d , r e s u lt s of the data an aly sis fo r th a t hypothesis. first analyses in the f o l l o w e d by t h e The t h i r d s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a based on r e s p o n s e s t o an op en -en d ed item c o n c e r n i n g problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s c h e d u l i n g m e d i a t i n g s e s s i o n s . Demographic and Background I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e Respondents T hi s union section and school contains d istrict background leaders inform ation who p a r t i c i p a t e d on in These d a t a a r e based on r e s p o n s e s t o it em s in t h e f i r s t the questionnaire. 52 the the teacher study. section of 53 As shown i n T a b l e 4 . 1 , o n l y one sch oo l d i s t r i c t sample was a f e m a l e ; t h u s , a b o u t 98.5% were m a l e s . l e a d e r in the In c o n t r a s t , 30% o f t h e t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s were f e m a l e s . T a b l e 4 . 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by g e n d e r . Gender Respondent Group Blank Female Male Total n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 0 0 1 7.5 68 9 8 .5 69 T e a c h e r union leaders 2 3 21 3 0 .0 47 6 7 .0 70 n % D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s by age i s shown in T a b l e 4 . 2 . About 88% o f t h e sch oo l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s were 43 o r o l d e r , wh ereas a p p r o x i m a t e l y 59% o f t h e t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s were 43 o r o l d e r . About d istricts, 64% o f the sample members 28% from s u bu rb an d i s t r i c t s , ( s e e Ta b le 4 . 3 ) . were from rural school and 7% from urban d i s t r i c t s T a b l e 4 . 2 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by a g e . Age C a t e g o r y Respondent Group B la n k n School d i s t r i c t leaders Teacher union leaders % 1 7 0 0 21 -2 2 23 -32 3 3- 4 2 43-52 % 63+ Mean SD % n % n 0 V 0 0 8 77 43 63 17 25 0 0 69 49.206 5.848 3 A 1 7 25 36 36 52 5 7 0 0 70 44.164 5.688 n % Total n n % 53 -6 2 n % 55 T ab le 4 . 3 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by scho ol d i s t r i c t t y p e . D i s t r i c t Type Respondent Group Blank Urban n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 0 0 6 T ea che r union leaders 2 3 4 As shown in Tabl e 4 . 4 , Suburban teacher union % n 9 19 28 44 63 69 6 21 30 43 61 70 school leaders % n d istrict leaders had a mean o f 7.516 y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e contrast, Total Rural had a mean of in t h e sample (SD = 5 . 0 2 4 ) . 20 .1 29 In years of years of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (SD = 5 . 8 2 8 ) . School d istrict leaders had a a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e (SD = 6 . 92 3) of the 70 t e a c h e r concerning th eir union years leaders of did mean 16.754 ( s e e Ta bl e 4 . 5 ) . not adm inistrative assumed t h e y had no such e x p e r i e n c e . of res po nd to experience, Because 68 the the question w riter T a b l e 4 . 4 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . Respondent Group Y ear s o f T e a c h i n g E x p e r i e n c e ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B la n k 1-5 5-10 11 -1 5 16-20 2 1- 2 5 26+ n % n % n % n % n % n % n Total Mean SD % School d i s t r i c t leaders 5 7 30 44 21 30 7 10 4 6 2 3 0 0 69 7.516 5.024 T e a c h e r un io n leaders 0 0 0 0 2 3 13 79 24 34 18 25 13 19 70 20.129 5.8 28 T a b l e 4 . 5 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by y e a r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e . R es pondent Group School d i s t r i c t leaders T e a c h e r un io n leaders Years o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B la nk 1-5 6-10 11 -1 5 16 - 20 2 1- 25 26+ n % n % i % n % n % n % n % 0 0 6 9 5 9 17 24 18 26 18 26 4 6 97 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 Total 69 70 Mean SD 16.754 6.923 58 The h i g h e s t academic d e g r e e h e l d by members o f t h e sample i s shown in T ab l e 4 . 6 . had doctorate T hirty-one T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e sch ool d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s degrees; percent none of the t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s of the scho ol teacher d istrict had e d u c a t i o n a l un io n did. and 6% o f leaders specialist leaders degrees. the Fifty- f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e scho ol d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s and 69% o f t h e t e a c h e r u nio n l e a d e r s had m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e s . None o f t h e school district l e a d e r s had a b a c h e l o r ’ s as t h e i r h i g h e s t d e g r e e ; 21% o f t h e t e a c h e r un ion l e a d e r s d i d . T a b l e 4 . 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by d e g r e e s t a t u s . H i g h e s t Degree Earned Respondent Group Blank BS/BA MS/MA Ed.S. n n % n % n School d i s t r i c t leaders 1 2 0 0 38 54 21 Te a c h e r union leaders 3 4 15 21 48 69 4 Table 4.7 contains % inform ation e x p e r i e n c e as t e a c h e r union n e g o t i a t o r s . leaders l e f t th is Ed . D . /P h . D . % n % 30 9 14 69 6 0 0 70 about the contracts union respondents’ F o r t y - o n e school d istrict item b l a n k , l e a d i n g t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o assume t h a t t h e y had no e x p e r i e n c e as t e a c h e r union n e g o t i a t o r s . teacher T ot al leaders (SD = 4 . 1 4 9 ) . had negotiated a mean of In c o n t r a s t , 5.40 6 teacher T a b l e 4 . 7 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x p e r i e n c e a s a t e a c h e r u n i o n n e g o t i a t o r . Number o f C o n t r a c t s N e g o t i a t e d as a T e a c h e r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Respondent Group School d i s t r i c t leaders T e a c h e r un io n leaders Bla nk 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Total Mean SD 13+ n % n % n % n % n % n % 41 59 19 28 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 69 4.962 7.356 1 7 29 42 22 32 8 77 7 70 3 4 70 5.406 4.149 60 In r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g b a r g a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e as a sch oo l d istrict leader, the sch oo l district leaders in the sample i n d i c a t e d t h e y had n e g o t i a t e d a mean o f 7 . 1 0 9 c o n t r a c t s (SD = 5 . 03 4) ( s e e T ab l e 4 . 8 ) . Conversely, 68 o f t h e 70 t e a c h e r union leaders l e f t t h i s i t e m b l a n k , showing a l a c k o f such e x p e r i e n c e . T a b l e s 4 . 9 and 4 . 1 0 r e s p o n d e n t s had had i n n egotiation team . contain inform ation about th e experience s e r v i n g as t h e s p o k e s p e r s o n o f a c o n t r a c t - S eventy-four percent of the teach er union r e s p o n d e n t s had had e x p e r i e n c e a s a t e a c h e r un io n n e g o t i a t i n g team spokesperson; role t h e mean number o f c o n t r a c t s n e g o t i a t e d in t h i s was 3. 9 42 (SD = 4 . 0 7 5 ) . Only 26% o f t h e s ch ool d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s had served ( s e e T ab l e 4 . 9 ) . in t h a t spokesperson capacity of the school d istrict Re ga rd in g e x p e r i e n c e negotiating sch ool d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s had s e r v e d in t h i s r o l e . team, 74% o f as the The mean number o f c o n t r a c t s n e g o t i a t e d in t h i s r o l e was 4 . 3 7 3 (SD = 2 . 5 7 7 ) . Only 1 o f the had 70 (1%) teacher union lead ers in d icated having such e x p e r i e n c e ( s e e Ta b le 4 . 1 0 ) . R espondents’ experience in m e d ia tin g co n tractu al d isp u tes between sch oo l d i s t r i c t s and t e a c h e r u n io n s i s shown i n T a b l e s 4.11 and 4 . 1 2 . Thirteen mediation experience whereas o n ly mediation 4.12). in 1 of experience (19%) o f t h e school as the as a teacher d istrict union leaders negotiator 70 (1.4%) teacher a sch oo l d istrict union reported (Table leaders negotiator 4.11), reported (see Ta bl e School d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y had been i n v o l v e d mediation as teacher c o n t r a c t s (SD = 4 . 8 7 9 ) . union negotiators in a mean of 4. 1 67 Te a c h e r union l e a d e r s had been i n v o l v e d in Tabl e 4 . 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by n e g o t i a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e a s a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t leader. Number o f C o n t r a c t s N e g o t i a t e d as a Board R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Respondent Group School d i s t r i c t leaders T e a c h e r uni o n leaders Total Bla nk 1 -3 n 4-6 % n 7-9 % n % 10-12 n % n 5 7 13 79 22 32 16 23 7 68 98 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 n % 10 6 9 69 7 0 0 70 % Mean SD 7.109 5.034 13+ T a b l e 4 . 9 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x p e r i e n c e a s s p o k e s p e r s o n o f t e a c h e r u n i o n c o n t r a c t - n e g o t i a t i o n teams. Number o f C o n t r a c t s as T e a c h e r Union N e g o t i a t i o n S p o k e s p e r s o n Respondent Group 4-6 1-3 Blank 7 -9 10-12 13+ Total Mean SD n % n % n % n % n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 51 74 11 76 1 7 2 3 2 3 2 3 69 4.722 4.022 T e a c h e r un io n leaders 18 27 33 47 10 14 5 7 1 7 3 4 70 3.942 4.075 T a b l e 4 . 1 0 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x p e r i e n c e a s s p o k e s p e r s o n o f t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c o n t r a c t - n e g o t i a t i o n team. Number o f C o n t r a c t s a s School D i s t r i c t N e g o tia tio n Spokesperson Respo nden t Group Total Bla nk 1 -3 7-9 4 -6 10-12 Mean SD 4.373 2.577 13+ n % n % n % n % n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 18 27 24 35 18 26 7 70 1 7 1 7 69 T e a c h e r u n io n leaders 69 99 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 T a b l e 4 . 1 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x p e r i e n c e a s a t e a c h e r u n i o n n e g o t i a t o r i n m ediating c o n tr a c t d is p u te s . Number o f C o n t r a c t s M ed ia t ed While a T e a c h e r N e g o t i a t o r Respondent Group Blan k 1-2 n % School d i s t r i c t leaders T eacher union leaders n 3-4 % n 5-6 % n 7-8 % n 9-10 % n 11+ % n % Total Mean SD 56 87 7 77 2 3 1 7 0 0 1 7 2 3 69 4.167 4. 8 7 9 1 7 38 55 19 27 8 12 3 4 0 0 1 7 70 2.812 2.1 16 T a b l e 4 . 1 2 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x p e r i e n c e a s a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t n e g o t i a t o r i n m ediating c o n tr a c t d is p u te s . Respondent Group School d i s t r i c t leaders Teacher union leaders Number o f C o n t r a c t s M e d ia t e d While a School D i s t r i c t N e g o t i a t o r ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B la nk 1-2 3-4 5- 6 7-8 9-10 11+ n % n 1 7 25 69 99 0 % n % n 36 18 42 12 17 7 0 0 0 1 % n % 4 3 0 n 0 % 0 0 n 0 0 Mean SD % 0 0 Total 0 0 69 70 3.309 .764 66 unio n leaders had been involved in mediation as teacher union n e g o t i a t o r s i n a mean o f 2.81 2 c o n t r a c t s (SD = 2 . 1 1 6 ) . S e v e n t y - t h r e e (53%) r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t , occurred, the mediation (see n eg o tiatin g Table p arties 4.13). had jo in tly Forty-eight union had r e q u e s t e d m e d i a t i o n . (35%) when m e d i a t i o n requested said the the teacher E i g h t e e n (12%) r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h e school board had r e q u e s t e d m e d i a t i o n . These d a t a i n d i c a t e c l o s e ag ree me nt on who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e q u e s t i n g m e d i a t i o n . T a b l e 4 . 1 3 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g m e d i a ­ tion. P a r t y R e q u e s t i n g M e d ia t io n Respondent Group T e a c h e r Union School Board Joint Total n % n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 25 36 8 12 36 52 69 T e a c h e r union leaders 23 33 10 14 37 53 70 I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e number o f n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s t h a t were held before th e s t a r t of mediation i s p resented in Table 4 .1 4 . sch ool district slig h tly and more t h a n teacher 11 union n egotiating leaders indicated a being held sessions Both mean of before i n i t i a t i o n of mediation o f c o n tra c tu a l d is p u te s . T a b l e s 4 . 1 5 and 4 . 1 6 c o n t a i n unresolved bargaining issues inform ation brought into about the mediation number o f by the T a b l e 4 . 1 4 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by t h e number o f n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s b e f o r e m ediation. Number o f N e g o t i a t i n g S e s s i o n s Respondent Group B la nk 1-5 n 6-10 % n % 11 -1 5 n % 16- 20 n % Total Mean SD 21 + n % n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 1 7 6 9 33 48 16 23 5 7 8 12 69 11.441 6.216 Teacher union leaders 7 10 15 21 24 35 15 21 4 6 5 7 70 11.016 7.846 T a b l e 4 . 1 5 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by t h e num ber o f u n r e s o l v e d t e a c h e r u n i o n i s s u e s t h a t were b ro u g h t t o m e d ia tio n . Number o f U n r e s o l v e d T e a c h e r Union I s s u e s Respondent Group Total Bla n k 1-5 n % n School d i s t r i c t leaders 7 77 32 Teacher union leaders 9 73 33 6-10 % 11- 15 16- 20 % n n % n 44 20 30 8 73 47 23 34 3 4 Mean SO 21+ % n % 1 / 1 7 69 6.581 4.717 1 7 1 7 70 7.033 7.765 T a b l e 4 . 1 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by t h e number o f u n r e s o l v e d b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n i s s u e s t h a t were b ro u g h t to m e d ia tio n . Number o f U n r e s o l v e d Board I s s u e s Respondent Group Total --------Blank 1 -5 % 6-10 n 11- 15 % n % 16-20 n % n n % School d i s t r i c t leaders 11 16 49 77 8 12 1 7 0 T e a c h e r u n io n leaders 25 36 27 39 14 20 1 7 1 Mean SD 21 + n % 0 0 0 69 4.000 2.384 7 2 3 70 6.933 9.411 70 disputants. As shown in T ab l e 4.15, b o th s ch ool d istrict and t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t n e a r l y seven u n r e s o l v e d t e a c h e r unio n issues members of were b r o u g h t these two into groups the mediation showed r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e MBDQ i n q u i r i e s . process. general Thus, ag re e m en t in the th eir However, school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s r e p o r t e d a mean o f 4. 0 0 0 bo ar d o f e d u c a t i o n i s s u e s (SD = 2 .3 8 4 ) were brought into reported the mediation process, a mean o f 6. 93 3 such (SD = 9 .4 1 1 ) believed board union leaders i s s u e s e x i s t e d when m e d i a t i o n ( s e e Ta b l e 4 . 1 6 ) . that w h er ea s t e a c h e r Thus, representatives began the teacher rep resen tativ es brought 73% more unresolved i s s u e s i n t o m e d i a t i o n t h a n d i d t h e board r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h e m s e l v e s , an ob vi o us d i s p a r i t y in p e r c e p t i o n s o f members o f t h e two g r o u p s . School d istrict and teacher union lead ers responses concerning th e number o f m e d i a t i o n the were contractual d istrict held disputes leaders before indicated a (see sessions T ab l e sim ilar held before 4.17). School i n d i c a t e d a mean o f 3 . 3 4 8 m e d i a t i o n s e s s i o n s were settlem ent mean settled gave of (SD = 3 .4 7 6 1.612), mediations and teacher sessions union were leaders held before s e t t l e m e n t (SD = 2 .1 9 1 ) N in et ee n strikes of the had o c c u r r e d 69 in d i s p u t e s were s e t t l e d - - a contrast, school their d istrict school leaders d istricts strike-occurrence reported before contractual r a t e o f a b ou t 28%. 15 o f t h e 70 t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t had o c c u r r e d - - a r a t e o f a b o u t 21% ( s e e T a b l e 4 . 1 8 ) . that In strikes T a b l e 4 . 1 7 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by t h e number o f m e d i a t i o n s e s s i o n s h e l d b e f o r e se ttle m e n t o f contractuiil d is p u te s . Res pondent Group Number o f M e d i a t i o n S e s s i o n s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B la nk 1- 2 3-4 5 -6 7-8 9-10 10+ n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Total Mean SD School d i s t r i c t leaders 3 4 23 33 29 42 10 75 4 6 0 0 0 0 69 3.348 1. 61 2 T eacher union leaders 7 70 24 35 24 35 13 78 1 7 0 0 1 7 70 3.476 2.191 72 T a b l e 4 . 1 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s by s t r i k e o c c u r r e n c e b e f o r e settlem ent of contractual dispute. I n c i d e n c e o f S t r i k e O c c u r re n c e Respondent Group Blank No S t r i k e O cc ur re d n % n School d i s t r i c t leaders 1 7 49 T ea ch er union leaders 2 3 53 A Strike Oc cur red % Tot al n % 71 19 28 69 76 15 21 70 R e s u l t s o f H y p o th e s is T e s t i n g In t h i s s e c t i o n , each n u l l hypothesis is r e s t a t e d , f o l l o w e d by a discussion of the findings regarding th a t hypothesis. H y p o th e s is 1 There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n in r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s . Respondents’ B e lie f s respondents’ beliefs About M e d i a t i o n . about mediation fell MBDQ i t e m s into two concerning categories: b e l i e f s a bo ut t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e r e s u l t s o f m ediation. responses process to are School d istrict items concerning reported in T ab l e and teacher their 4.19. union beliefs T ab l e about 4.20 lead ers’ the mean mediation contains mean r e s p o n s e s t o it em s c o n c e r n i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ’ b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e r e s u l t s of mediation. 73 Table 4 . 1 9 . - -C o n tra stin g o f mean HBDQ responses concerning b e l i e f s about th e proce ss of mediation. School D i s t r i c t Leaders (N-69J T e acher Union Leaders (N-70) Item Mean Response 22. 25. 32. 40. 43. 44. 52. 55. 60. SD Mean Response Z -S core 2 -T a ile d P SD M ediation reduced t h e number o f u n re s o lv e d i s s u e s . 2.435 1.450 2.5 65 1.377 - .864 .3875 M ediation was an e f f e c t i v e process. 2.609 1.274 3.0 57 1.382 -2 .2 8 7 .0222* M ediation was needed due t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s between o u r r e s p e c t i v e team members. 3.362 1.272 4.057 1.238 -3 .3 6 4 .0008* M ediation i n c r e a s e d d i f f e r ­ ences between t h e d i s p u t i n g team s. 4.217 .872 4.086 .944 - .900 .3680 M ed iatio n improved ou r com­ m u n ic a tio n s w ith t h e i r team. 2.957 1.077 3.261 1.221 -1 .6 4 4 .1001 M ediation i n c r e a s e d t h e num­ ber of n e g o tia tin g se s sio n s . 3.412 1.026 3.486 1.073 - .744 .4571 2.368 1.118 2.286 1.009 - .054 .9573 Poor communications between th e teams c r e a t e d th e need t o r m e d ia tio n . 3.478 1.023 3.071 1.278 -1 .4 6 2 .1438 M ed iatio n h elp ed th e d i s p u t ­ ing teams focu s on r e a l is su e s. 2.609 1.101 2.700 1.184 - .430 .6670 M ediation caused e x p l o r a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e changes w h ile p r o t e c t i n g our o f f i c i a l ta b le p o sitio n . ‘ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l . Response key: S tr o n g ly a g ree - 1, Tend to ag re e « 2, Cannot say - 3, Tend t o d i s a g r e e S tr o n g ly d i s a g r e e - 5 » 4, 74 Table 4 . 2 0 . --C o n tra s tin g o f mean MBDQ responses concerning b e l i e f s about th e r e s u l t s of m ediation. School D i s t r i c t Leaders (N-69) T eacher Union Leaders (N-70) Z -S core Item Mean Response 26. 27. 28. 29. 39. 45. 46. 47. 53. 54. 63. 64. SD Mean Response 2 -T a ile d P SD Mediation r e s u l t e d in t h e t e a c h e r s making " g a i n s . " 3 .1 8 8 1.128 3.143 1.171 - .555 .5786 Mediation r e s u l t e d in t h e board making " g a i n s . " 3.3 09 1.026 3.129 1.062 -1 .2 5 0 .2113 Mediation r e s u l t e d in improved n e g o t i a t i o n s . 2.739 1.146 3.171 1.307 -1 .9 2 8 .0538 A s e t t l e m e n t would n o t have r e s u l t e d w ith o u t m e d i a t i o n . 3.174 1.175 3.176 1.445 - .637 .5240 2.809 1.417 2.603 1.405 - .512 .6088 3.348 1.012 3.543 1.017 -1 .0 74 .2828 Because o f m e d i a t i o n , t h e t e a c h e r team to o k board p ro p o s a ls more s e r i o u s l y . 2.768 .972 3.886 1.043 -4 .8 94 .0000* Because o f m e d i a ti o n , t h e board team to o k t e a c h e r p ro p o s a ls more s e r i o u s l y . 3.087 1.054 3.071 1.196 - .223 .8232 Mediation help ed c u t throu gh i n c o n s i s t e n t r h e t o r i c used by th e t e a c h e r team . 2.725 1.110 4.086 .944 -5 .5 3 0 .0000* M ediation h elped c u t th ro ug h i n c o n s i s t e n t r h e t o r i c used by th e board team. 3.464 1.051 3.143 1.300 -1 .2 4 8 .2119 Mediation e s c a l a t e d "game p laying " between t h e d i s ­ p u ta n t s . 3.870 1.056 3.700 1.095 - .936 .3494 2.478 1.267 2.824 1.465 -1 .87 3 .0611 F a c to rs u n r e l a t e d t o m ed ia­ t i o n r e s u l t e d in s e t t l i n g a c o n trac t. T h e ir team used m e d i a ti o n as a reason not t o communicate with t h o s e whom th e y r e p r e ­ s e n te d . M ediation was e f f e c t i v e in se ttlin g a co n tract. ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l . Response key: S tr o n g ly a g re e = 1, Tend to a g re e = 2, Cannot say « 3, Tend t o d i s a g r e e S tr o n g ly d i s a g r e e - 5 = 4, 75 As shown in T a b l e 4 . 1 9 , responses of teacher union sig n ifican t differences and school d istrict i n gr oup mean leaders to it em s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s were found f o r two s t a t e m e n t s : 25. M e d i a t i o n was an e f f e c t i v e p r o c e s s ( s c h o o l l e a d e r mean = 2 . 6 0 9 , t e a c h e r l e a d e r mean = 3 . 0 5 7 , Z - s c o r e = - 2 . 2 8 7 , p = . 0222). 32. M e d ia t io n was needed due t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s between o u r r e s p e c t i v e team members ( s c h o o l l e a d e r mean = 3 . 3 6 2 , t e a c h e r l e a d e r mean = 4 . 0 5 7 , Z - s c o r e = - 3 . 3 6 4 , p = . 0 0 0 8 ) . Thus, t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d f o r t h e s e two s t a t e m e n t s . Significant differences relating to the r e s u lt s i n group mean r e s p o n s e s to statem ents o f m e d i a t i o n were found f o r t h e following items: 46. Because o f m e d i a t i o n , th e t e a c h e r team to o k board p r o p o s a l s more s e r i o u s l y ( s ch oo l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r mean = 2 . 7 6 8 , t e a c h e r uni o n l e a d e r mean = 3 . 8 8 6 , Z - s c o r e = -4.894, p = .0000). 53. M e d ia t io n h e l p e d t o c u t t h r o u g h i n c o n s i s t e n t r h e t o r i c used by t h e t e a c h e r team (sch oo l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r mean = 2 . 7 2 5 , t e a c h e r union l e a d e r mean = 4 . 0 8 6 , Z - s c o r e = - 5 . 5 3 0 , p = . 0000). Thus, t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o r e j e c t e d f o r t h e s e two s t a t e m e n t s (see Table 4 .2 0 ). B e l i e f s a bo ut t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s . a b ou t the responses mediation of teacher process union p e r t i n e n t MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s . were and The r e s p o n d e n t s ’ b e l i e f s analyzed school using d istrict the gr oup leaders to mean the The f o l l o w i n g mean r e s p o n s e v a l u e r a n g e s were used in dr awing c o n c l u s i o n s a b ou t t h e s e b e l i e f s : 76 Group Mean Response Value Range One D e s c r i p t i o n o f Group B e l i e f Response 1.00-2.33 Positive 2.34-3.66 Neutral . 3.67-5.00 Negative statem ent received resp o n d e n ts’ negative overall b eliefs mean d istrict and t e a c h e r b e l i e f s about t h i s item. l e a d e r mean of These r e s u l t s of m ediation ind icated MBDQ s t a t e m e n t Th is was: M e d ia t io n i n c r e a s e d d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e d i s p u t i n g teams (s ch oo l l e a d e r mean = 4 . 2 1 7 , t e a c h e r l e a d e r mean = 4.086, Z-score = -.9 0 0 , p = .3680). Both scho ol content that about a s p e c i f i c r e l a t i n g to th e mediation p ro c e ss. 40. responses 4.21 7 union leaders expressed The r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t e d a school d i s t r i c t and a teacher union leader documented r e s p o n d e n t s ’ n e g a t i v e this negative statem ent in that increased d iffe re n c e s they te n d e d between them, mean of 4.086. b eliefs to in disagree the that do cum enting a b e l i e f in t h e c o n v e r s e o f t h i s MBDQ s t a t e m e n t . Onp ctatpmpnt rpc pi vpd t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s . 52. Thus, a nnsit.ive overall mean r esD on se T h i s was: M e d ia t io n c a u s e d e x p l o r a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e ch an g e s p ro te c tin g our o f f i c i a l t a b l e p o s itio n (te a c h e r l e a d e r mean = 2 . 2 8 6 ) . teacher union from lead ers’ mean response indicated a while union positive b e l i e f in t h e c o n t e n t o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s . School d istrict le a d e rs did not rate this ite m as highly (mean = 2.368). One s t a t e m e n t unio n l e a d e r s . received a negative mean r e s p o n s e from t e a c h e r Thi s was i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g it e m : 77 32. The M e d ia t io n was needed due t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s between o u r r e s p e c t i v e team members ( t e a c h e r un io n l e a d e r mean = 4.057). teacher union l e a d e r s ’ mean response indicated beliefs that d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s was needed due t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s between t h e p a r t i e s . leaders’ mean range. All responses to response other to teacher th is item un io n and o t h e r MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s (3.362) school a bo u t t h e School was i n the d istrict process district neutral leader mean of mediation were in t h e n e u t r a l r a n g e . B eliefs results a bo ut the results of o f m e d i a t i o n were a n a l y z e d teacher union statem en ts. and school No s t a t e m e n t m ediation. u s in g d istrict had an The beliefs a b ou t group mean r e s p o n s e s leaders overall to mean p ertin en t response of MBDQ th at i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e b e l i e f in MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i a t i o n results. indicated results. In c o n t r a s t , a negative three belief statem ents concerning had mean r e s p o n s e s statem ents that about mediation These were: 46. Because o f m e d i a t i o n t h e t e a c h e r team t o o k bo ar d p r o p o s a l s more s e r i o u s l y ( t e a c h e r union l e a d e r mean = 3 . 8 8 6 ) . 53. M ed ia t io n h e l p e d t o c u t th r o u g h i n c o n s i s t e n t r h e t o r i c used by t h e t e a c h e r team ( t e a c h e r union l e a d e r mean = 4 . 0 8 6 ) . 63. M e d ia t io n e s c a l a t e d "game p l a y i n g " between t h e d i s p u t a n t s ( s ch o ol d i s t r i c t l e a d e r mean = 3 . 8 7 0 , t e a c h e r union l e a d e r mean = 3 . 7 0 0 , Z - s c o r e = - . 9 3 6 , p = . 3 4 9 4 ) . All o t h e r t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r mean r e s p o n s e s t o MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s abo ut m e d i a t i o n r e s u l t s were in t h e n e u t r a l r a n g e . D i s c u s s i o n o f f i n d i n g s f o r H y p o th e s is 1 . was r e j e c t e d The n u l l hypothesis f o r two s t a t e m e n t s abo ut t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s ( I te m s 78 25 and 32) and f o r ( I t e m s 46 and 5 3 ). two s t a t e m e n t s a bo u t t h e results of mediation T h e r e f o r e , t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d f o r seven s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and f o r t e n s t a t e m e n t s about th e r e s u l t s o f m e d iatio n . union lead ers’ beliefs about Thus, b ot h the s ch ool d i s t r i c t and t e a c h e r mediation process and its r e s u l t s were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . Con cer ni ng t h e b e l i e f s out of nine statem ents about th e mediation (Items 40 and 52) had gro up enough t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e p o s i t i v e r a n g e . 25, "M e d ia t io n positive range statement was an when ( I t e m 32) effective the was group rated process," means in the were process, was means high Interestingly, Item not rated determined. negative o n l y two in the Only one range--and o n l y by t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s . With r e g a r d t o t h e b e l i e f s a b ou t t h e r e s u l t s o f m e d i a t i o n , s t a t e m e n t was r a t e d in t h e p o s i t i v e r a n g e by e i t h e r g r o u p . t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s ( I te m s 46, range. 53, and 63) were r a t e d no However, in t h e n e g a t i v e All o t h e r mean r e s p o n s e s were n e u t r a l f o r both g r o u p s . H y p o th e s is 2 There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s in r e s o l v i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s . R e s p o n d e n t s ’ b e l i e f s abo ut m e d i a t o r s . d istrict l e a d e r s ’ mean r e s p o n s e s t o items concerning t h e i r abo ut m e d i a t o r s a r e r e p o r t e d in T a b l e 4 . 2 1 . between d istrict the group leaders to mean responses statem ents found f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : Te a c h e r union and school of beliefs S ign ifican t differences teacher un ion concerning m ediator and behaviors school were 79 Table 4 .2 1 . -- C o n tr a s tin g of mean MBDQ responses concerning b e l i e f s about m ediators. School D i s t r i c t Leaders (N-69) T eac h e r Union L ead ers (N-70) Item Hean Response SD Mean Response 2 -S c o re 2 -T a ile d P SD The m e d ia to r had a p o s i t i v e i n f lu e n c e on t h e t h i n k i n g o f th e t e a c h e r team. 2.594 1.129 3.000 1.341 -2 .1 2 7 .0334* The m e d ia to r had a p o s i t i v e i n f lu e n c e on th e t h i n k i n g o f th e board team. 2.623 1.202 2.814 .967 -1 .5 9 4 .1111 The m e d ia to r m ain tain e d co n fid en tiality . 2.087 1.108 2.130 .922 - .737 .4614 68. Our team t r u s t e d t h e m e d i a to r . 2.101 1.190 2.443 1.270 -2 .3 0 0 .0214* 69. The m ed iato r was n e u t r a l concerning d is p u te d I s s u e s . 2.406 1.129 2.586 1.110 -1 .7 6 2 .0780 The m e d ia to r fav o red p o s i ­ t i o n s o f th e o t h e r team. 3.884 .718 3.457 1.138 -2 .7 2 0 .0065* The m e d ia to r was h e l p f u l in s e t t l i n g d is p u te d i s s u e s . 2.493 1.146 2.829 1.340 -1 .8 8 5 .0594 The m e d ia to r c r e a t e d p r o b ­ lems which delay ed s e t t l e m e n t . 4.250 .998 3.943 1.062 -1 .3 6 8 .1714 The m e d iato r earned our resp ect. 2.348 1.122 2.743 1.380 -2 .1 47 .0318* The m e d ia to r u n d erstoo d t h e d is p u te d i s s u e s . 1.884 .916 2.000 1.036 - .810 .4180 The m ed iato r empathized w ith our c o n t r a c t u a l c o n c e rn s . 2.391 .790 2.700 1.159 -2 .3 1 8 .0205* 3.638 1.029 3.271 1.102 -2 .1 6 3 .0305* 65. 66. 67. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. A d i f f e r e n t m e d ia to r would have r e s u l t e d in a b e t t e r settlem en t. 80 Table 4 . 2 1 . --Continued. School O i s t r i c t L ead ers (N-69) T e ach er Union L ead ers (N-70) Item Mean Response 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 8 6 . 87. 8 8 . SD Mean Response Z -S co re 2 -T a il e d P SD The m e d ia to r had no i n f l u e n c e on th e f i n a l c o n t r a c t c o n t e n t . 3.3 09 1.249 3 .0 2 9 1.3 93 -1 .4 7 0 .1414 The m e d i a to r s u g g e s te d re a lis tic a lte rn a tiv e s. 2.5 29 1.085 2.743 1.2 70 -1 .4 7 9 .1393 The m e d ia to r was too ag g ressiv e. 4.0 0 0 .804 4.04 3 .824 - .372 .7096 The m e d ia to r was n ot a g g r e s ­ s i v e enough. 3.471 1.126 3.0 0 0 1.2 95 -2 .1 1 0 .0349* The m e d ia to r was too c r i t i c a l o f th e t e a c h e r p o s i t i o n . 3.913 .588 3.594 1.142 -2.371 .0177* The m e d ia to r was too c r i t i c a l o f th e board p o s i t i o n . 3.986 .653 3.9 00 .837 - .816 .4143 The m e d ia to r had a good " f e e l " f o r p u b li c school n e g o t i a t i o n s . 2.0 00 .985 2 .3 8 6 1.231 -1 .9 3 3 .0533 The m e d ia to r m a in ta in e d im p ar­ tia lity . 2.1 88 .944 2.443 1.072 -2 .1 9 5 .0282* 2.464 1.183 2.557 1.030 -1 .1 6 3 .2450 The m e d ia to r t r i e d t o c o n t r o l the n e g o tia tio n p rocess. 3.377 1.189 3.41 4 1 AT < 1 . U l*t - The m e d ia to r " le a k e d " c o n f i ­ d e n t i a l in f o r m a t io n . 4 .0 5 8 1.013 4.0 00 .917 -1 .1 4 7 .2513 The m e d ia to r was a knowledge­ a b le p e rs o n . 1.971 .923 2 .11 4 .971 -1 .4 8 4 .1379 The m e d ia to r was used as a "sounding board" f o r a l t e r ­ ing o ur p o s i t i o n ( s ) . i n r . I A 4CC • U * t « /•; 81 Table 4 .2 1 .--C o n tin u ed . School D i s t r i c t L ead ers (N-69) T e a c h e r Union L ead ers (N»70) Item Mean Response 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. The m e d i a to r m i s s t a t e d ou r p o sitio n (s). The m e d i a to r h elp ed o u r team change p o s i t i o n w ith o u t lo sin g c r e d i b i l i t y . The m e d i a to r was a good listen er. The m e d i a to r i n c r e a s e d my . c o n f i d e n c e in m e d i a ti o n . The m e d i a to r made s u r e t h a t both p a r t i e s u n d e rs to o d f i n a l c o n tra c tu a l co n ten t. The m e d i a to r was w ell p re p a r e d f o r m e d i a ti o n s e s s i o n s . The m e d i a to r brou gh t t h e d i s ­ p u ti n g teams t o g e t h e r a t a p p r o p r i a t e ti m e s . The m e d i a to r d e s e r v e s c r e d i t fo r s e l li n g th e c o n tra c t. •S ig n ific a n t Response key: at thnr>+V I I I V I V IIV These f i n d i n g s a l s o document Kr» 1 •? « -P c w c f o m c W I I W I w j V WVIIIV K o f i.i o o n VW WIIWWM m o m K o v 'c ItlWMtWVI gro ups and document t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y mediation s e s s io n s . V in n-P W I +h n V•IW + t.m WIIW scheduling I f 54% o f t h e t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s and 29% o f t h e school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s indicated problems e x i s t e d when t r y i n g t o s c h e d u l e m e d i a t i o n s e s s i o n s , t h e problem i s r e a l . Conclusions The r e s e a r c h e r drew t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y : following conclusions from t h e major 121 1. T e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s a g r e e d w i t h each o th e r t h a t mediation i s n e i t h e r e f f e c t i v e nor i n e f f e c t i v e . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n was based on e s s e n t i a l l y neutral responses to MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r b e l i e f s a b o u t b o th t h e p r o c e s s and r e s u l t s o f m ediation. these b e lie f s The r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e l e a d e r s hold because, from h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e s , t e n d t o l o o k a t m e d i a t i o n in a v e r y p r a g m a t i c way. a means t o an end. the process and they I t i s viewed as P a r t i c i p a n t s do n o t a n a l y z e t h e i r b e l i e f s abo ut the resu lts during im portant th in g is ending th e d is p u te . or after m ediation. The They f o c u s t h e i r e n e r g i e s on t h a t end. 2. other T e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s a g r e e d w i t h each that m ediator disputes are, Th is behaviors related to solving contractual in g e n e r a l , e f f e c t i v e . conclusion was based on t h e fact th at, on r e l a t e d MBDQ i t e m s , n e a r l y 40% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d b e l i e f s r e s u l t i n g a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t m e d i a t o r b e h a v i o r s had been e f f e c t i v e d u r i n g m ediation of a contractual d isp u te. F urther, n eith er in the group i n d i c a t e d any b e l i e f s t h a t would l e a d t o a c o n c l u s i o n o f i n e f f e c t i v e m ediator behaviors. The personal diplom acy sk ills of the m e d i a t o r ( s ) r e c e i v e t h e c r e d i t f o r any e f f e c t i v e n e s s a s s o c i a t e d w it h m ediation. Thus, t h e r e s e a r c h e r co n cl u d ed t h a t and n o t t h e p r o c e s s o r t h e r e s u l t , i t was t h e p e r s o n , who s h o u ld be g i v e n c r e d i t any e f f e c t i v e n e s s a s s o c i a t e d w it h m e d i a t i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s . for 122 3. related T each er union l e a d e r s ’ b e l i e f s behaviors differed about t h e i r m e d iatio n - sig n ifican tly from t h o s e of school d i s t r i c t leaders. T hi s c o n c l u s i o n came a s no s u r p r i s e t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r b e c a u s e the existence of unresolved co n tractu al disputes ex iste n c e of d i f f e r i n g b e l ie f s o f the d is p u ta n ts . was a l s o documented by t h e d a t a ( I te m s 18, im plies the This conclusion 20, 23, 30, 33, 35, 37, 41, 50, 56, 58, and 6 1 ) . 4. School d istrict leaders’ beliefs a bo ut t h e i r mediation- r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t e a c h e r un ion l e a d e r s ’ b e l i e f s a bo ut t h e s e school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r b e h a v i o r s . L i k e w i s e , t h i s c o n c l u s i o n came as no s u r p r i s e and was s u p p o r t e d by t h e d a t a . However, fe w er s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between t e a c h e r union and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s ’ b e l i e f s d istrict l e a d e r s ’ behaviors r e g a r d i n g school th a n t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s ’ m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s ( I te m s 19, 31, 36, 38, 42, 51, 59, and 6 2 ) . As a general important to observation, point out t h a t the researcher believes s ig n ific a n t differences representatives o f t h e two gr o u p s in t h i s o f t h e 79 MBDQ statem ents in the e n t i r e in it is beliefs of s t u d y e x i s t e d f o r 35 o u t study. This observation documents t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d a t a which v e r i f y t h a t t e a c h e r union and school d istrict leaders te n d to operate un d er d i f f e r e n t belief systems. The r e s e a r c h e r hopes t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l : 1. Promote a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e m e d i a t i o n f u n c t i o n . 123 2. Promote an interest in additional research on m e d i a t i o n , m e d i a t o r s , and d i s p u t a n t b e h a v i o r s . 3. Promote a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g on t h e p a r t o f b o th t e a c h e r un io n and sch ool d i s t r i c t leaders of the d is p u te -re la te d behaviors t h a t a r e e x h i b i t e d by members o f b o th g r o u p s . 4. Promote a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n o f m ediators. 5. Lead t o an e f f o r t on t h e p a r t o f t e a c h e r un io n and school district leaders to investigate the reasons for the existence of t h e i r d i f f e r i n g b e l i e f systems. 6. Cause t e a c h e r un io n and school more u n d e r s t a n d i n g a bo ut d istrict and e m p a t h e t i c leaders to become toward ea ch o t h e r ’ s r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Recommendations The r e s e a r c h e r about m ediation, believes that m ediators, the conclusions he and m e d i a t i o n - r e l a t e d has reached behaviors of i n d i v i d u a l <: r p n r p s p n t i n n t h p d i s n u t . i n a n a r t . i p s can nrnvp u s p f u l --------------- others • by b eliefs. ~ r ' - - - - - - providing This data . . . a data base can . . . . . b as e be ^ ( ............................... about used by th eir # . . . . ... to m ediation-related teacher union leaders, school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s , c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y d e p a r t m e n t s c ha r g e d with preparing legislators, train in g future teacher un io n and s t a t e and f e d e r a l program s, p o licies, and sch oo l d istrict leaders, l a b o r m e d i a t o r s as t h e y d e v e l o p and practices for the Recommendations f o r a p p l i c a t i o n and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h f o l l o w . fu tu re. 124 Recommendations f o r A p p l i c a t i o n The r e s p o n s e s behaviors of to teacher wide d i s c r e p a n c i e s group. MBDQ s t a t e m e n t s un io n in and beliefs about school held They s h o u ld also attem pt to leaders gr oup a b o u t indicated the o f t h e s e two g r o u p s s t r i v e t o know more a b o u t ea ch o t h e r ’ s f e a r s , desires. m ediation-related d istrict by ea ch This suggests t h a t th e le ad ers the concerns, ascertain the other s h o u ld needs, and reasons for these d iffe rin g b e lie fs . 1. an d C o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t r a i n i n g t e a c h e r s school ad m in istrato rs should req u ire formal train in g in e f f e c t i v e union-management d i s p u t e - r e s o l u t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . 2. The Michigan Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission s h o u ld p r o v i d e training in interest-based bargaining techniques In i n t e r e s t - b a s e d bargaining, taking getting positions, to the m ediators. the m ediator helps them t o d i s c u s s the p a r tie s their interests av o id on each i s s u e i n s t e a d ( S te p p & B a r r e t t , 1990, p. F - 3 ) . 3. The M ichigan A ssociation o f School and district school Education A ssociation A dm inistrators leaders in the should and the educate techniques M ichigan teacher of union interest-based bargaining. for 4. The Michigan Dep art me nt o f Labor s h o u l d h i r e more m e d i a t o r s the Michigan action would sessions than respondents. Employment allow is for more currently R elations expeditious the case in Commission (MERC). scheduling M ic hi g an , as of Thi s mediation indicated by 125 5. M e d i a t o r s s h o u ld co n d u ct t r a i n i n g com mi tt ees t h a t i n t r o d u c e t h e model bargaining before the mediation sessions for bargaining and c o n c e p t s o f i n t e r e s t - b a s e d of existing contractual Then t h e e x i s t i n g d i s p u t e s c o u l d be m e d i a t e d . disputes. T h i s ap pr o ac h would both e d u c a t e t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s t o t h e ways o f i n t e r e s t - b a s e d b a r g a i n i n g and e x p e d i t e t h e m e d i a t i o n of existing disputes. teacher union understanding and A no th er b e n e f i t would be t h a t more and more school a bo u t this believes this would services from MERC in d istrict appro ac h potentially the to lead ers w o ul d bargaining. reduce the an The researcher for mediation need long term b ec a u se develop few er d i s p u t e s would e x i s t u s i n g t h i s ap pr oac h. Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research 1. school Th is study d istricts s h o u ld in be which replicated mediation to include services have all Michigan been provided s i n c e J u l y 1, 1989, t o v a l i d a t e t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s i n i t i a l 2. study. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e h i s t o r y o f l a b o r - m a n a g e m e n t - r e l a t i o n s problems ( o r l a c k t h e r e o f ) i n a school d istrict and the beliefs h e l d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e inform ation abo ut a bo ut m e d i a t i o n of contractual disputes b a r g a i n i n g team members might y i e l d factors that influence the beliefs of useful public school d i s t r i c t n e g o t i a t o r s . 3. factor The M ed ia ti on analyzed to B elief develop D escription a more Questionnaire succinct, highly instrum ent f o r assessin g m e d ia tio n -re la te d b e l i e f s . could be validated 126 4. Because i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f m e d i a t i o n were n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e , a s t u d y d e s i g n e d t o a s c e r t a i n what k in d s o f r e s u l t s would c o n s t i t u t e e f f e c t i v e m e d i a t i o n i s i n o r d e r . 5. A correlational study s h o u ld be c o n d u c t e d to compare t h e t o t a l g e n e r a l fund d o l l a r s s p e n t p e r p u p i l i n Michigan p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s i n which m e d i a t i o n has o c c u r r e d w i t h t h e d o l l a r s s p e n t p e r pupil in d istricts i n which no c o n t r a c t u a l The r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l isg re a te r in school d istricts th at disputes have for contractual have lim ited arisen. disputes fin an cial resources. 6. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o i d e n t i f y t h e b a s i s on which t h e b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r union and sch ool determined would be district valuable. l e a d e r s a b o u t each o t h e r a r e Per hap s their differing beliefs r e s u l t from t h e i r v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s and from l e a r n i n g t o n e g o t i a t e by t h e " t r i a l and e r r o r " method. 7. A correlational study graphic ch aracteristics are in which school compared d istrict to teacher u ni o n soc iod em o­ and school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s ’ b e l i e f s a bo ut m e d i a t i o n , m e d i a t o r s , and each o t h e r c o u l d h e l p t o c l a r i f y t h e i n f l u e n c e o f such f a c t o r s on t h e r e s o l u ­ tio n of contractual d isp u tes. 8. issues An i n v e s t i g a t i o n brought into comparing t h e mediation to the density of settlem ent the number of rate would be valuable. 9. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the effect of settlem ents achieved t h r o u g h m e d i a t i o n on f u t u r e c o n t r a c t - s e t t l e m e n t r a t e s c o u l d c l a r i f y t h e i n f l u e n c e o f m e d i a t i o n on f u t u r e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 127 10. An a n a l y s i s o f d i f f e r i n g m e d i a t o r bac k gr o un ds influence the success rate of s e ttlin g contractual a s t h e y may disputes would provide valuable inform ation. R ef!ections I have s p e n t c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e d u r i n g my 25 y e a r s as a p u b l i c scho ol ed u ca to r mediating union negotiator/spokesperson spokesperson. contractual and disputes, as a b o th school as a teacher ad m in istrato r/ While d o in g s o , i t was n o t uncommon t o r e f l e c t on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t l e d up t o t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s . Questions about the and beliefs of individuals on the "other" team about e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m e d i a t i o n in r e s o l v i n g d i s p u t e s o f t e n a r o s e mind. As I began t o d e v e l o p t h e MBDQ i n s t r u m e n t , the i n my I combined t h e knowledge I had g a i n e d from t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n I was d i s c o v e r i n g as I r ev ie we d t h e l i t e r a t u r e relating to mediation and m e d i a t o r s . I had a n t i c i p a t e d substantiate related that beliefs t h a t t h e d a t a r e c e i v e d from t h e MBDQ would some d i f f e r e n c e s of teacher existed between un io n and sch ool l e a r n e d t h a t t h i s was t h e c a s e . the d istrict mediationleaders. I I was s u r p r i s e d by t h e e x t e n t o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , as t h e y were much g r e a t e r t h a n I had a n t i c i p a t e d . I was a l s o surprised that e f f e c t i v e t h a n i t was. mediation A fter a l l , was not contractual believed to be more d i s p u t e s do come t o an end. The e x i s t e n c e o f many s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s each other makes the occurrence of in b e l i e f s co n tractu al about d isputes 128 understandable, assuming t h a t the b e lie fs d i s p u t e s and d i d n o t r e s u l t from them. different ba ckg ro und s and e x p e r i e n c e s two g r o u p s . For exam ple, h a v i n g had t e a c h i n g leaders reported district leaders mediation any differences among t h e leadership d istrict leaders b u t o n l y 3% o f t h e adm inistrative experience. of the reported t e a c h e r union Further, school r e p o r t e d more t h a n t w i c e a s many n e g o t i a t i n g experiences, representatives, P er h ap s t h e y r e s u l t from t h e 93% o f sch oo l experience, preceded th e c o n tra c tu a l bo th as teacher representatives t h a n d i d t e a c h e r union l e a d e r s . indicate the basis for fear and and and board I believe these distrust between the p a r t i e s and r e s u l t in t h e p a r t i e s ’ r e l y i n g on t r a d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s t o b a r g a i n i n g , in which one p a r t y a t t e m p t s t o impose i t s w i l l on t h e other. This ap p r o a c h , by i t s very d i s t r u s t o f each group f o r t h e o t h e r . nature, encourages I view t h i s continuing situation as a beliefs that s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l problem t h a t can be improved. The findings of this research reaffirm ed my trad itio n al a p p r o a c h e s t o b a r g a i n i n g f o s t e r d i f f e r i n g b e l i e f systems in union teacher and sch ool district leaders. The f i n d i n g s also r e a f f i r m e d my b e l i e f s t h a t t h e m e d i a t o r s , t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s employed by MERC who a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t u a l d i s p u t e s , a r e by and l a r g e w el l respected by t h e t e a c h e r union and school d istrict l e a d e r s who have used t h e i r s e r v i c e s . I was s u r p r i s e d and g r a t i f i e d by t h e 88% r e s p o n s e r a t e t o t h e s u r v e y t h a t was used t o g a t h e r d a t a f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . this to my e f f o r t s to en co u r a g e nonrespondents to I attribute c om pl et e and 129 r e t u r n t h e i r s u r v e y s and t o a g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h , documented by a number o f p a r t i c i p a n t r e q u e s t s f o r c o p i e s of the research r e s u lts . I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t h i n g s I d i s c o v e r e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be of benefit to understanding me of become the the un io n and sch oo l can in future. wide d i f f e r e n c e s d istrict b etter Because at leaders managing in the regarding the I now have b eliefs uncertainty system. teacher beliefs that the I have g a i n e d , insights I s h o u ld into be a b l e better teacher issues, and disputes with of contractual a s s o c ia t e d with th e e x i s t e n c e o f c o n t ra c tu a l Ideally, a I co n flicts in a school un io n leader t o work to w ar d dev el op me nt o f a more commonly s h a r e d b e l i e f s ys te m in t h e the school s yst em in which I am employed. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s my o p i n i o n . help benefits, in I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e r e s e a r c h d a t a and c o n c l u s i o n s can promote between r e s e a r c h have many p o t e n t i a l a teacher greater un io n degree and of school sensitivity d istrict and leaders. understanding F urther, I b e l i e v e t h e s e r e s u l t s can p o t e n t i a l l y promote a f o c u s on em p h a si z in g the dev el opm ent o f more c o o p e r a t i v e un io n and school d i s t r i c t leaders. relationships The d i f f e r e n c e s between teacher in b e l i e f s t h a t e x i s t d e t r a c t from t h a t f o c u s . Last, I believe these r e s u lts w ill provide useful t o members o f t h e f o l l o w i n g l e a d e r s h i p g r o u p s w ill help increase p a r tic ip a n t behaviors: understanding about because m ediation inform ation the and results related 130 1. The Michigan E d u c a ti o n A s s o c i a t i o n and t h e Michigan A s s o c i ­ a t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . 2. The Michigan House and S e n a t e Labor Committees. 3. The F e d e r a l M e d ia t io n and C o n c i l i a t i o n 4. The Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e . 5. U niversity professors. 6. The Michigan D epartment o f Labor. One l a s t r e f l e c t i o n : a pa ra do x of sorts. m ediator behaviors Service. Some o f t h e r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s p r e s e n t Res po nd en ts t o be e f f e c t i v e , indicated that they believed wh ere as t h e y d i d n o t h o l d t h e same b e l i e f a b o u t t h e p r o c e s s and r e s u l t s o f m e d i a t i o n . P er ha p s t h e m e d i a t o r s f a r e d well b e c a u s e i t i s human n a t u r e t o g i v e c r e d i t t o a f e l l o w human b ei ng r a t h e r th a n t o a p r o c e s s o r an outcome. event, the data th at supported i n t r i g u i n g and p e r p l e x i n g t o me. these conclusions were In any both APPENDICES APPENDIX A MEDIATION BELIEF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 131 MEDIATION BELIEF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION You are asked t o v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s research stu dy . I t i s d es ig ne d t o a s s e s s b e l i e f s about the process o f mediation u t i l i z e d by Michigan's p ub li c school t e a c h e r unions and boards o f education i n attempting t o r e s o l v e c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n d i s p u t e s . Although you are f r e e not t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s s tu d y , you i n d i c a t e your w i l l i n g n e s s t o do so by compl et ing and re turni ng t h i s survey. Only i n d i v i d u a l s who have been p ers on al l y involved in mediation i n a Michigan K-12 p u b l i c school system c o n t r ac t ua l dispute should respond t o t h e surv ey . I f you do not meet t h a t q u a l i f i c a t i o n , p le as e d i r e c t t h i s survey t o someone in your cu rr en t school system who has had the appropriate mediation e xp e r i e nc e . I t should take approximately t e n minutes t o answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . The number on t h i s survey w i l l be used t o keep track o f school d i s t r i c t r e s po n se s. I ndi vi dual responses w i l l be kept in s t r i c t confidence! Thanks f o r your c oo p er a t i o n i n making t h i s study a success! I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Directions: 1. Pl ea se respond t o the fol lowi ng que sti ons . Have you p e r s o n a l l y been i nvol ved in u t i l i z i n g mediation s e r v i c e s o f the Michigan Employment R e l a t i o n s Commission in s e t t l i n g a c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e which arose between a Michigan public school teacher union and school board? Yes No (you n eed not. complete t h i s survey). 2. Give t h e number o f t e a c h e r - s c h o o l board c on tr acts in which you have been p e r s o n a l l y i nvol ved as a n e g o t i a t o r . Co nt rac t( s) as a t e a c h e r n eg ot ia tor . Contract(s) as a school board neg oti ato r. 3. Give t h e number o f c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s in which you have p e r s o n a l l y s erved as t h e spokesperson f o r your group. Co nt rac t( s) as t h e t e a c h e r spokesperson. Contract(s) as t h e board spokesperson. 4. Give t h e number o f y e a r s o f Michigan K-12 public school exp er ie nc e which you have had: As a t e a c h e r . As an a d m i ni s t r a t o r . 132 5. What i s your cu rr en t p o s i t i o n in a Michigan p ub li c school system? Teacher Admi nistrator 6. Give t h e number o f c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g mediation i n which you personally participated: As a t e a c h e r n e g o t i a t o r . As a board n e g o t i a t o r . 7. How long has i t been s i n c e you have been p e r s o n a l l y i nvo lve d i n mediation? Year(s) 8. Who requested medi ati on i n your most recent involvement? Teacher union r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . ____ School board r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . A j o i n t r e qu e st was made. 9. In your most r e ce n t involvement, how many n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s were held prior t o th e f i r s t medi ati on s es s io n ? Ne g ot ia ti ng s e s s i o n s . 10. In your most re c en t e x p e r i e n c e , how many unresolved i s s u e s e x i s t e d p ri or t o th e f i r s t mediation s e s s i o n ? Unresolved teacher issues. Unresolved board i s s u e s . 11. Pl ea se l i s t any problems which e x i s t e d concerning scheduli ng mediation sessions. (Leave blank i f no problems e x i s t e d ) 12. In your most r e ce nt e x p e r i e n c e , how many mediation s e s s i o n s were held prior t o o b t ai n i n g a s e t t l e m e n t ? Mediation s e s s i o n s . 133 13. Did a s t r i k e take p l a c e p r i o r t o s et t l e m e n t? Yes No 14. What i s your gender? Female Male 15. P l ea s e g i v e t h e y e a r o f your b i r t h . 16. P le a s e d e s c r i b e your c urr en t school d i s t r i c t . Rural Suburban Urban 17. P l ea s e i n d i c a t e t h e h i g h e s t degree which you hold. II. YOUR OPINIONS CONCERNING MEDIATION AND MEDIATORS D i r e c t i o n s : The f o l l o w i n g are s tate ments which r e l a t e t o th e proce ss of medi ati on , t ho se groups u t i l i z i n g me di ati on, and medi ators. Pl ea se i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o which each statement c h a r a c t e r i z e s your personal b e l i e f by c i r c l i n g t h e appropriate re spon se. SA TA C TD SD = = = = = Strongl y Agree Tend t o Agree Cannot Say Tend t o Disagree Strongl y Di sagree 18. The t e a c h e r team was committed t o having mediation r e s u l t in as e t t l e m e n t SA TA C TD SO 19. The board team was committed t o having mediation r e s u l t in a s e t t l e m e n t SA TA C TD SD 20. The t e a c h e r team brought to o many i s s u e s i n t o mediation SA TA C TD SD SA TA C TD SD 21. The board team brought to o many i s s u e s i n t o mediation. 134 22. Mediation reduced t h e number o f unresolved i s s u e s SA TA C TD SD 2 3. The t e a ch e r team used mediation t o p u b l i c l y show i t wanted a s e t t l e m e n t ............................................................................. SA TA C TD SD 24. The board team used medi ati on t o p u b l i c l y show i t wanted a s e t t l e m e n t ............................................................................. SA TA C TD SD 25. Mediation was an e f f e c t i v e p r o c e s s .......................................... SA TA C TD SD 26. Mediation r e s u l t e d i n t h e t e ac h e r s making "gai ns" SA TA C TD SD 27. Mediation r e s u l t e d i n t h e board making "gains"................. SA TA C TD SD 28. Mediation r e s u l t e d i n improved n e g o t i a t i o n s ...................... SA TA C TD SD 29. A s e t t l e m e n t would not have r e s u l t e d without m e di a ti o n.................................................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 30. Mediation was needed because t he t e ach er team members did not t r u s t each o t h e r SA TA C TD SD 31. Mediation was needed because th e board team members did not t r u s t each o t h e r SA TA C 32. Mediation was needed due t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s which e x i s t e d between our r e s p e c t i v e team members.. . . . SA TA C TD SD 33. Community pres sure s caused te acher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in m e di a ti o n SA TA C TD SD 34. Community p res s ure s caused board p a r t i c i p a t i o n in m e di a t i o n .................................................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 35. Internal group p r es s u r es caused te acher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n m e di a ti o n SA TA C TD SD 36. Internal group p r es s u r es caused board p a r t i c i p a t i o n in m e di at io n SA TA C TD SD 37. Mediation was not u s ef u l because t h e t e ach er team did not want a s e t t l e m e n t ............................................................... SA TA C TD SD 38. Mediation was not u s ef u l because t h e board team did not want a s e t t l e m e n t ......................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 39. Factors u nr el ated t o mediation r e s u l t e d in s e t t l i n g a c o n t r a c t ..................................................... SA TA C TD SD 40. Mediation i nc r ea s ed d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e d i s pu t i ng teams...................................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 41. The t e ac he r team needed mediation in order t o "save f a c e " ........................................................ SA TA C TD SD TD SD 135 42. The board team needed medi ati on in order t o "save f a c e " .................................................................................................. 43. Mediation improved our communications with t h e i r SA team. 44 . Mediation i n c r e a s e d t h e number o f n e g o t i a t i o n s e s s i o n s ............................................................................................ TA C TD SD SA TA C TD SD TA C TD SD SA TA C TD SD SA 45 . Their team used me di ati on as a reason not t o communicate with t h o s e whom they represented ( i e . "The mediator won't l e t us d i s c u s s t h i n g s with y o u " ) . . 46. Because o f m e di at io n, t h e t e a ch e r team took board pro pos al s more s e r i o u s l y ....................................................... SA TA C TD SD 47. Because o f m e di at io n, t h e board team took teacher pro po sa ls more s e r i o u s l y ....................................................... SA TA C TD SD 48. Mediation was n e c e s sa ry due t o teacher lack o f t r u s t in t h e board..................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 49. Mediation was n ec e ss a ry due t o board lack o f t r u s t i n t h e t e a c h e r s ........................................................................... SA TA C TD SD 50. The t e a c h e r team had a hidden agenda which mediation did not e f f e c t SA TA C TD SD 51. The board team had a hidden agenda which mediation d id not e f f e c t SA TA C TD SD 52. Mediation caused e x p l o r a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e changes whi le p r o t e c t i n g our " o f f i c i a l " t a b l e p o s i t i o n SA TA C TD SD 53. Mediation helped cut through i n c o n s i s t e n t r h e t o r i c used by t h e t e a ch e r team SA TA C TD SD 54. Mediation helped cut through i n c o n s i s t e n t r h et o r i c used by t h e board team SA TA C TD SD 55. Poor communications between t h e teams created t he need f o r m e d i a t i o n SA TA C TD SD 56. The t e ac h er team used medi ati on to counteract t he board's l ack o f i n t e g r i t y SA TA C TD SD 57. The board team used medi ati on t o counteract the t e a c h e r s ' l ack o f i n t e g r i t y ......................................... SA TA C TD SD The t e ac he r team lacked a u t h o r i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s , making mediation i n e f f e c t u a l ......................................................... SA TA C TD SD The board team lacked a u t h o r i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s , making mediation i n e f f e c t u a l ......................................................... SA TA C TD SD 58 59. 136 60. Mediation helped th e d is pu ti ng p a r t i e s focus on re al i s s u e s .............................................................................................. SA TA C TD SD 61. Mediation was a necess ary s te p in a predetermined t e a c h e r plan t o f o r c e a " s t r i k e " .................................................. SA TA C TD SD 62. Mediation was a necessary s te p in a predetermined board plan t o f o r c e a " s t r i k e " ..................................................... SA TA C TD SD 63. Mediation e s c a l a t e d "game playing" between th e d i s p u t a n t s ................................................................................................ SA TA C TD SD 64. Mediation was e f f e c t i v e in s e t t l i n g a c o n t r a c t .............. SA 6 5 . The mediator had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e thi nk in g o f t h e t e a ch e r team............................................................................ TD SD SA TA C TD SD SA TA c TD SD 66. The mediator had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e thi nk in g o f t h e board team................................................................................. TA C 67. The mediator maintained c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ................................ SA TA c TD SD 68. Our team t r u s t e d t he medi ator...................................................... SA TA c TD SD SA TA c TD SD 7 0 . The mediator favored p o s i t i o n s o f t h e other team............ SA TA c TD SD 71. The mediator was hel pf ul i n s e t t l i n g disputed i s s u e s . . SA TA c TD SD 72. The mediator cr eate d problems which delayed s e t tl eme n t SA TA c TD SD 73. The mediator earned our r e s p e c t .................................................. SA TA c TD SD 74. me iiieuidlui understood t he disputed i s s u e s .................. SA TA c TD SD 75. The mediator empathized with our c on tr ac tu al concerns. SA TA c TD SD SA TA c TD SD c o n t e n t ........................................................................................................ SA TA c TD SD 78. The mediator suggested r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e s .................. SA TA c TD SD 79. The mediator was t o o a g g r e s s i v e .................................................. SA TA c TD SD 80. The mediator was not ag g re s si ve enough.................................. SA TA c TD SD 81. The mediator was too c r i t i c a l o f th e t e ach er p o s i t i o n . SA TA c TD SD 82. The mediator was to o c r i t i c a l o f th e board p o s i t i o n . . . SA TA c TD SD 69. The mediator was neutral concerning dis puted i s s u e s .......................................................................................................... 76. A d i f f e r e n t mediator would have r e s u l t e d i n a b e t t e r s e t t l e m e n t ................................................................................................. 77. The mediator had no i n f l u e n c e on th e f i n a l contractual 137 83. The mediator had a good " f e e l " f or pub li c school n e g o t i a t i o n s ............................................................................................ SA TA C TD SD 84. The mediator maintained i m p a r t i a l i t y ...................................... SA TA C TD SD 85. The mediator was used as a "sounding board" f o r a l t e r i n g our p o s i t i o n ( s ) ................................................................. SA TA c TD SD 86. The mediator t r i e d t o c o nt r ol th e n e g o t i a t i o n proce ss . SA TA c TD SD 87. The mediator "leaked" c o n f i d e n t i a l inf ormat ion................ SA TA c TD SD 88. The mediator was a knowledgeable person................................ SA TA c TD SD 89. The mediator mi s st at ed our p o s i t i o n ( s ) .................................. SA TA c TD SD 90. The mediator helped our team change p o s i t i o n without l o s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y ............................................................ SA TA c TD SD 91. The mediator was a good l i s t e n e r ............................................... SA TA c TD SD 92. The mediator increased my confi dence i n medi ati on.......... SA TA c TD SD 93. The mediator made sure t h a t both p a r t i e s understood f i n a l c on tr ac tu al c o n t e n t ............................................................... SA TA c TD SD 94. The mediator was well prepared f or mediation s e s s i o n s . SA TA c TD SD 95. The mediator brought th e d is pu ti ng teams t oge th er at appropriate t i m e s .......................................................................... SA TA c TD SD 96. The mediator des er ves c r e d i t f o r s e t t l i n g the con tr act SA TA c TD SD THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!! APPENDIX B MICHIGAN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT MEDIATED TEACHER UNION-SCHOOL BOARD CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES BETWEEN JULY 1, 1986, AND JUNE 30, 1989 138 Michigan K-12 P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t s Th at Me diated T e a c h e r Union-School Board C o n t r a c t u a l D i s p u t e s Between J u l y 1. 1986. and J u n e 30. 1989 Alcona Community S ch o ol s Almont Community Sc ho ol s Alpena P u b l i c Sc h oo ls Athens Area Sc h oo ls A t l a n t a Community S ch o ol s B a t t l e C r e e k - - H a r p e r Creek S c h o o ls B a t t l e C r e e k - - P e n n f i e l d School D i s t r i c t Benton Har bo r Area S ch oo ls B e r r i e n S p r i n g s P u b l i c S ch o ol s Bloomingdale P u b l i c Sc ho ol s Boyne C i t y P u b l i c S ch o ol s Bridgman P u b l i c Schools C a s e v i l l e P u b l i c Scho ols Cass C i t y P u b l i c Scho ols C e n t r e v i l l e P u b l i c S ch oo ls C o n s t a n t i n e P u b l i c S ch oo ls Corunna P u b l i c Sch ool s Davison Community Sc h oo ls Dearborn H e i g h t s - - N o r t h Dearborn H e ig h t s D e e r f i e l d P u b l i c Scho ols Del t o n K e ll o g g Sc h oo ls Eco rs e P u b l i c Schools Ed m or e-- Mo nt abe ll a Community Sch ool s E l l s w o r t h Community Scho ols E l s i e - - O v i d - E l s i e Area Sc h oo ls Engadine C o n s o l i d a t e d Sc h oo ls Escanaba Area P u b l i c Sc h oo ls F o r e s t Area Community Sc h oo ls G la d s to n e Area Schools G r e e n v i l l e P u b l i c Scho ols H a r t P u b l i c Scho ols Holla nd P u b l i c Sch ool s Hoi l a n d - - W e s t Ottawa Sc ho ol s Howard C i t y - - T r i County Area Sc h oo ls Ida P u b l i c Sch ool s I r o n M o u n ta i n - -N o r th D ic k i n so n Schools J e n i s o n P u b l i c Schools Kalamazoo P u b l i c Sch ool s Kalkaska P u b l i c Sc h oo ls Lai ng sb u rg Community Sc h oo ls Lakeview Community S ch o ol s Lei and P u b l i c Schools Ma nch es te r Community Sc h oo ls M a n i s t i q u e Area Sc h oo ls Marine C i t y - - E a s t China P u b l i c Schools M ars hal l P u b l i c Sc h oo ls M a y v il le Community S ch oo ls 139 M i d d l e v i n e - - T h o r n a p p l e K el lo g g Scho ols M i l l i n g t o n Community Sc h oo ls M o n r o e - - J e f f e r s o n P u b l i c S ch oo ls Muskegon H e i g h t s P u b l i c S ch oo ls Muskegon--Mona Shor es Sc ho ol s Muskegon--Orchard View P u b l i c Sc ho ol s M u s k e g o n - - R e e t h s - P u f f e r S ch oo ls New B o s ton -- H uro n S ch oo ls N o rt h Muskegon P u b l i c Sc ho ol s Parchment School D i s t r i c t Paw Paw P u b l i c Sc ho ol s P o r t Huron Area Sc ho o ls Rapid R i v e r P u b l i c S c h o o ls Reese P u b l i c Sc h oo ls R i v e r Rouge School D i s t r i c t R o c k w o o d - - G i b r a l t a r School D i s t r i c t Romulus--Woodhaven Sc ho ol s S a l i n e Area Sc ho o ls S e b e w a i n g - - U n i o n v i l l e - S e b e w a i n g Sch ool s Stambaugh--West I r o n County P u b l i c Sch ool s S t a n t o n - - C e n t r a l Montcalm P u b l i c Sch ool s S t o c k b r i d g e Community Sc ho ol s S u t t o n s Bay P u b l i c S ch o ol s V a s s a r P u b l i c Sc h oo ls V e r m o n t v i l i e - - M a p l e V a l l e y Sc ho ol s Waldron Area Sc h oo ls Warren--Van Dyke P u b l i c Sc h oo ls West B ran ch- -R os e C i t y Area Sc ho ol s White P in e P u b l i c Sc h oo ls Wyandotte P u b l i c Sc h oo ls Wyoming--Godwin H e i g h t s P u b l i c Sch ool s Y p s i l a n t i - - W i l l o w Run Community Schools APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE 140 -< 1' ' _ _ _ _ ^,- .- ~ ==rM±z^ „ _ C ^ I^ R S fe = M ^ N T C lv ^ ^ U iB L iC SCHOOL PHONE S31-5243 ROBERT D. SPENCER, Superintendent 1480 Sheridan Road S.W. Stanton, Michigan 48888 October 30, 1989 LETTER TO MICHIGAN LABOR MEDIATORS - Developing MBDQ Content Dear: Dr. Dan Kruger, my advisor at Michigan State University, suggested that I seek your suggestions concerning th e enclosed survey questi onnai re. This instrument w i l l be u t i l i z e d t o survey the at t i t u d es of both public school teacher union negoti ators and school board negotiators concerning t h e i r experiences with the mediation process and mediators. I am in t h e process of f i n a l i z i n g the form prior t o sending i t out for data c o l l e c t i n g purposes. Thus, your suggestions f or improving the instrument would be s i n c e r e l y appreciated. Please take a few minutes out of your busy schedule t o read through the survey. Write any suggestions for improvement on t h e form and return i t to me in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your help. Yours t r u l y , Robert D. Spencer Superi ntendent bmw enclosure C E N T R A L M O N T C A L M IS A N E Q U A L O P P O R T U N I T Y I N S T I T U T I O N 141 SCHOOL PHONE 831-5243 ROBERT D. SPENCER. Superintendent 1480 Sheridan Road S.W. Stanton. Michigan 48880 November 22, 1989 LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT—FIELO TEST OF PRELIMINARY MBDQ Dear Your help would be appreciated! Enclosed i s a survey instrument designed t o as s es s the a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan Public School Negotiators toward the process of mediation and mediators. Please help with the s uccessf ul completion o f t h i s research by doing the f ol l o w i ng: 1. Complete the survey instrument, 2. Provide written commentary in the margin o f the survey where i t may be unclear, redundant, e t c . , and, 3. Mail the survey in the envelope provided herein. Your responses w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Thanks much for your help! S in ce r el y , Robert D. Spencer Superi ntendent C E N T R A L M O N T C A L M IS A N E Q U A L O P P O R T U N I T Y I N S T I T U T I O N PHONE 831*5243 ROBERT D. SPENCER. Superintendent 1480 Sheridan Road S.W. Stanton. Michigan 48888 November 22, 1989 LETTER TO MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES Develop/Validate MBDQ Dear Your help would be appreciated in val i da ti ng th e enclosed survey instrument. When f i n a l i z e d , i t w i l l be used t o c o l l e c t data regarding a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan Public School Teacher and Board Ne goti ators toward th e process o f mediation and mediators. This research i s being conducted in a s s o c i a t i o n with my pursuit of a doctoral degree at Michigan S t a te University. Pl ease help me with the s uc ce s sf ul completion o f t h i s research by doing th e f ol l owi ng : 1. Read through the Part I - Background Information portion o f the survey. Write any suggestions f or improving the c l a r i t y , f or eliminating or adding questi ons, e t c . , i n the margins o f the survey form. You need not answer thes e q ue s t i o ns . 2. Respond t o the statements in Part II o f th e survey - Your Opinions Concerning Mediation and Mediators. Again, pleas e provide writ ten commentary in the margin where statements may be unclear, redundant, etc.. 3. Mail the survey with your commentary and answers in the return envelope provided. Pl ease return t h i s t o me by Friday, December 8, 1989. Your responses w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Thanks much for your help! Si ncerel y, Robert D. Spencer Superi n t e n d ^ VTRAL M O N T C A L M IS A S E Q U A L O P P O R T U N I T Y I N S T I T U T I O N 143 M IC H IG A N A S S O C IA T IO N O F S C H O O L A D M IN IS T R A T O R S Office of th e Executive Director 421 West Kalamazoo, Lansing, Michigan 48933 T elephone 517 371-5250 FAX 517 371-9093 April 5, 1990 AN INITIAL LETTER TO MBDQ SCHOOL DISTRICT LEADERS IN THE SAMPLE GROUP Dear Colleague: Collective bargaining with employee groups is a sig­ nificant factor in the overall operation of Michigan public school districts. During the bargaining pro­ cess, disputes occasionally arise which are difficult for the local bargainers to resolve. To help in these situations, the Michigan Employment Relations Commis­ sion provides m e d i a t i o n services. However, little research exists concerning the mediation process. Knowledge regarding the effectiveness of mediation in resolving public school contractual disputes would be very useful, both to those who utilize the process and to mediators. Thus, the enclosed study can make an important contribution to the fields of educational a d m i n istration and public sector labor relations. Please help in this effort by taking a few minutes to complete and return the enclosed survey. Your participation in this research will be very help­ ful and is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely yours, Executive Director pat Enclosure A Member of the Michigan C ongress of School Administrator A ssociations 144 M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4U 24-1032 SCHOOL OF LABOR A N D INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SOUTH KEDZIE HALL April 5, 1990 AN INI TI AL LETTER TO MBDQ TEACHER UNION LEADERS IN THE SAMPLE GROUP Dear : Your h el p i s needed i n completing an important s tudy con ce rn in g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f me di ati on as a c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n t e c h n i q u e in Michigan p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s . In t h i s s t u d y , i n f or ma t io n about a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r and school board n e g o t i a t o r s c on c e r n i n g medi ati on and medi ators w i l l be g at her ed and ana ly zed. This i s t h e f i r s t such s tudy o f t h e use o f medi ati on and i s part o f a d octoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . P l e a s e c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h i s s tudy by co mpl et ing and r e t u r n i n g t h e e n c l o s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r i or t o April 20, 1990. A stamped return e nv el o pe i s provided f o r your c o n v en i e nc e. (Completing t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l t a k e about ten minutes.) You are assured complete c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The d i s t r i c t number on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s f o r mai li ng purposes o n l y . Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e . Sincerely, Daniel H. Kruger, P r o f e s s w School o f Labor and I n d u s t r i a l Re l a t i o n s Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y DHK/bw 145 April 25, 1990 AN I NI TI AL LETTER TO MBDQ SCHOOL DISTRICT LEADERS IN THE SAMPLE GROUP Dear : Your h el p i s needed i n compl et ing a study o f t h e p r o c e s s o f m e di a ti o n as a c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n t e c h ni q ue a v a i l a b l e t o Michigan p u b l i c school d istricts. In t h i s s tu d y, which wi l l c u l mi n at e i n a d o c to r al d i s s e r t a t i o n , i nf o rma t io n about a t t i t u d e s o f t e a ch er and s choo l board n e g o t i a t o r s toward me di ati on w i l l be gathered and analyzed. P l ea s e p r o v i d e your a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h i s r e se a r c h by co mp le t in g and r e t u r n i n g t h e e n c l o s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h i n t h e next few days. A stamped en ve lop e i s provided f o r your c o n ve ni en ce . Completing t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e wi l l r e q u i r e v er y l i t t l e ti me (about 10 mi n ut e s ) . You i n d i c a t e your v ol u n t a r y r e t ur n in g t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . agreement to You are as sured compl ete c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s f o r ma i l i ng purposes o n l y . and a s s i s t a n c e . Sincerely, Robert D. Spencer S up er in te nd en t o f Schools bmw participate by The d i s t r i c t Thank you f o r c o m pl e t in g and number on your your c o o p e r a t i o n 146 A POSTCARD SOLICITATION TO MBDQ NON-RESPONDENTS HI, JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER!! L a s t week you were m a il ed a s u r v e y , t h e MEDIATION BELIEF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE. I f y o u ' v e a l r e a d y r e t u r n e d i t - THANKS! I f n o t , p l e a s e com ple te and r e t u r n i t by A p r i l 20, 1990. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s v e r y i m p o r ta n t and will c o n trib u te to i t s sig n ifican ce . Thanks a g a i n ! ! Sincerely,. ------FioBert D. Spencer S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f Schools o e n u a i nui i t ud m i r u u i n o u i i u u i 147 M I C H I G AN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE O N RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48*24-1111 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 206 BERKEY HALL (517) 353*9738 March 15,1990 IRB# 90-090 Robert D. Spencer 4404 S. Sheridan Road Sheridan, Ml 48884 Dear Mr. Spencer: "AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION IN RESOLVING CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS IRB# 90-090" RE: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to March 15,1991. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerelv. 'I John K. Hudzik, Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS JK H /sar cc: S. Moore APPENDIX D WILCOXON MATCHED-PAIRS RANKED-SIGN TEST 148 Wilcoxon M a t c h e d - P a i r s Ranked-Sign T e s t The Wilcoxon matched-pairs ranked-sign test was used (a) to compute r a n k e d d i f f e r e n c e s between school d i s t r i c t and t e a c h e r union leaders’ mean responses to MBDQ b e l i e f statements and (b) to c a l c u l a t e t h e t e s t s t a t i s t i c , Z. Computation o f Ranked D i f f e r e n c e s For each c a s e t h e d i f f e r e n c e (D^) i s computed, as well as t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e o f D^, as f o l l o w s : Di - *i - Yi where Y.j All = school d i s t r i c t l e a d e r group mean = t e a c h e r uni o n l e a d e r group mean n o nz er o order, rank absolute differences and r a n k s a r e is used. differences (SJ The assigned. sums o f are then sorted into In t h e c a s e o f t i e s , the ranks corresponding and n e q a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s ascending the to average positive (Sn ) a r e c a l c u l a t e d . The a v e r a g e p o s i t i v e r a n k i s Xp = S p / n p , and t h e a v e r a g e n e g a t i v e r an k is Xn = Sn/ n n , where np is the number of cases with positive d i f f e r e n c e s and nn i s t h e number o f c a s e s w i t h n e g a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s . Test S t a t i s t i c The t e s t s t a t i s t i c i s : Z = min SD, Sn - n ( n + 1 ) / 4 ---------1!— ------------------n(n+l)(2n+l)/24 149 where n = number o f c a s e s w i t h no nz ero d i f f e r e n c e s . For large sample sizes approxim ately standard normal. (N > 3 0 ) , the distribution of Z is APPENDIX E UNSOLICITED COMMENTS 150 U n s o l i c i t e d Comments The f o l l o w i n g a r e u n s o l i c i t e d comments t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s w r o te on t h e MBDQ s u r v e y form. The comments a r e in c l u d e d h e r e bec a u se t h e y p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n abo ut and i n s i g h t i n t o t h e t h o u g h t s o f M i c h i g a n p u b l i c s c h o o l n e g o t i a t o r s c o n c e r n i n g m e d i a t i o n and m ediators. T ea ch er Union L e a d e r s ’ Comments I b e l i e v e m e d i a t i o n depends on t h e m e d i a t o r . Two o u t o f t h r e e ti m e s t h e m e d i a t o r was w o r t h l e s s , had no e f f e c t . The l a s t m e d i a t o r was ve r y good and v e r y h e l p f u l . I f you have many maj or i s s u e s , m e d i a t i o n does not work. For what i t i s w o r th , I f e e l m e d i a t i o n can be a h e l p f u l p r o c e s s t o move n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t have f a l t e r e d b u t t h e m e d i a t o r has t o g e t i n v o l v e d . Ours l a s t ti m e was a t o t a l n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r ! We dumped t h e m e d i a t o r and r e s o l v e d i t on o u r own. A s e t t l e m e n t was not re a c h e d as a r e s u l t o f m e d i a t i o n . We had 16 m e d ia ti o n s e s s i o n s s e s s i o n s with a j u d g e . and, a t t h e same t i m e , had 16 I ’ ve seen o v e r a 3 0 - y e a r p e r i o d some very e f f e c t i v e m e d i a t o r s as well as some ve ry poor o n e s . School D i s t r i c t L e a d e r s ’ Comments The m e d i a t o r t o l d t h e t e a c h e r s t h e y were u n r e a l i s t i c in t h e i r demands and he would n o t r e t u r n u n t i l t h e i s s u e s were down t o t h r e e . When t h e i s s u e s were t h r e e - - w e s e t t l e d i t o u r s e l v e s . No s e t t l e m e n t - - c o n t r a c t was imposed a f t e r f a c t f i n d i n g . D i s c o n t i n u e d m e d i a t i o n - - b a c k t o team b a r g a i n i n g . We ag re e d t o b in d i n g f a c t f i n d i n g on two i s s u e s - - s a l a r y and health insurance. I b elieve t h a t binding f a c t fin d in g is the way t o r e s o l v e i s s u e s when t h e p a r t i e s c a n ’ t o r w o n ’ t ; e s p e c i a l l y in l i e u o f a s t r i k e . The m e d i a t o r d i d n ’t h e l p . No s e t t l e m e n t as a r e s u l t . APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT MBDQ RESPONDENTS 151 T a b l e F . l . --Summary o f dem ographic i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t MBDQ r e s p o n d ­ ents. School D i s t r i c t L e a d e r s (N=69) T e a c h e r Union Lea d er s (N=70) Mean Response Mean Response Item SD SD 4 9 .2 0 6 5.848 44 .164 5.688 7. 51 6 5.02 4 20.12 9 5. 82 8 16.75 4 6.92 3 T e a c h e r un io n n e g o t i a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e (no. o f c o n t r a c t s ) 4.9 6 2 7.35 6 School d i s t r i c t n e g o t i a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e (no. o f c o n t r a c t s ) 7.1 09 5.0 34 T e a c h e r union c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r e x p e r i e n c e (n o. o f c o n t r a c t s ) 4.72 2 4.02 2 School d i s t r i c t c h i e f n e g o ­ t i a t o r e x p e r i e n c e (n o. o f contracts) 4.3 73 2.577 M e d ia t io n e x p e r i e n c e as a t e a c h e r n e g o t i a t o r (no. o f contracts) 4. 16 7 4. 8 7 9 2.812 M e d ia t io n e x p e r i e n c e as a sch ool d i s t r i c t n e g o t i a t o r (no. o f c o n t r a c t s ) 3 .3 0 9 1.7 64 -- 11.441 6. 2 16 11.016 7.8 46 Number o f t e a o . _ r i s s u e s brought to m ediation 6.581 4.71 7 7.033 7.76 5 Number o f bo ar d o f e d u c a t i o n is s u e s brought to mediation 4 .0 0 0 2.384 6.933 9.411 Number o f m e d i a t i o n s e s s i o n s held before s e ttle m e n t 3.348 1.612 3.47 6 2.191 Age ( y e a r s ) Te a ch in g e x p e r i e n c e ( y e a r s ) A dm inistrative experience (years) Number o f n e g o t i a t i n g s e s sio n s b e fo re mediation - - 5.4 06 - - 3.942 - - - - 4. 14 9 - - 4.0 7 5 - - 2.11 6 - - APPENDIX G ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT MBDQ RESPONDENTS 152 T a b l e G . l . - - A d d i t i o n a l dem ographic i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t MBDQ r e s p o n d ­ ents. School D i s t r i c t L ea d er s (N*69) T e a c h e r Union Lea d er s (N=70) Response Response Item Gender Female Male No r e s p o n s e 1.5% 98.5% 0.0% 30% 67% 3% 9% 28% 63% 0% 6% 30% 61% 3% 36% 12% 52% 33% 14% 53% 28% 71% i% 21% 76% 3% 14% 30% 54% 0% 2% 0% 6% 69% 21% 4% D i s t r i c t Tvoe Urban Suburban Rural No r e s p o n s e P a r t v R e a u e s t i n q M ed ia t io n T e a c h e r union School board Jo in t request S t r i k e O cc u rr en ce Strike No s t r i k e No r e s p o n s e Deqree S t a t u s Ed. D. /P h. D. Ed.Sp. M.S./M.A. B . S . /B . A . No r e s p o n s e BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY B a r r e t t , Jerome T . , and Lobe l, I r a B. " P u b l i c S e c t o r S t r i k e s - L e g i s l a t i v e and Co ur t T r e a t m e n t . " Monthly Labor Review 97 (September 1974): 19 -2 2 . B e r c o v i t c h , J a c o b . S o c ia l C o n f l i c t and T h i r d P a r t i e s : S t r a t e g i e s o f C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n . B o ul d e r , C o l . : Westview P r e s s , 1984. B e s t, John W. Research in E d u c a t i o n . P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1959. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : Bingham, G a i l . R e s ol v in g Environmental D i s p u t e s : A Decade o f E x p e r i e n c e . Washington, D.C. : C o n s e r v a t i o n F o u n d a t i o n , 1985. Blake, R.; She par d, H.; and Mouton, J . Managing I n t e r o r o u p C o n f l i c t in I n d u s t r y . Houston, T e x . : G u lf P u b l i s h i n g , 1954 ). Borg, W al te r R., and G a l l , Mered it h D. I n t r o d u c t i o n . 5th e d . New York: E d u c a ti o n a l R e s e a rc h : Longman, 1989. An B r a n t , Floyd S . , and D au gh er ty , C a r r o l l R. C o n f l i c t and C oop era ­ t i o n : Cases in Labor Management B e h a v i o r . Homewood, 11 1 . : Ric har d D. I r w in , 1957. Brey, I n g r i d K. Labor R e l a t i o n s Manual. Ann A rb or : Michigan P u b l i c Employer Labor R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1987. C a l l a g h a n , Edward. " I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P u b l i c S e c t o r Labor R e l a t i o n s . " In Labor R e l a t i o n s Manual (pp. 1 - 1 1 ) . Ann A rbo r: Michigan P u b l i c Employer R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1987. C h i c k e r i n g , A. Lawrence, e d. P u b l i c Employee Unions: A Study o f t h e C r i s i s in P u b l i c S e c t o r Labor R e l a t i o n s . San F r a n c i s c o : I n s t i t u t e f o r Contemporary S t u d i e s , 1976. Cos er, L. The F u n c ti o n s o f S o c i a l C o n f l i c t . Free P r e s s , 1956. G len coe , 1 1 1 . : The Doh ert y, Robert E. " P u b l i c Employee B a r g a i n i n g and t h e C o n f e r r a l o f P u b l i c B e n e f i t s . " Labor Law J o u r n a l 22 (August 19 71 ): 485- 92. 153 154 Donahue, W. A. "Communicative Competence i n M e d i a t o r s . " In M ed ia t io n R e s e a r c h - - T h e P r o c e s s and E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f T h i r d P a r t v I n t e r v e n t i o n (pp. 3 2 2 - 4 3 ) . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1989. Druckman, D. "The I n f l u e n c e o f S i t u a t i o n i n I n t e r p a r t y C o n f l i c t . " J o u r n a l o f C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) : 69 - 8 2 . Emerson, J . "Nothing Unusual I s Ha pp eni ng ." In Human N a t u r e and C o l l e c t i v e B e h a v i o r . E d i t e d by T. S h i n b u t a n i . New Brunswick, N . J . : T r a n s a c t i o n Books. F e d e r a l M ed ia ti o n and C o n c i l i a t i o n S e r v i c e . 1978. Federal S t a t u t e s a t Large. O f f i c e , 1935. Annual R e p o r t s , 1975- Washington, D.C .: Government P r i n t i n g Finkelman, J . "When B a r g a i n i n g F a i l s . " In C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g in t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e . Theory and P r a c t i c e . E d i t e d by K. 0. Warner. Chicago: P u b l i c P ers on nel A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967. F i r t h , R. "A Note on M e d i a t o r s . " Ethn olog y 5 ( 19 65 ) : 3 86 -8 8. F o l b e r g , J a y , and T a y l o r , Ann. M e d i a t i o n : A Comprehensive Guide t o R e s o lv i n g C o n f l i c t Without L i t i g a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y Bass, 1984. Fox, A. Beyond C o n t r a c t : Work. Power and T r u s t R e l a t i o n s . Faber and F ab er , 1974. London: Frees, J. " D i s p u t e Management in Labor R e l a t i o n s : The M ed ia t io n P r o c e s s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M in n e s o ta , 1976. G e r h a r t , Paul F . , and D r o t n i n g , John E. " D i s p u t e S e t t l e m e n t and t h e I n t e n s i t y o f M e d i a t i o n . " I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s 19 ( F a l l 1980): 352-59. G u l l i v e r , P. H. D i s p u t e s and N e g o t i a t i o n s : A C ross C u l t u r a l Approach. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1979. _________. "On M e d i a t o r s . " In S o c i a l A nt h rop olo gy and Law. by J . Hammett. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1977. Edited Hels by, Robert 0 . "A P o l i t i c a l System f o r a P o l i t i c a l World in P u b l i c S e c t o r Labor R e l a t i o n s . " Labor Law J o u r n a l (August 1973). 155 H i l t r o p , J e a n M a r ie . " F a c t o r s A s s o c i a t e d With S u c c e s s f u l Labor M ediation." In M e d i a t i o n R e s e a r c h : The P r o c e s s and E f f e c t i v e ­ n e s s o f T h i r d P a r t y I n t e r v e n t i o n (p p. 2 4 1 - 6 2 ) . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1989. Hoh, Ron al d. "The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f M e d i a t i o n in P u b l i c S e c t o r A r b i ­ t r a t i o n Sy stems: The Iowa E x p e r i e n c e . " A r b i t r a t i o n J o u r n a l 39 ( J u n e 19 84 ). Honeyman, C h r i s t o p h e r . "On E v a l u a t i n g M e d i a t o r s . " J o u r n a l 6 ( J a n u a r y 19 9 0 ) : 23-3 6. N egotiation H o n o r o f f , B . ; Matz, D .; and O’ Connor, D. " P u t t i n g M e d i a t i o n S k i l l s t o t h e T e s t . " N e g o t i a t i o n J o u r n a l 6 ( J a n u a r y 19 90 ): 3 7 - 4 6 . I n d i k , B. B . ; G o l d s t e i n , J . ; C h e r n i c k , J . ; and B e r k o w it z , M. The M e d i a t o r : Background, S e l f - I m a g e and A t t i t u d e s . R u t g e r s , N .J.: I n s t i t u t e o f Management and Labor R e l a t i o n s , 1966. J a n d t , F r e d . C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n Through Communication. Ha r pe r and Row, 1973. New York: Kahn, R o b e rt L . , and Bounding, Kenneth E . , e d s . Power and C o n f l i c t in O r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: B a s ic Books, 1964. K essler, S heila. C reative C on flict Resolution: M ediation. A t l a n t a , Ga .: N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l T r a i n i n g , 1978. K h ee l, T. " C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n - - 0 r Agreement Making? . . . An I n t e r v i e w With Theodore K h e e l . " P e rs o n n e l 56 ( 1 9 7 9 ): 28 - 3 7 . Kochan, Thomas A. C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s . 2nd e d . Homewood, 1 1 1 . : I r w i n , 1980. _________ . "Dynamics o f D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n . " In P u b ! i c - S e c t o r B a r g a i n i n g . E d i t e d by Benjamin Aaron, J o s e p h R. G r o d in , and James L. S t e r n . Madison, W i s . : I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s R es ear ch A s s o c i a t i o n , 1970. Kochan, T . , and J i c k , T. "The P u b l i c S e c t o r M e d ia t io n P r o c e s s : A Theory and E m p ir ic a l E v a l u a t i o n . " J o u r n a l o f C o n f l i c t R e s o l u ­ t i o n 22 (J une 1 9 78 ) : 209-41. Kolb, Deborah. "To Be a M e d i a t o r : E x p r e s s i v e T a c t i c s in Med ia­ t i o n . " J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s 41 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 1 -2 5. _________ . " C o r p o r a t e Ombudsman and O r g a n i z a t i o n C o n f l i c t . " o f C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n . 31 ( 1 98 7) : 6 7 3- 9 2. (a) Journal 156 _________ . "Labor M e d i a t o r s , Managers and Ombudsmen: Role s Medi­ a t o r s P la y i n D i f f e r e n t C o n t e x t s . " In M e d ia t io n R e s e a r c h - - T h e P r o c e s s and E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f T h i r d - P a r t y I n t e r v e n t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1989. _________ . The M e d i a t o r s . Cambridge, M a s s . : MIT P r e s s , 1983. (a ) _________ . "The M e d i a t o r ’ s Taxonomy o f P e o p le in M e d i a t i o n . " Working Pape r WP-929-77. Cambridge, M a s s . : S lo an School o f Management, 1977. _________ . " R e p e r t o i r e s o f Avo idi ng C o n f l i c t . " P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 2 6t h Annual Meeting o f t h e Academy o f Management, New O r l e a n s , L o u i s i a n a , August 1987. (b) . "R oles M e d i a t o r s P l a y . " 1981): 1 -1 7. I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s 20 (W int er . " S t r a t e g y and t h e T a c t i c s o f M e d i a t i o n . " 36 ( 19 83 ): 2 4 7- 6 8. (b) Human R e l a t i o n s _________ . "Who Are O r g a n i z a t i o n a l T h i r d P a r t i e s and What Do They Do?" In Re s ea r c h on N e g o t i a t i o n s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s . E d i t e d by R. J . Le w ic k i, B. H. S h epp ard , and M. H. Bazerman. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI P r e s s , 1986. _________ , and Rubin, J e f f r e y . "R es ea rc h I n t o M e d i a t i o n . " D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n Forum. N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n , O c to b e r 1989 ( e n t i r e i s s u e ) . Kolb, D., and Van Maanen, J . "Problem D e f i n i t i o n and P o l i c y R e s e a r c h : R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e Meaning and Use o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g P r o c e d u r e s in t h e P u b l i c S e c t o r . " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S o c i e t y ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) . K r e s s e l , Kenneth. Labor M e d i a t i o n : An E x p l o r a t o r y S u r v e y . N.Y.: A s s o c i a t i o n o f Labor M e d i a t i o n A g e n c i e s , 1972. Albany, K r i s l o v , J . ; Mead, J . F . ; and Goodman, J . F. B. " A t t i t u d e s Toward M e d i a t i o n : U . S . , G re a t B r i t a i n , and I r e l a n d . " Monthly Labor Review 98 ( 19 72 ) : 55-59. L a n d s b e r g e r , H. "The B eh av io r and P e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e Labor Medi­ ator." P er s on ne l Psychology 13 ( 1 9 6 0 ) : 3 2 9- 4 7. Lewin, David; F e v i l i e , P e t e r ; and Kochan, Thomas A. P u b l i c S e c t o r Labor R e l a t i o n s . 2nd ed. Sun Lake s, A r i z . : Thomas H o rto n , 1981. 157 Liebowitz, J . " P u b l i c S e c t o r M e d i a t i o n : Some O b s e r v a t i o n s on Techniques." Journal o f C o ll e c t iv e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P ublic S e c to r 1 (1972): 91-96. Lim, R ., and C a r n e v a l e , P. J . " C o n t i n g e n c i e s in t h e M e d ia t io n o f D i s p u t e s . " U n pu bl is h ed m a n u s c r i p t , D epartment o f P s y c h o lo g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1988. L o v e l l , H. "The M e d i a t i o n P r o c e s s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Massachu­ s e t t s I n s t i t u t e o f Tec h no lo g y, 1950. _________ . "The P r e s s u r e Lever in M e d i a t i o n . " R e l a t i o n s Review 6 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 20-3 0. I n d u s t r i a l and Labor Maggiolo, W a l t e r A. Oceana, 1985. Dobbs F e r r y , N.Y.: Te c h n iq u e s o f M e d i a t i o n . _________ . Te c hn iq u es o f M e d ia t io n in Labor D i s p u t e s . N.Y.: Oceana, 1971. Dobbs F e r r y , M c C l e l l a n , L . , and Obermeyer, P. " S c i e n c e o r A r t : P erf orm anc e S t a n d a r d s f o r M e d i a t o r s . " Labor Law J o u r n a l 21 ( 19 70 ) : 591- 97. McLaughlin, M.; C a r n e v a l e , P. J . ; and Lim, R. " P r o f e s s i o n a l M ed iato rs’ P erceptions o f T a c tic s : A Multidimensional S caling and C l u s t e r i n g A n a l y s i s . " U np ubl ish ed m a n u s c r i p t , Department o f Ps y ch ol o gy , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1988. M es si ck , S. "V alidity." In E d u c a ti o n a l Measurement ( 3 rd e d . , pp. 13-104). E d i t e d by R. L. Linn. New York: C o l l i e r Macmi ll an, 1989. Meyer, A. " F u n c t i o n s o f t h e M ed ia to r in C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . " I n d u s t r i a l and Labor R e l a t i o n s Review 13 ( I 9 6 0 ) : 159-65. M u e l l e r , D aniel J . Measuring S o c i a l A t t i t u d e s . C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1986. New York: Teachers N a t i o n a l G o v e r n o r s ’ C o n f e r e n c e . R ep or t o f Task F or ce on S t a t e and Local Government Labor R e l a t i o n s . Chicago: P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l A s s o c i a t i o n , .1967. N o r t h r u p , H. R. " M e d i a t i o n : The Viewpoint o f t h e M e d i a t e d . " Law J o u r n a l 13 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 8 32 -4 1. P a r k e r , H. " P erf o rm an ce S t a n d a r d s f o r M e d i a t o r s . " J o u r n a l 21 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 738- 44. Labor Labor Law P e t e r s , E. "The M e d i a t o r : A N e u tr a l C a t a l y s t o r L e a d e r . " Law J o u r n a l 9 ( 1 9 5 8 ) : 767-69. Labor 158 P h i l l i p s , Ed, and S ta th am , James. " P o s t - I m p a s s e P r o c e d u r e s : Media­ tio n , Factfinding." In Labor R e l a t i o n s Manual (pp. 1 5 3 - 5 9 ) . Ann A rb or : Michigan P u b l i c Employer Labor R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a ­ t i o n , 1987. P r u i t t , D. G., and J o h n s o n , D. F. " M e di at io n as an Aid t o Face Saving i n N e g o t i a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l and S o c i a l P sy cho log y 14 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 239-4 6. P u b l i c and Local A cts o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e S t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . L a n s i n g : Michigan S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e , 1965. Rehmus, C. "The M e d ia t io n o f I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t : Note on L i t e r a t u r e . " Journal o f C o n f li c t R eso lu tio n 9(1965): the 11 8- 23. R ep o r t and Recommendations o f t h e T w e n t i e t h C en t u r y Fund Task Fo rce on Labor D i s p u t e s i n P u b l i c Employment: P i c k e t s a t C i t y H a l l . New York: T w e n t i e t h Cent ury Fund, 1970. Robins , E. "Some Comparisons o f M e d ia t io n in t h e P u b l i c and P r i v a t e Sector." In C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . E d i t e d by J . J . Lowenberg and M. H. Moskow. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P rentice-H all. _________ , w i t h Denenberg, T. A Guide f o r Labor M e d i a t o r s . H on olu lu: U n i v e r s i t y o f Haw aii, I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C e n t e r , 1976. Ross, D o r i s . C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g I s s u e s C o n t i n u e . E d u c a ti o n Commission o f t h e S t a t e s , 1983. Denver, C o l . : Ross, Jerome H. " F e d e r a l M ed ia t io n in t h e P u b l i c S e c t o r . " Labor Review 99 ( 19 76 ) : 4 1- 4 5 . _________ . " M e d ia t io n : An A s s i s t t o Deadlocked B a r g a i n i n g . " N e w s l e t t e r (J une 1975 ). Monthly LMRS R o s s i , P e t e r H.; W rig h t, James D.; and Anderson, Andy B. Handbook o f Survey R e s e a r c h . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1987. S c h n e i d e r , B. V. H. " P u b l i c - S e c t o r Labor L e g i s l a t i o n : An E v o l u ­ tio n ary A nalysis." In P u b l i c - S e c t o r B a r g a i n i n g (p p. 1 9 1 - 2 2 3 ) . E d i t e d by Benjamin Aaron, J o s e p h R. G ro din , and James L. S t e r n . Madison, Wis. : I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s R es ear ch A s s o c i a t i o n , 1979. S c h r i e s h e i m , C. A .; Kopelman, R. E . ; and Solomon, E. "The E f f e c t o f Grouped Versus Randomized Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Format on S c a l e R e l i a ­ b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y . : A Three Study I n v e s t i g a t i o n . " Educa­ t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement 49 ( 1 9 8 9 ) : 487-5 07 . S h a p i r o , F. "Profile: pp. 36 -5 8. M ediator." The New Y o r k e r . August 10, 1970, 159 Simkin, W i ll i a m . M e d ia t io n and t h e Dynamics o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n ­ i n g . Washington, D.C .: Bureau o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , 1971. _________ , and F i d a n d i s , N i c h o l a s A. M e d i a t i o n and t h e Dynamics o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . 2nd e d . Was hing ton , D .C . : Bureau o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , 1986. SPSS, I n c . 1988. SPSS-X U s e r ’ s G u id e . 3rd ed. Chi ca go: SPSS, I n c . , S t e p p , J o h n , and B a r r e t t , Jer om e. "New T h e o r i e s on N e g o t i a t i o n s and D i s p u t e s R e s o l u t i o n , and t h e Changing Role o f M e d i a t i o n . " The D a i l y Labor Re p o r t (Bureau o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s ) , J a n u a r y 17, 1990. S t e v e n s , Carl M. " M e d ia t io n and t h e Role o f t h e N e u t r a l . " In F r o n t i e r s o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . E d i t e d by J . Dunlop and N. Ch am b er la i n . New York: H ar pe r and Row. S u l l i v a n , Timothy. R e s o lv i n g Development D i s p u t e s Through N e g o t i a ­ t i o n . New York: Plenum, 1984. S u s k in d , Lawrence; Bacow, Lawrence; and Whee ler, M i c h a e l . R e s o lv i n g Environmental R e g u l a t o r y D i s p u t e s . Cambridge, M as s. : Schenckman, 1983. Van Lopik, Nancy J . " P u b l i c Employee U n i o n i z a t i o n in M i c h i g a n ." In Labor R e l a t i o n s Manual (p p. 1 3 - 1 8 ) . Ann A r b o r : Michigan P u b l i c Employer Labor R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1987. Warren, E. "M e di at io n and F a c t f i n d i n g . " In I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t . E d i t e d by R. K o r n h a u s e r , R. Dubin, and A. Ross. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1954. Weiss, N e i l l , and H a s s e t t , Matthew. Introductory S t a t i s t i c s . Pa r k , C a l i f . : Ad dis on- We sl ey, 1982. W es ch l er , I . "The P e r s o n a l F a c t o r in Labor M e d i a t i o n . " P sychology 3 ( 1 9 5 0 ) : 114 -25 . Zack, A r n o ld . Sector." Menlo Personnel "I mproving M e d ia t io n and F a c t f i n d i n g i n t h e P u b l i c Labor Law J o u r n a l (May 1 9 70 ) : 259 -73. . "Public S ecto r M ediation." 1985): 54. Monthly Labor Review ( O c to b e r Z e i d l e r , Frank P. New Role s f o r P u b l i c O f f i c i a l s i n Labor R e l a ­ t i o n s . P u b l i c Employee R e l a t i o n s L i b r a r y , No. 23. Chi ca go : P u b l i c Pe rs on ne l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1970.