Many organizations that experience LMC success rely upon a systematic, consistent process to deal with issues and problems. The interest-based process that will be described provides structure and predictability to the relationship. If problems develop as parties apply the process, they can always refocus on the appropriate step of the process. Also, following an interest-based approach helps remove the emotion from the issue so that objective solutions can be developed.
In order to understand this concept, it is important to clarify some important terms. An issue is a subject that is under discussion or in dispute. An issue should be stated clearly and objectively. While both parties are likely to have some experience with or some understanding of the issue, it is important that background be provided so that the issue is fully understood by all.
Perhaps the most important term to understand is interest. An interest is one parties’ concern, need, desire or goal behind an issue. An interest should be expressed broadly. Another key term is position. A position is one party’s solution to an issue. Often a position is exaggerated and very specific. Other times a position not totally responsive to the issue.
An example may help clarify the differences between an interest and a position. Often health insurance becomes a heated topic of discussion during negotiations. Frequently employers will take the position that employer paid insurance contributions should be capped. Often, unions will respond by taking the position that members should not experience any increased costs or reduced benefits. These are concepts with which we are all too familiar. In using an interest-based approach, we would look at what underlies those positions. The employer actually has an interest in controlling the employer’s health insurance cost. Further discussion might also lead to the recognition that the employer also has an interest in having a competitive benefit program to attract and retain quality employees. In looking at the union positions, an underlying interest would likely be to have an effective benefit program that meets member needs. Another union interest might be to insure that employee health insurance contributions remain at a reasonable level.
When parties deal with each other on the basis of positions, effective problem solving becomes very difficult. Very often, if one party attains a position, it is at the expense of the other party. Also, satisfying a position may not actually be the best solution in the long run.
Focusing on interests, however, provides a positive climate for group problem solving. Interests are broader and therefore, there are more alternatives that may satisfy the interests. In the health insurance example, things such as redesigning aspects of the health insurance plan, changing cost components of the plan, could help address each parties’ interests. Often when groups identify interests, they are amazed to discover the many similarities. Obviously, if parties focus on the similar interests, resolution is more likely. Shifting from a position based to an interest based environment can be very challenging.
A successful interested based approach involves several specific steps. It is important that the steps be followed sequentially and completely. Often parties will get into trouble by trying to short circuit and leap toward the answer. Invariably, when the steps are omitted or not fully completed, solution quality suffers and problems develop. While steps must be followed sequentially, often it is necessary to take a step back to further refine and clarify.
Step 1
Step 1 is to define the problem or clarify the issue. This can be a deceptively simple step. Often parties begin the process without a clear understanding of the actual problem. In addressing a scheduling dispute with a community college, the parties framed the issue as “addressing equity matters related to a change from a 18-week semester to a 16-week semester.” In order to meet the needs of several different programs, the college had compressed certain program offerings from an 18-week format to a 16-week format. The parties recognized the need to make this change in order to be responsive to the students and accrediting agencies. The employees were very concerned that some colleagues would be receiving additional time off after the courses were completed. While addressing this problem in an interested based format, the parties began discussing the background and need to make the change. Concerns about equity and workload among the faculty were generally discussed and understood. It became evident during these discussions that the major problem was the perceived inequity caused by of some staff having two additional weeks of “vacation” after the 16 week class ended.
The college president was able to clarify that faculty working in a 16 week format would be asked to perform other college service during the 2 week period. The parties discussed the possibility of providing academic advising services, student recruitment assistance and curriculum design. After this meaningful discussion to “clarify the issue”, the parties realized that equity related to the scheduling change was truly not the issue. Rather the parties concluded that the issue related to effectively communicating the implications of the schedule change to faculty and staff. Again, what would appear to be a deceptively clear issue in the beginning, turned out not to be the issue at all.
Step 2
Step 2 is to identify the interests of each group. As stated before, this requires moving beyond traditional positions and solutions to the problem. Parties have greater success in resolving issues if the interests are broadly stated. Broader interests provide greater opportunity to generate mutually accepted options that satisfy true concerns.
Two parties were dealing with concerns relating to probationary periods for new employees. The employer wished to expand the length of the probationary period so that there was more time to review performance. The union, on the other hand, wished to have the probationary period reduced so that the new employee could enjoy the full protections of the labor contract and the union could begin collecting dues.
Traditional employer positions relating to this matter could include extending the probationary period by six months and allowing for probationary period extensions as determined by management. Traditional union positions could include reducing the current probationary period by 45 days and providing total contract coverage after 30 days of employment.
When looking for underlying concerns about the issue, the employer interests were identified as:
Being able to evaluate performance on all aspects of the job.
Providing a fair chance to learn the job.
Only extend the probationary period when necessary.
Having a good fit between the people and the jobs.
Having the employees and department working well.
Union interests included:
Providing adequate training for new employees.
Insuring employees receive informal feedback regarding performance from management.
Involving the Union in performance appraisals.
Insuring the employer provides workable tools and equipment.
Insuring that probationary period extensions are appropriate.
Providing contract protection as soon as possible.
In analyzing the interests of both parties, it is clear that they both want to promote employee success, insure that individuals have a fair opportunity to learn the new jobs, and insure that quality performance occurs. Focusing on common interests is very helpful in satisfactorily resolving the issue. Parties are often surprised that they have many common interests.
Step 3
Step 3 involves developing options. An option is a potential partial solution for an issue. In order to do this, brainstorming techniques should be used. Options should not be evaluated as they are being generated. Participants should be encouraged to be creative. All participants bring unique perspectives and important ideas. This diversity of input helps groups build stronger solutions. Listed below are the actual options developed by the parties addressing the probationary period issue:
Options
Variable probationary periods based upon jobs
Offer classes if available (training new employees)
Retain current employees to train new employees
Vacant position duties are updated and information provided to new employees
Establish an extended probationary process
Develop job simulations for periodic functions
More formal feedback provided to employee
#7, more informal than formal
Establish probationary period feedback process for new employee within department (i.e., when, who is involved, communication to new employee)
Have managers meet weekly with new employee to provide feedback
Have employee group meet weekly to provide feedback.
Employee provides informal/formal feedback to manager re: job, adjustment, needs, feelings, etc.
Employee provides union representative with feedback
Union representative contacts supervisor once a month to ask how things are going
Establish a co-worker evaluation system
Establish a co-worker training or coaching process
Extend probation to 6 months
Have employee covered by contract immediately
Allow supervisor to extend probationary period for additional 3 months for a stated reason without union concurrence
Set up union/management team to discuss probationary extensions (1/2 union & ½ management)
Same as #20 to do the evaluation
Intensive training first two weeks which may not be at the work site
Provide equipment & materials needed for training promptly (first 2 weeks)
Status quo
Status quo with longer periods for unusual jobs
Shorter probationary period (2 months < 40 days > after intensive training)
Base probationary period on person’s previous experience
Establish tests that could be used to end probation early
Establish common criteria to use in determining probationary period length (evaluate experience, testing, employee skills, demands of jobs, etc., to arrive at length)
Step 4
Step 4 is to evaluate the various options. Often parties use standards to evaluate options. Standards are yardsticks against which to measure the various brainstormed options. Standards that some groups have used effectively include fair, affordable, workable, and promote or maintain quality. When parties apply the standards to each option, valuable discussion occurs which helps clarify and explain the meaning of the option. During the evaluation process, additional options can be added. Using standards helps provide some degree of objectivity. Some groups have used various ranking techniques to reduce the number of options to be considered as part of a final solution. While a ranking process helps parties eliminate less viable options, ranking reduces conversation that may be helpful in reaching a more satisfactory decision.
Step 5
Step 5 is to agree on a tentative solution. Often, categories (groupings) emerge that are helpful in reviewing the feasibility of options. For example, several categories proved helpful for organizing options for the probationary period issue. These categories included training for new employees, probationary period timeframes, evaluation/appraisal process and probationary period extension. The parties placed options that satisfied three or more of the standards into one of these various categories. After these options were grouped in the categories, the team reviewed the categories and reached consensus regarding each.
After consensus was reached within each category, the following solution was created.
Contract Language
Length of Probation
All newly hired employees shall be considered probationary for the first 66 days worked. This probationary period may be extended by mutual agreement of the employer and the union. Probationary employees shall not have recourse to the grievance procedure if dismissed during the probationary period.
Completion of Employment
Continued employment beyond the probationary period shall be evidence of satisfactory completion of the probationary period.
Letter of Understanding (not to be placed in the contract)
Modify probationary employee evaluation form.
Add a reference to probationary period extension option.
Add Instructions to form.
Include scheduled meeting date and a statement that the Union may attend as an observer.
Supervisors should be encouraged to regularly provide performance feedback to new employees.
Provide an area on the form to identifying additional training needs.
Create a new document to accompany employment confirmation letter.
Encourage early meeting to review duties.
Mutually develop training plan.
Identify Human Resources support staff and union as a resource.
District will advise union of new hire.
New employee committee will contact new employee, welcome, mentor, provide assistance where needed
Step 6
Step 6 involves developing an implementation plan for the agreed upon solution. This involves answering several basic questions. Who? What?, When?, Where and How? It is important at this point to capture what will be done, when it will occur and who is responsible for insuring that it happens. Groups feel frustrated if ineffective action occurs after the hard work of addressing the issue. A thorough implementation plan with specific accountabilities helps guard against inaction. Often a part of the implementation plan is to report progress to the group that developed the solution. This can be part of an ongoing assessment of the result.
Regarding our probationary period example, individuals with specific responsibilities were identified and timetables established for each activity. The forms to be developed were scheduled to be reviewed by the negotiating committee at a future meeting. Other deliverables were also to be presented to the committee. The group also decided to review the results one year after implementation in order to make needed modifications. By creating this implementation plan, the group was assured that the appropriate follow through would occur.
Step 7
Step 7 is to evaluate the results. As was mentioned earlier, the definition of consensus involves the understanding that the solution reached is the best solution for us at this time. As such, it is important to recognize that the results need to be reviewed and potentially modified in the future, if necessary. Many times, a solution will yield unanticipated results. As such, there needs to be a way to address the problems. Often times minor fine-tuning can dramatically strengthen the decision. It is important that consensus, once again, be reached with the group to authorize these modifications.
The parties working on the probationary period issue were pleased with the results that provided the following:
Reduced concerns about absenteeism, as days absent did not count towards the completion of probation.
- Probationary period extensions needed mutual agreement which helps insure that management takes evaluation responsibilities seriously.
- A modified evaluation form which covered many important areas.
- Union representatives attendance at evaluation sessions as observers.
- A training plan for each new employee.
- Assurance that all important components of the job were evaluated.
- A new employee welcoming committee that provided mentoring technical assistance.
- The group agreed to meet 6 months after the implementation to review the results. The parties agreed to make necessary changes prior to the next round of negotiations.
The job market had become very difficult which made the retention of new employees even more important. The welcoming committee and use of mentors is a good example of how an interested based process can provide unanticipated dividends. While the parties initially focused on the probationary period issue, it became obvious that improving employee retention benefited everyone and was crucial for organizational success.
While the steps of the interest based process seem simplistic and clear, parties need to exercise great judgement and control in working through the process. Often there is a temptation to skip ahead in the process. This invariably causes problems and reduces the quality of the decision.