Gm & Uaw Benchmarking

Global Communications Benchmarking

Global Communications (GC) had many problems and issues that its senior leadership team had overlooked or mishandled. The issue of poor communications between leadership and union was apparent in GC’s scenario. Communication is “the process by which information is transmitted and understood between two or more people” (McShane, 2004). In General Motor (GM) and the United Auto Workers Unions (UAW) labor negotiations, there were poor communications from both parties because both sides were fostering distributive negotiation. “Distributive negotiation usually involves a single issue---a вЂ?fixed-pie’---in which one person gains at the expense of the other” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). This win-lose negotiation will create more problems than benefits. The automotive industries are very competitive and GM seeks to remain a top competitor by look at cutting employee benefits, specifically the retirement benefit, change of wages and job cuts. On the other hand UAW oppose to GM’s proposal for fear this would break the long held psychological contracts between the two parties. In order for GM to get out of this problem they would have to begin an integrative negotiation. “An agreement can be found that is better for both parties than what they would have reached through distributive negotiation. This is an integrative negotiation” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). After two days of the strike and intensive negotiation, GM and UAW have reached an agreement where both parties can continue to build a better organizational commitment.

GM responded to the issue of poor communication between leadership and union by being involved in a great deal of organizational communication. In fact, there were countless face-to-face communication between GM and UAW respected representatives. “Face-to-face is the richest form of communication. It provides immediate feedback and allows for the observation of multiple language cues such as body language and tone of voice” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). Furthermore, this will reduce the chance of filtering because filtering “…may involve deleting or delaying negative information or using less harsh words so that events sound more favorable” (McShane, 2004). By adopting integrative negotiation, GM was willing to contribute a large fund to the voluntary employee’s beneficiary association (VEBA) to the UAW, but “In return, the automaker will be able to move roughly $50 billion in accumulated retiree healthcare obligations off its books and to the VEBA” (Geisel, 2007). Furthermore, GM gave in-depth and step-by-step of its plan to keep current and hiring new employees; therefore, reducing outsourcing and again, continue to build