There are many ways for management and labor to relate to one another. Some ways actually build a positive work environment that, in turn, contributes to the effective delivery of local government services. Others that are based upon distrust, enmity, and disagreement, however, injure the work environment and derail service delivery. If services are to be effectively delivered, labor-management relations must focus on forging a cooperative bond and on problem solving, rather than on positions of power or egos.

First, I would like to stress that effective organizations are based upon effective relationships, and these are based upon trust. You can only build one trust-based relationship at a time. But this kind of partnership can multiply more rapidly if an organization behaves in accordance with certain shared values, focusing on honesty, respect, empowerment, collaboration, transparent behavior, and open communication.

The Continuum
Accordingly, I suggest that a relationship continuum exists, a series of stages in the evolution of how labor and management choose to relate to one another. After all, despite organizational history or personal baggage, this is a choice that is made by both parties.

The relationship continuum, as a model, is both descriptive and prescriptive. It is descriptive in that it identifies the status of the labor-management relationship by showing at which stage the relationship currently stands. It indicates whether it is effective and based upon the positive values we have described, or whether it is characterized by rancor. The further the relationship moves from Stage 1 toward Stage 5, the greater the acrimony.

The continuum also is prescriptive. That is, the longer an organization can stay in Stage 1 or Stage 2, the better the chance to develop an effective relationship between labor and management, resulting in improved service delivery. Thus, the stage at which the organization finds itself prescribes the direction it may need to take toward “curing” any relationship ills (see Figure 1).

Case Study: Alameda, California
In 1995, the city of Alameda and the union that represents the nonmanagement, sworn members of its fire department entered into meet and confer negotiations for a new wage-and-benefit memorandum of understanding (MOU). After three years of protracted and unsuccessful negotiations, however, an impasse was reached, and arbitration became the next step needed in the process of solving the problem. The arbitration itself required nearly another year for both sides to present their respective arguments and for the arbitrator to reach a decision.

During these four years, the relationship between management and labor substantially deteriorated and even became adversarial in its dynamic. In fact, it was driven in large part by the emotional frustration roused by the length of the process, the huge cost to both parties, and the accusatory workplace environment. The failure to reach a successful conclusion on the MOU took its toll.

In June 1997, the leaders of both management and labor began meeting informally, or externally to the arbitration process, to explore whether it was possible to begin building a relationship that would solve this problem without further action. While it was impossible to complete this exploration before arbitration ended, both parties agreed to continue a dialogue to determine whether an acceptable alternative could be found.

Both labor and management identified interest-based negotiations (IBN) as a prospective vehicle for beginning to repair the severely damaged relationship, with the ultimate goal of solving the wage-and-benefit dispute. Alameda committed itself to funding IBN training for both labor and management’s negotiating teams.

Considerable effort was made to set realistic expectations about what could be achieved, given the investment of both time and money in this dispute. Even with realistic expectations of what could be achieved, though, both parties made a conscious decision to assume the inherent risks of the rebuilding process.

The training was completed, and the process of solution identification began. Despite the fact that a decision was made by an arbitrator during this time, both parties agreed to set aside the arbitrator’s decision and approve a solution that had resulted from nearly another year of negotiations employing IBN.

What Has Been Achieved
Here is what has been accomplished during the three years since the MOU was signed:

• In 2001, an interest-based, five-year extension was agreed upon that makes the MOU good for a total of eight years.
• As a business practice, interest-based negotiation has been institutionalized in the workplace through the Fire Labor-Management Team (FLMT), which collaboratively resolves workplace and service delivery problems.
• IBN training has been extended to all members of the fire department. In this connection, three members have taken advanced IBN training, which allows them to act as facilitators for other departments. In fact, these three members have been involved in facilitating negotiations with the city’s largest labor union, whose members now have been trained in IBN but are undertaking interest-based collective bargaining for the first time. Apparently, the trust between labor and management has greatly improved.
• There have been no grievances filed during the past three years. This is the first time in anyone’s memory that a grievance has not been filed for such a lengthy period. Previously, multiple grievances were filed annually.
• Because of the collaborative nature of the new relationship, more than $1 million has been saved from the overtime budget. And the union has expressed a willingness to work cooperatively to achieve additional cost savings in the development and implementation of new fire service programs.
• The union has become actively involved in the selection of a new fire chief. Members helped to write the recruitment profile describing the qualities and qualifications for a chief, to participate in the interview panel for candidates, to meet and talk with finalists, and to offer direct feedback on each finalist.

Finally, this relationship has become the model for all other city departments in Alameda. Enmity in the workplace has been replaced with an open environment of effective communication between labor and management. Accusations resulting from distrust of one party by the other have given way to an atmosphere in which the benefit of the doubt is genuinely given to each other when disagreements occur.

However, this is still a work in progress. Both labor and management recognize that rebuilding our relationship will require an ongoing commitment to working in good faith and taking nothing for granted. These are predicates if our relationship is to recover fully. Everyone recognizes that the erosion in our relationship did not take place overnight but over years. Therefore, we are aware that without a continuing commitment to each other, we will not ultimately succeed.

Lessons Learned
What then, are we to learn from this experience? Many insights have been gained, some of which have involved these pointers and guidelines:

Don’t let relationships deteriorate in the first place. Spend most of your time working in Stage 1, at which time you have the best opportunity to influence the quality of the labor-management relationship. You’ll be most effective here because developments at this stage are still within your direct control.

At Stage 2, recognize that conflict will occur because of different perspectives, agendas, and interests. Therefore, it is critical to train employees to use problem-solving skills in resolving conflict when it occurs. Without these skills, Stages 3, 4, and 5 become inevitable.

Spend less time in Stages 3, 4, and 5. Here, you have less control, and more time is required to resolve problems, at greater financial and relational cost to all parties.

Don’t be afraid to embrace new business practices that share power in order to solve problems. However, seek agreement by all parties to be held jointly accountable for solutions arrived at collaboratively.

Be patient with each other, and expect mistakes or misunderstandings to occur at first. Remember, crafting or mending a relationship entails risks to both labor and management. Acknowledge these risks, but don’t be intimidated by them. It takes real courage to make a choice to improve a relationship.

Be willing as leaders of both labor and management to make overt commitments to new business practices, like interest-based negotiations, in order to help the process of building relationships succeed.

Be prepared to invest time and money in developing employees’ capacity to assume greater accountability for resolving differences and forging
relationships.

Remember, the process of creating a collaborative workplace is a journey, not a destination. There are no shortcuts. This process requires leadership, financial resources, and a high level of self-dedication.

“Walk the talk.” In other words, both management and labor need to be transparent in their actions and behaviors, to reflect their convictions and assumptions clearly in what they do.

First, acknowledge, then set aside, any organizational “baggage” that may block the development of trust. Organizational history is one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in developing a collaborative workplace. While historic baggage may not be discarded, it can be “parked” for the time being. The only effective way to address such differences is through actions that demonstrate that the reasons for holding onto them no longer exist. This takes time, patience, and perseverance.

Generate a highly positive workplace environment, which will lead to improved service delivery, This can happen if labor and management treat each other according to the values of honesty, respect, collaboration, and open communication.

Know that overcoming a top-down, hierarchically driven organizational environment is difficult because people do not want to share the power they believe they worked hard to acquire. Managers will likely resist change toward a collaborative, Stage 1 workplace.

Remember, more time spent on front-end decisions normally means that you’ll spend less time on the outcomes of these decisions, trying to “put out fires.” Creating a collaborative workplace requires that more time be spent on sorting out the issues and on developing the options from which better decisions can result. The payoff is typically an improved capacity to deliver quality, effective services because the organization is mining the strengths of a larger part of the workforce.

Summary
Building effective workplace relationships between labor and management entails risk, hard work, trust, patience, innovation, and courage if success is to be achieved. It also calls for a firm commitment from both labor and management. The reward, however, will be reduced “wear and tear” in the workplace, which will lead to improved morale, which in turn will lead to productivity gains and enhanced job satisfaction.
 

James Flint is city manager of Alameda, California.