[Responding to Change in the Workplace: Innovations in
Labor-Management-Government Cooperation]{.underline}

![](media/image1.png){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="0.9055555555555556in"}

[BEST PRACTICES TOOL KIT]{.underline}

*Prepared by the U.S. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service, With the
Support of the U.S. Department of Labor*

*February 2002*

*David Thaler, Editor*

*David Glines, Contributing Author*

*Jennifer Ortiz, Contributing Editor*

FOREWORD

When this project, "Responding to Change in the Workplace: Innovations
in Labor-Management-Government Cooperation" was first proposed at the
22^nd^ APEC Human Resources Development Working Group Meeting in Brunei
Darussalam, its proponents' goal was to have it serve as an important
"bridge" in a multi-year initiative within APEC to promote
Labor-Management-Government (LMG) Cooperation. The bridge is to help
APEC move from raising awareness of the value of LMG cooperation to a
new "capacity building" phase. By capacity building, we meant not only
showing economies what others were doing in this area, but also teaching
concrete skills in resolving labor conflict and in establishing
institutions to do so. The hope is that participants in this next phase
will go back to their home economies armed with valuable knowledge and
skills to disseminate.

The first project of the multi-year initiative, "Successful HRD
Practices in the Workplace: Contributions from
Labor-Management-Government," which took place in June 1999 in Victoria,
Canada, focused on raising awareness of successful economy-wide LMG
practices within the APEC region and the accompanying benefits of such
cooperation. The current project, the second one in the series, is also
aimed at awareness raising, but it has a greater emphasis on the
workplace itself as opposed to the broader-based economy-wide
initiatives that were the focus of most of the presentations in
Victoria.

The current project can be described as a "bridge" because its sharp
focus on what actually takes place in the workplace itself, as opposed
to economy-wide initiatives to promote LMG cooperation, moves it away
from solely awareness-raising and more in the direction of capacity
building. This is especially true of the last Chapter of this Tool Kit,
entitled "[How To Use This Tool
Kit](#putting-the-best-practices-into-action)," which provides
step-by-step guidance in launching a LMG cooperative initiative.

The next project in the series, entitled *Training for the Prevention
and Resolution of Labor and Employment Disputes* \-- a one-week training
that will take place in mid-2002 \-- is squarely focused on capacity
building for government labor-relations practitioners. The project
proponents also envision a fourth component to the series in 2003,
focused on training for *private* sector labor-relations advocates to
enhance their ability to develop LMG initiatives for both labor peace
and organizational productivity.

So it is from this practical perspective, focused on building the
capacity of organizations throughout the APEC region to improve
themselves through improved LMG cooperation, that the reader should
address this Tool Kit. In this regard, the final Chapter marks the
crossing of the bridge from awareness-raising to capacity building in
the ongoing APEC LMG initiative. It is the project sponsor's hope that
practitioners will use the Tool Kit to as guidance in establishing LMG
initiatives in their own organizations in a manner that is appropriate
for their context. To those visionary promoters of labor peace and
organizational productivity, as you cross the bridge, we wish you all
the best "on the other side."[^1]

> David Thaler
>
> Washington, DC
>
> January 2002

## 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

[**Introduction**](#introduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

[**Best Practice No. 1**](#best-practice-number-1): Support For LMG
Cooperation Must Come From

The Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 13

[**Best Practice No. 2**](#best-practice-number-2): Make LMG Cooperation
A Permanent Part Of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

[Best Practice No. 3](#best-practice-number-3): Create New Channels Of
Communication . . . . . . . 28

[**Best Practice No. 4**](#best-practice-number-4): Devolve Decision
Making To The Front Lines

Of The Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 33

[**Best Practice No. 5**](#best-practice-number-5): Reduce Status
Boundaries Between Management

And Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 41

[**Best Practice No. 6**](#best-practice-number-6): Think In Terms Of
Interests, Not Positions . . . . . . 46

[**Best Practice No. 7**](#best-practice-number-7): Get Help From A
Third Party Neutral . . . . . . . . . . 58

[**Best Practice No. 8**](#best-practice-number-8): Go Offsite To Train
And Retool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

[**Best Practice No. 9**](#best-practice-number-9): Build Alliances With
Other Stakeholders . . . . . . . . 81

[**Best Practice No. 10**](#best-practice-number-10): Ground Your
Initiative Only In The Most Solid

Management Principles, And "Sell" It That Way . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 90

[**Putting the Best Practices Into
Action**](#putting-the-best-practices-into-action): How To Use This Tool
Kit. . . . . . 95

APEC BEST PRACTICES TOOL KIT

## INTRODUCTION[^2]

Why is Labor-Management-Government (LMG) Cooperation an important topic
to address in APEC? This is a fair question, considering the
organization's traditional focus on hard economics and trade and
investment facilitation. The answer does not lie solely in the
connection between LMG Cooperation and the broad macroeconomic goals
that APEC seeks to advance. Nor does it lie solely in the overall
political and social stability that LMG cooperation promotes, which
complements those macroeconomic benefits. Rather there is also a third,
more humanitarian, dimension to LMG cooperation in the global economy:
namely its potential to help workers take advantage of the opportunities
afforded by the global workplace so that they may have more fulfilling
and better paying work experiences.

As we will see in the pages to follow, these three benefits of LMG
cooperation are not mutually exclusive of one another. We can emphasize
the economic, social and political benefits of LMG cooperation at the
same time that we state that this is all really about helping people
realize their human potential in the workplace. Accordingly, below we
will elaborate on the benefits of LMG cooperation in terms of: (1)
economic benefits for both economies as well as organizations; (2)
social and political benefits; and (3) how LMG cooperation helps workers
to better realize their human potential.

#### ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF LMG COOPERATION

The economic benefits of LMG cooperation are clear: improved LMG
cooperation means fewer strikes, with their associated enormous economic
consequences. These economic consequences take the form of both direct
costs, resulting from lost productivity of the people who are not
working, and indirect costs flowing from lost economic activity such as
reduced purchases and savings and investment on the part of both the
employer and the workers. In addition, businesses and consumers that
depend on a company that is stalled by a strike cannot add productivity
to the economy, further multiplying the economic consequences. Thus,
governments that invest resources in a mediation and conciliation
service recoup that investment many times over in the form of the
avoidance of strikes and their concomitant economic costs.

Above and beyond the direct and indirect costs of strike avoidance,
improved LMG cooperation can make a huge economic contribution to an
economy through the enhanced productivity of its workforce. LMG
cooperation enhances productivity in at least two ways: (1) improved
dialogue among workers and managers tends to result in the sharing of
information and valuable ideas that make work processes more productive
and efficient; and (2) when workers and managers have a good
relationship, they spend less time in activities and behavior that
negatively impact productivity such as open conflict, issue avoidance,
gossip, complaints and grievances. As a result, they spend more time in
productive activities.

Improved productivity in an economy brings several concomitant benefits.
For one thing, improved productivity reduces the cost of the factors of
production and as a result helps to keep inflation in check. In
addition, stable inflation rates in a group of economies tend to have a
stabilizing effect on exchange rates, thereby reducing exchange-rate
risk and creating a more propitious environment for attracting
investment capital.

While economic growth and international exchange rates are obviously
influenced by a wide variety of economic, political and social variables
that are beyond the purview of LMG cooperation, it is clear that a
cooperative labor-relations environment is an important component of
economic growth and development.

### SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BENEFITS OF LMG COOPERATION

At the risk of engaging in circular reasoning, we can also safely make
the point that improved labor relations enhances overall social and
political stability. A society that enjoys generally good
Labor-Management relations is less likely to be polarized along
ideological, economic and even ethnic lines. Consequently, that society
stands a better chance of forging a consensus to confront other
challenges it faces such as reducing poverty and making improvements in
education, health care and other social indicators. As good
labor-management relations tends to reduce the number of people that
feel marginalized by the politics of the economy, it makes them more
likely to promote their interests within the established political
framework as opposed to other more radicalized means.

When labor and management partners reach out not only to each other, but
also to the stakeholders in the wider community, as they did in the
[**Lapanday Agricultural and Development
Corporation**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)
(Philippines) and the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
(USA) cases, they form alliances that help the entire community in
addition to the business itself. For example, in several cases from both
the Symposium for this project and the APEC Victoria Colloquium on
"Successful HRD Practices in the Workplace: Contributions from
Labor-Management-Government" (June 1999), labor-management partners
forged valuable alliances that promoted demand driven skills training,
retraining for displaced workers, learning centers for pre-school
children and, in the case of
[**Lapanday**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
a family welfare program consisting of nine activities -- i.e.,
healthcare, nutrition and sanitation, responsible parenthood,
cooperatives, housing, transportation, sports, values formation and
income generation.[^3]

In short, improved LMG relations encourage a healthy respect for the
rule of law and improve social capital through greater civic
participation. It is generally accepted that these factors in turn
promote good government and foster the necessary collaboration for many
desirable social outcomes that APEC Leaders have made their goal.[^4]

I.  HOW IMPROVED LMG RELATIONS HELPS PEOPLE AT WORK TO BETTER REALIZE
    THEIR HUMAN POTENTIAL

Separate and apart from the economic, social and political benefits
described above, LMG cooperation is important because it can be a
vehicle to empower workers at all levels to provide input into work
processes and thereby exert greater control over their working lives.
Many of us spend the majority of our waking hours at work as well as a
majority of our lives in the workforce. If a worker is stuck in a
situation in which virtually all of his decisions are made and all of
his time is apportioned by a manager, this means that he is spending
much of his life deprived of the well-documented fundamental need for
control. He is deprived of the ability to "create" in accordance with
his values, talents and abilities and, as a consequence, enjoying the
value of his creations. That worker stands little chance of realizing
what Abraham Maslow referred to as "self-actualization."[^5]

As we will see in the case studies to follow, improved LMG Cooperation
allows people to take more control of their working lives and more fully
realize their human potential than is possible in workplaces
characterized by traditional top-down, assembly line, work processes
focused on repetitive activity.

In particular, the workplace of the global, information-based economy,
characterized by myriad ways of receiving, processing and communicating
information, by its very nature requires a "human value added" in order
to maximize the productive and efficient use of that information. In
this workplace, if there is no human value added, a job will either be
automated or eliminated. Machines can do rote, repetitive tasks well
enough. Human beings are needed for the creativity and ingenuity that a
machine could never furnish.

This prospect of more satisfying work, and the reduction of monotony on
the job, is an important promise of the global workplace. This is true
in manufacturing as well as the service sector. Like their counterparts
in service sectors such as banking and information technology \-- which
are more obviously are based on receiving, processing and communicating
information \-- manufacturing workers also play an increasingly
important role in ensuring quality, productivity and efficiency: while
robots now insert rivets, it is up to people to think about designing
processes to reduce the percentage of defects per million units
produced, even if it is only within their particular part of the factory
or production chain. (See, e.g., the case study on the **Harley-Davidson
Labor-Management Partnership** from the June 1999 APEC Colloquium on
Successful Practices in Human Resources Development in the Workplace:
Contributions from Labor, Management and Government.[^6]) It is this
type of work that holds the humanizing, self-actualizing promise of the
global workplace.

And if LMG cooperation is geared toward devolving decision-making to the
lowest levels of an organization, it is a vehicle that can help workers
satisfy their fundamental need to control what happens to them and to
enjoy the value of their creations. It is more empowering for an
automobile worker to have an established process to suggest changes to
improve efficiency and safety, as opposed to simply following top-down
rules. And not only is it more empowering for the worker, this
front-line, just-in-time input provides a more efficient car for the
company's shareholders and for the environment and is also less likely
to have manufacturing defects that reduce the car's safety.

When a worker has no discretion to deviate from a procedure where
appropriate, or there is no established mechanism for her to provide
valuable front-line input to alter that procedure if she deems it in the
organization's best interests, the organization is taking a big risk: it
is betting that the existing rule perfectly maximizes benefits such as
safety, efficiency, and productivity. It is also betting that today's
rule will anticipate tomorrow's challenges. If the organization bets
wrong and the procedure remains inflexible, the organization is denying
itself the benefit of the unique front-line input gained by the people
who implement the rule. It is also denying its workforce of any
incentive to make suggestions or, in appropriate cases, on-the-spot
decisions to improve safety, productivity and efficiency. This
inflexibility can be costly when your (now global) competitor implements
a program of LMG cooperation and attracts your customers with higher
quality, faster and cheaper service.

As we will see in the pages that follow, LMG cooperation is a win-win
situation: workers feel more empowered to create value for the benefit
of the organization, and the organization gets the unique perspectives
and insights that can only come from the front lines. In such a manner,
individuals, organizations and societies can best meet the challenges
and take advantage of the tremendous opportunities afforded by
globalization.

It is important to remember, however, that separate and apart from
whatever humanizing changes the global workplace may offer to workers,
the fact remains that, in a global, highly competitive economy, the
bottom-line is king: businesses will not develop programs of LMG
cooperation, or otherwise incorporate workers' human creativity and
ingenuity, unless those processes are "better, faster and cheaper." If a
business's work processes are not better, faster and cheaper than those
of its competitors, the business will lose out, whether the competitor
is across town or across the world.

Therefore, not only is LMG cooperation entirely consistent with
preparation for the intensely competitive environment with which many
organizations must now cope, one could make a very strong case that LMG
Cooperation is actually *essential* to an organization's competitiveness
in the unprotected terrain of globalization. Therefore, there is no
tension to resolve between economic success and the humanization of the
workplace in the global economy through improved LMG cooperation. On the
contrary, effective LMG cooperation can enable the APEC economies and
the organizations and people within them to take advantage of the
awesome opportunities provided by globalization: e.g., access to
markets, technology transfer, trans-border partnerships and vertical
integration, and access to capital and the best people from around the
world.

The pages that follow detail principles that organizations can follow to
best take advantage of the opportunities and avoid the pitfalls
presented by globalization. They also contain examples of organizations
that succeeded by following those principles, and have learned valuable
lessons along the way.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 1

**SUPPORT FOR LMG COOPERATION MUST COME FROM THE TOP**[^7]

A LMG initiative[^8] will not succeed if it does not have the support of
top-level management and labor representatives. Given their position of
authority, discretion and leadership, top-level management and labor
representatives often must play the role of catalyst in a LMG
cooperative initiative, even though the initiative must ultimately have
the support and involvement of the whole organization in order for it to
be successful. As with most leadership challenges, it is paramount that
management and labor leaders *truly believe* in the value of LMG
cooperation and that they lead by example.

With respect to the management side of the equation, on a practical
level this means that upper level management must not only support the
initiative in word, but it must also support it through positive actions
such as rewarding cooperative behavior, rewarding employee-generated
innovation, and providing sufficient resources for the initiative. Most
importantly, upper management must "practice what it preaches,"
frequently consulting with and even yielding decision-making authority
to workers in appropriate cases. (For a more detailed discussion of
devolution of decision-making, please see [Chapter
4](#best-practice-number-4) of this Tool Kit.)

This initial component of success -- i.e., management's sincere belief
in the value of LMG cooperation -- is more challenging than it may seem,
requiring a "leap of faith"[^9] on the part of managers who may be long
accustomed to the idea that management has all the solutions and all the
authority to implement them. The idea that workers may have more
knowledge about certain aspects of operations or, at a minimum, better
access to certain types of information and experience, is simply
counter-intuitive to many managers who have thought and acted under the
other assumption for so long. On some level, managers may view
devolution of decision-making as a threat to their prestige and to their
very status as managers. Others genuinely do not trust the capacity of
subordinates, or may simply be afraid of the unknown consequences of
doing so. In each of the above situations, changing the paradigm to
accommodate LMG cooperation requires a fundamental "leap of faith."

A leap of faith is required not just on the part of management: labor
representatives must similarly such a leap. It takes two to tango. If
the top-level labor officials do not truly believe in the value of LMG
cooperation and do not model cooperative behavior, it is unlikely that
the requisite leadership will emerge among the rank and file workers.

In the Symposium case studies, we see that top managers and labor
officials at several best practice cases demonstrated their
joint-commitment to workplace collaboration. For example, at Thailand's
**[Thai Honda
Manufacturing](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),**
top-level management and labor officials sat on four standing joint
labor-management committees (LMCs) and instituted numerous workplace
policies designed to reduce barriers between managers and workers --
i.e., a uniform company-wide dress code that applies to both workers and
managers, and a reconfiguration of the layout of the factory so that
workers work right alongside managers.[^10] At Mexico's [**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
management and labor leaders at the highest levels of the organization
were involved from the outset in jointly developing mutual goals for the
labor-management program along with objective criteria against which to
measure those goals.[^11] At Singapore's [**Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
top management consulted with the top labor representatives every step
of the way in the development of their joint LM cooperative initiative,
and further demonstrated its commitment by spending money to build
physical facilities for joint and union activities and participating on
a number of joint labor-management bodies.[^12]

In the United States, at the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
top-managers have sat on a joint labor-management committee since the
factory's inception,[^13] and at [**Miller Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc)
top management has supported four different LMCs that were established
following *Interest Based Negotiations* (IBN) with all four of unions
that are represented at the hospital.[^14] (For a discussion of LMCs,
please see [Chapter 2](#_BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_2). For a discussion of
IBN, please see [Chapter 6](#best-practice-number-6).) In Canada, with
the crucial support of its labor counterparts, top management at
Canada's [**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)
provided resources for a retreat and numerous site visits to build both
sides' capacity for future cooperative relations.[^15] Management and
labor leaders also created numerous joint *Labor Management Committees*
to resolve issues on an ongoing basis.[^16]

At Korea's [**Hankuk Electric Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
the highly personalized involvement of company President Sue Doochil was
essential to the LMG cooperative program that ultimately turned the
fortunes of the company around. President Sue met with workers on almost
a daily basis, and "provided information to \[the\] employees as if they
were the chief director so they would start to think and act as if they
were the chief director." At one point he met with workers three times a
day, after each shift, at 3:00 am, 9:00 am and 6:00 pm. President Sue
also engaged in numerous joint problem-solving meetings with the workers
that were designed to forge a common vision for the future of the
company. The President even went as far as directly briefing workers'
family members on the events of the company.[^17]

Clearly, by showing such a personalized commitment to LMG cooperation,
top-leadership at Hankuk Electric Glass provided the motivation and
security that the company needed in order to move forward and overcome
its challenges.

A final example of the value of the support of top labor and management
officials occurred at [**The Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc).
In 1998, labor and management representatives of the Zoo went away on a
retreat[^18] with the objective of jump-starting a program to improve
labor-management relations. At the retreat both sides had to maintain an
open mind in order to brainstorm ideas for how both they and the other
side could improve labor relations at the Zoo. They also had to dedicate
themselves to LMCs that thye had formed in order to follow up on the
joint objectives that they had agreed to.[^19]

The retreat was successful beyond the parties' expectations, resulting
in improved relations, successful contract negotiations, and the
foundation for future relations. Concretely, the retreat resulted in a
new protocol for the use of mediation to resolve workplace disputes.
Following the retreat, the parties publicly demonstrated their
enthusiasm for collaboration through a series of public presentations on
it.[^20]

Had top-level labor and management leaders not been involved from the
outset, parties at lower levels could have expended great efforts to no
avail. Since management controls the resources, its early and visible
involvement is especially critical. It is often hard even to recruit
people for a LMG effort if management does not demonstrate its support
from the very early stages. Workers and middle managers may feel that it
would be a waste of time to engage in cooperative efforts if upper
management may not even entertain their recommendations. Sometimes they
are not sure if they have permission from their superiors to devote time
to it. Workers may even fear retaliation for their involvement. It is
also important that upper management is present to contribute its own
unique perspectives, not to mention that it often controls the bulk of
the available resources and ultimately wields decision-making authority
with respect to when and how the initiative will move forward.

For the above organizations, support by high-level officials was the
first step for the implementation of change. In some cases, this was the
result of a purposeful initiative by management officials. In other
cases, high-level support was attained afterwards, a result of the
inevitable trappings of change, requiring leaders to adjust in order to
survive in an ever more competitive environment. In both situations,
top-management had to provide financial support and other resources in
order to make cooperation work, but ultimately the success of the
initiative depended on the complementary support and efforts of the
workers. Indeed, it does take two to tango.[]{#_BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_2
.anchor}

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 2

**MAKE LMG COOPERATION A PERMANENT PART OF OPERATIONS**[^21]

#  

If it is to succeed, LMG cooperation cannot be seen as a fad, a "flavor
of the month" or another new management technique. LMG cooperation is
not a technique; it is a belief in the value of collaboration that is
reflected in the attitudes, the work processes, and indeed the very
structure of the organization. To this end, it is essential that labor
and management work together to establish permanent mechanisms to ensure
the permanence of their collaboration and the benefits that it entails.

A permanent mechanism that is common in North America is called a
**Labor-Management Committee (LMC)**, which was alluded to in [Chapter
1](#best-practice-number-1). A Labor-Management Committee is comprised
of workers and managers who meet periodically to discover, discuss and
resolve ongoing issues or problems that affect the workplace. As was
emphasized in [Chapter 1](#BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_1), both top management
and union leaders must be committed to the success of the LMC.[^22]

An outside professional third-party neutral often facilitates the first
several meetings of the LMC. At these initial meetings, the outside
neutral helps the parties determine ground rules such as who will
represent each side, where and when meetings will be held, procedures
for introducing agenda items, who will chair the meetings, how the
meeting will be reported to constituents, and general rules of conduct.

Equally important, at these first few meetings the outside neutral
teaches and models good behavior such as brainstorming, active
listening, respect for other points of view and allowing others to
express their ideas free from judgment and criticism. The neutral may
also work on more advanced techniques of problem solving and
decision-making. (Please [Chapter 6](#BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_6) of this
Tool Kit for a more detailed discussion of these techniques.) Following
the first few meetings, at a point the neutral deems appropriate, the
parties begin to self-facilitate their meetings. They call the neutral
back only when the LMC hits a particularly thorny issue.

At the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
which is located near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the United States, two
different unions, the employer, two community groups and a federal
government agency are represented on the LMC. The labor contracts
specifically provide for the LMC'S operation. Funding for the LMC and
for the some of the startup costs for the manufacturing facility came
from federal, state and local governments. The group charter does not
allow them to handle formal grievances, but keeps them focused on
"product quality, production efficiency, customer service, business,
morale, and the general environment and culture of the company."[^23]
The LMC is facilitated by a mediator and chaired by one of the
representatives of a government agency, the Steel Valley Authority.[^24]

[**Miller Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc)
in Duluth, Minnesota in the United States operates four different LMCs
because there are four different unions representing workers at the
hospital. All four committees share the same basic philosophy of prompt
resolution of issues from open and respectful dealings, but each LMC has
its own ground rules and operating style. Just a few of the issues they
have successfully dealt with are:

-   Deep-seated mistrust between management and the unions

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sale of specialized service (e.g., dialysis)

-   Job assignments

-   Mergers

-   Changing role of supervisors

-   Safety Program and repercussions for failure to follow the program

-   Identification of in-house competencies and job skills needed[^25]

In Canada, LMCs operate with varying degrees of structure and formality,
and the government may fund half the cost of a LMC up to a maximum of
\$100,000 (Canadian). In Quebec, long-term labor contracts led to
ongoing productive dialogues within the LMCs. According to the case
study on [**Long Term Collective Agreements: New Approaches to Labour
Relations in
Quebec**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
it was "as if the collective agreement remained open since the
negotiations were settled through letters of agreement."[^26] At two of
the firms studied in Canada,
[**Sucre**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
and
[**Nortel**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
joint committees meet on an ad-hoc basis for ongoing dispute
resolution.[^27] At another firm,
[**Alcan**,](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
there are three different LMCs that meet on a regular schedule, five to
six times a year.[^28]

Outside of North America, the range of issues addressed by LMCs was as
wide-ranging as their geographic dispersion. In the Philippines, there
were 734 LMCs operating as of April 2001 according to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board.[^29] LMCs actively seek out best
practices with a recognition program called "The Search for Outstanding
LMCs." [^30] Industry Tripartite Councils administer the program with
support from the government, unions and employers in the banking,
garment, automotive, hotel and restaurant industries.[^31] The most
recent award winning LMC, the *Asian Transmission Corporation* and its
union, reduced the time spent in negotiation from months to mere
hours.[^32] Another LMC in the Philippine agricultural sector,
[**Lapanday Agricultural and Development
Corporation**](../../Case%20Studie%20Docs/Post%20Sym%20Files/Philippines%20-%20LADC%20Case%20Study%20-%20Final1.doc),
included an extensive list of social welfare issues on its agenda in
order to balance external forces from the global marketplace with basic
issues of survival for the workforce and the community.[^33]

Several cases mention the importance of training for committee members.
Training has included *Interest Based Negotiation (IBN)*[^34]
techniques, facilitation, interpersonal communications and group problem
solving skills. Training and education may also take the form of site
visits to other successful LMCs \-- with unexpected and positive
results: "by traveling and spending time together (to learn about
cooperative programs like the one in Oakland, California), the
individuals on both sides of the divide had an opportunity to get to
know each other in a relaxed setting; an unfreezing of traditional
barriers and distrust was the result."[^35]

In Chile, the government has created incentives for the use of LMCs to
help organizations enhance their training capacities. Firms that invest
in training can claim tax refunds of 1% of wages. There is also a
measure of compulsion, as Chilean firms with more than fifteen workers
are required to have labor-management training committees with at least
three worker representatives and three management representatives. Since
the program's inception in 1988, the number of workers trained and the
number of workers employed in Chile has steadily risen.[^36]

The Philippines National Mediation & Conciliation Board also found it
necessary to arrange for extensive training to the LMCs in its
jurisdiction: "Some 553 LMC orientation seminars were conducted,
benefiting 2,664 from labor and 1,239 from management, while there were
462 skills trainings conducted, benefiting 2,272 from labor and 939 from
management."[^37]

A LMC is but one example of a permanent mechanism for LMG cooperation.
Other permanent mechanisms abound. For example, at Singapore's
[**Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries**,](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
labor-management cooperation is permanently institutionalized in not
just one, but rather a series of standing bodies such as:

-   *quarterly dialogue sessions* between top management and union
    leaders to discuss, among others, information on company performance
    and prospects, broad issues relating to skills training, workplace
    safety and health, as well as welfare and benefits and, finally, the
    implementation of key national initiatives and programs to enhance
    workers' employability, productivity and cost-competitiveness;

-   *monthly HR management-union meetings* to discuss specific HR
    policies as well as grievances and workplace disputes;

-   *monthly general morning assemblies with executives and union
    representatives* to discuss the company's financial status, quality
    results, as well as successful departmental projects;

-   *workplace & welfare committees and other recreational events* to
    provide an added channel for labor-management collaboration and
    employee involvement in decision-making. As well as an added
    opportunity for social interaction between management, union and
    workers.[^38]

As a result of a joint labor-management retreat designed to improve
labor relations and help the parties reach a collective bargaining
agreement (conducted by the *Canadian Federal Mediation & Conciliation
Service)*, Canada's **[Ottawa
Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)**
resolved to undertake an ongoing cooperative approach to problems in the
workplace. This approach entails a number of joint working committees,
including the following:

-   Operator Empowerment Committee - a group composed of operators,
    supervisors and superintendents which developed a Driver's Handbook
    to outline the responsibilities of the operators, the expectations
    of the Employer in delivering its service to customers and the
    support drivers can expect from the Employer;

-   Maintenance Working Group - a joint team which developed a process
    for improving maintenance and reducing the contracting out of some
    maintenance tasks;

-   Communications - a team which examined and improved internal
    communications at the workplace;

-   Route Scheduling - a permanent committee to identify and correct
    suboptimal bus routes; and

-   Community Marketing - a very successful program to use drivers to
    market the transit service to target communities. The parties
    believe that this program is one reason ridership numbers are on the
    rise after many years of decline.[^39]

At Thailand's [**Thai Honda
Manufacturing**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
labor management cooperation has been institutionalized through such
permanent mechanisms as joint morning meetings called *Choreis*, an
information board, on-air programs at the air-conditioned canteen, an
annual meeting on the first working day of every year, and permanent
standing committees on wages, welfare, labor relations, and safety and
occupational health.[^40]

It is not only process changes such as standing committees and the like
that serve as permanent institutional mechanisms for LMG cooperation,
but also physical changes. At [**Matsushita
Refrigeration**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
in Singapore, for example, they built a Union Room for union related
activities and meetings.[^41] At [**Thai
Honda**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
in Thailand, they built an air-conditioned canteen for joint
labor-management activities and recreation. Thai Honda also restructured
the work floor itself, having workers and managers work right next to
each other, wearing the same uniforms.[^42]

On a national scale, some governments have sought to protect their
economies by establishing permanent tri-partite mechanisms to better
prepare for change, such as the establishment of *Worker Adjustment
Programs*. Worker Adjustment programs are typically designed to address
temporary worker dislocation issues created by industrial level decline
in an area that was dependent on such an industry. Such programs protect
against economic devastation by preparing workers with job skills
training to either transfer to another location or to another industry.
For example, in Canada, the *Canadian Congress for Steel Workers* worked
with local and international unions, the steel industry, and the
Canadian government to develop its Worker Adjustment Program.[^43] At
the local level, various *Local Adjustment Committees* carried out
implementation of the national Worker Adjustment Program. [^44]

Also on a national level, in the Philippines a national *Labor
Management Cooperation Council* encourages the bipartite social partners
to thresh out and resolve their concerns in a win-win manner (*See*
[Chapter 6](#BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_6) of this Tool Kit). The government
merely serves as the facilitator in the relationship.[^45]

In brief, permanent mechanisms to foster LMG cooperation come in many
different forms, from plant level LMCs to national tri-partite labor
market adjustment programs. Their common thread, and the most important
point, is their very permanence. They must be able to survive changes in
top union and management leadership. They must not be viewed as
temporary fads promoted by one or the other side. Rather they must both
reflect and promote a change in mentality that recognizes the valuable
contribution of everyone in the organization, no matter where they stand
in the organizational "hierarchy."

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 3 

**CREATE NEW CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION**[^46]

New Channels of Communication

Innovations in LMG cooperation invariably open up new channels of
communication, and vice-versa. In Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Mexico, New
Zealand, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and the United States, the
governments provided a legal framework, and sometimes funding, to
encourage enhanced communication.

We have already seen one important vehicle for improving communication,
*Labor-Management Committees (LMCs)*, which were discussed in [Chapter
2](#_BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_2). There were several other noteworthy
examples from the APEC LMG Symposium: offices and meeting rooms that
were redesigned with the intent of improving communication; formal and
informal training that was used to enhance communication; and
information exchanges that took place in venues such as quarterly and
morning meetings, broadcast messages, newsletters, and bulletin boards.
This section of the Tool Kit will describe the range of strategies that
organizations implemented in order to foster improvements in
Labor-Management relations.

# The Architecture of Communication

When the architecture of communication is discussed, bricks and mortar
may not be the first thought, but in at least two cases, room
arrangement was a key to success. New channels of communication may be
facilitated (or frustrated) by the physical layout of the firm. [**Thai
Honda**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
practices "One Floor Management" to open up the channels: "Without
private rooms and partitions, all associates can see each other. Working
tables are arranged face-to-face whether they are staff member's tables
or the president's table."[^47] Communication flows more freely as a
result. Some organizations feel they must add meeting space so labor and
management have a place to collaborate and communicate. At [**Matsushita
Refrigeration**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
in Singapore, for example, they built a Union Room for union related
activities and meetings.[^48]

# Training as a New Channel of Communication

Training provides a channel to deliver new communication skills and new
information. Participants often find training sessions to be a "safe"
place to try out new behaviors, and new information may be easier to
digest when it is presented in a new environment, away from the office
or shop floor. (Recall the success of the [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
retreat that was discussed in [Chapter 1](#BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_1).) It
may also be helpful for management and workers to share the learning
environment so that each can see the other in a new light and reinforce
the idea that cooperation is a journey of discovery, made easier and
more effective by mutual support.

The national strategy for more effective labor-management cooperation in
[**Chile**[^49]](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc)
included a primary focus on workforce training. APEC case studies from
[**Mexico**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),[^50]
**the
[Philippines](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)**,[^51]
[**New
Zealand**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/New Zealand 11 June final final final.doc),[^52]
[**Singapore**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),[^53]
[**Thailand**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),[^54]
[**Canada**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),[^55]
and the **United States ([Atlantic
Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
[Miller
Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc)
and [Philadelphia
Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc))**[^56]
also mentioned training in business fundamentals and the skills
necessary for cooperation. The case study on the [**New Indonesia
Industrial Relations
System**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Indonesia-Case Study Endang-Final1x.doc)
explicitly highlights the need for training at the national level to
empower the next generation of labor relations practitioners.[^57]

All of the cases from the U.S. and Canada included training that was
conducted by the economies' respective Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Services. In one of those cases, the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
a union training fund was established through a company benefit
contribution of five cents per hour and another five cents per hour
contributed by the union members. This served as a mechanism to fund
craft-related workforce training.[^58]

# Morning, Monthly and Quarterly Meetings

Outside of the Labor-Management Committee meetings, most of the firms
held other types of meetings to move information to the workforce and to
provide opportunities for two-way communication. This channel of
communication was so important to the survival of [**Hankuk Electric
Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
in Korea that the President met with production line workers *three
times a day*, at 3 a.m., 9 a.m., and 6 p.m.![^59] Lunchtime roundtable
discussions were also held at the [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
so that many more employees could participate in discussions that might
affect them.[^60] Monthly and quarterly meetings were conducted at
[**Matsushita** **Refrigeration
Industries**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
in Singapore. Matsushita's quarterly meetings had fairly broad
objectives such as company performance, skills training and safety and
health, while the monthly meetings were narrower in focus, allowing
in-depth discussion of specific HR policies.[^61]

**Broadcast Messages**

[**Thai
Honda**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
used a public address system was used to disseminate important news
throughout the company.[^62] Other firms commonly use the telephone
system, email, the internet or an intranet to record and broadcast
essential information to employees.

**Newsletters**

The *Open Communication Room* is the title of **Hankuk Electric
Glass's** bulletin that is published every Tuesday and Friday. "Special
emphasis was placed in this newsletter on communication between
employees and management, and the president provided space for
information sharing, and the exchange of opinions," according to Dr.
Chan Young Hur.[^63] Other organizations have used a response form in
their monthly newsletters that can be used by employees to suggest
operational improvements. Lots of white space and judicious placement of
graphics best draw readers into newsletter text.

**Bulletin Boards**

[**Thai
Honda**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
used bulletin boards to open new channels of communication. "There are
the labour union's boards and the company's boards at Thai Honda. Due to
mutual trust, the information can be released on the boards without any
approval from the Human Resources department. No problems have occurred
so far," said officials.[^64] According to experts, it is important to
remember several guidelines to maximize the effectiveness of bulletin
boards:

-   Material should be current. Put someone in charge of periodically
    discarding old notices.

-   Include a mix of information that is interesting and useful to
    employees.

-   Placement is important. Mount the boards in high-traffic areas and
    organize material by topic area.

-   Color, charts and graphics will attract readers.

-   Keep them neat. A cluttered bulletin board is not easy to read.

As is the case with most types of relationships, whether they are
nation-to nation or person-to-person, communication is key. New methods
of communication along the lines described in this chapter are a crucial
ingredient for success, and an indispensable part of this Tool Kit.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 4

DEVOLVE DECISION MAKING TO THE FRONT LINES OF THE ORGANIZATION[^65]

Labor-management cooperation works because, at its ideal stage, it
instills an "owner's mentality" in workers at all levels of an
organization. A worker with an owner's mentality, like the actual owner
of the enterprise, has an economic and indeed a personal stake in the
success of the enterprise. She wants the business to succeed because its
success is tied to her personal success. She has an economic incentive
to make the organization run as efficiently as possible and to create
innovations that will help it grow in the face of competition.[^66]

Separate and apart from the question of financial incentives, in order
for a worker to have such an owner's mentality she must have a voice in
the operation of the enterprise. Why bother to make a suggestion to
improve quality or efficiency when management does not even listen? Even
if management would be receptive to workers' input in a general sense,
many workers will make the extra effort to innovate only if there is a
sufficient incentive and there are mechanisms in place to actively
encourage and consider their suggestions.

As we have seen in places throughout the previous three chapters, while
labor-management cooperation has the potential to create substantial
economic benefits, many organizations have a very difficult time
navigating the cultural change that is required to make it work. Many
managers instinctively fear the consequences of "letting go" without
considering the consequences of *not* letting go. An organization that
does not provide a voice for its workers -- indeed devolving many
decisions to them -- is doing itself a disservice in several ways:

(1) by having managers make all decisions, it is denying itself the
    invaluable input of those who do the front-line work on a daily
    basis and are consequently most familiar with its challenges and
    pitfalls and ways to overcome them;

(2) even if management somehow "gets it right" through top down
    decision-making, circumstances and conditions change, and front-line
    workers are in a unique position to both detect and react to change;
    managers ignore front-line workers' input at their own peril;

(3) denying workers a voice and a measure of control over their own work
    processes is so disempowering and non-self-actualizing[^67] that
    many workers are bound to become alienated from their work and
    revert to a minimalist work ethic: putting in the minimal time,
    effort and thought into a job and, in effect, doing just what is
    expected by the boss and no more. Such behavior, if widely engaged
    in, places the enterprise at an extreme disadvantage relative to
    companies whose workers provide greater input.

It is ironic that phases of production that have traditionally been
considered to be "lower level," are actually much *closer* to the heart
of the work product \-- whether it is a production part at the end of an
assembly line or customer service at a retail location.

In the APEC region, several bold companies have greatly benefited from
making the leap to devolution of decision-making to lower organizational
levels. For example, Mexico's [**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc)
has developed an extensive program to both motivate and give
decision-making power to work groups at the production level. Their
compensation is tied to their results as well as the competencies that
they develop.[^68] The **[Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)**
in the United States was designed from its inception to have a shallow
management hierarchy with extensive responsibility entrusted to its
hourly workforce.[^69] In
[**Chile**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc), the
government has encouraged the formation of *Bipartite Committees* that
are explicitly empowered to make decisions concerning training within
firms.[^70]

To see the functioning of devolved decision-making in practice, it is
useful to look at the **Harley-Davidson** motorcycle company in the
United States. Harley-Davidson's labor-management partnership was
featured at the first APEC LMG event, the APEC Colloquium on "Successful
HRD Practices in the Workplace: Contributions from
Labor-Management-Government" (Victoria, Canada, June 1999).[^71] The
following excerpt from that case study, describing various layers of
workers that have been given formal decision-making authority, conveys a
flavor of devolved decision-making in action:

> The first layer of decision-making falls within the four Process Work
> Groups (PWGs) \[which are organized according to skill and function:
> Fabrication; Paint; Assembly; and Future\]. Groups of workers, called
> Natural Work Groups (NWGs), are responsible for decisions at the
> "floor level" and are essentially self-directed. Within the NWGs the
> work of building motorcycles gets done. Specific tasks are planned and
> organized, the parts and supplies provided, and the shared
> decision-making on quality, output, safety checks, and communication
> is done. A collection of NWGs and support employees (roughly 15 in
> each NWG) make up the PWG.
>
> The second level of decision-making is the Process Operating Group
> (POG), which is a smaller leadership group among the PWG made up of
> the Process Leader, steward, and a member of each NWG along with a
> support employee. The POG accepts the decision-making role in the PWG.
> It is responsible for assuring delivery of the parts/products and
> services for that particular manufacturing process, on schedule and
> within budget. In the POG, the work of the NWGs is coordinated with
> other NWGs within that particular Process Operation. POG
> representatives share production information with the NWGs, other
> POGs, PWGs, and NWGs throughout the factory. POG stewards, with a
> working knowledge of the Agreement, shepherd the partnership and
> resolve issues with their Process Leaders.[^72]

Consistent with the lingo that has developed with the advent of *High
Powered Work Organizations*, the Harley-Davidson Labor-Management
partners assigned a "level" that they hoped to attain with each element
of shared decision-making. In the Harley-Davidson program, there were
three levels:

(1) [D1]{.underline}: Unilateral -- Management or Labor retain sole
    discretion to make decisions;

(2) [D2]{.underline}: Unilateral, but with prior input from the other
    party(ies)

(3) [D3]{.underline}: Joint Consensus -- Each side has veto power over
    the decision.[^73]

At the formation of the Harley-Davidson partnership, the partners
developed a table that assessed where they were with respect to each
type of decision, as well as their eventual goal. In all cases the
desire was to go from more unilateral to more consensus-based
decision-making. The following is an excerpt from their table: [^74]

+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
| TYPE OF DECISION-MAKING                | NOW             | GOAL     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
| Education/Training -- Focus: Education | Some 1s and 3s; | 3s       |
| and training will be primarily         | mostly 2s       |          |
| work-related.                          |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Joint needs assessment             |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Targeting audience                 |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Curriculum design                  |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Priorities/sequencing              |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Instructors/materials/methods      |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Implementation plans               |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Train the Trainer                  |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Use ALL resources                  |                 |          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
| Production Scheduling -- Focus:        | Mostly 1s       | 2s and   |
| Scheduling of new model introductions, |                 | 3s       |
| motorcycles and power train            |                 |          |
| production, and current and noncurrent |                 |          |
| parts production impacts our daily     |                 |          |
| work lives and decisions regarding     |                 |          |
| these effects will be shared. As an    |                 |          |
| example:                               |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Annual build schedule \[move       |                 |          |
|     towards type 2 decision\]          |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Sub-annual period schedules \[move |                 |          |
|     towards type 2 decision\]          |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Effects of the above \[3\]         |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Hours of work                  |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Overtime                       |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Crew size                      |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Shifts                         |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Support staff by shifts        |                 |          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
| Subcontracting -- Focus: partners will | 1s and 2s       | 3s/2s    |
| jointly determine all subcontracting   |                 |          |
| decisions that involve in or our       |                 |          |
| sourcing of work directly related to   |                 |          |
| hourly employees                       |                 |          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
| Technology Integration -- Focus:       | Some 1s; mostly | 3s       |
| Continuously improve the company's     | 2s              |          |
| competitive capability through the     |                 |          |
| application of appropriate technology, |                 |          |
| such as:                               |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Systems                            |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Processes                          |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Process of Technology Selection    |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
| -   Implementation, which . . .        |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   Enhances people, processes,    |                 |          |
|         and organizational             |                 |          |
|         effectiveness                  |                 |          |
|                                        |                 |          |
|     -   While addressing the           |                 |          |
|         possibility of worker          |                 |          |
|         displacement                   |                 |          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+
|                                        |                 |          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------+----------+

As we can see, the devolution of decision-making does not occur for its
own sake. Rather it is part and parcel of a comprehensive program to
draw upon the knowledge and talent of all workers and managers to reach
clearly defined objectives.

Not all organizations are ready for this type of change, and in all
cases the decision of what goals to seek, and how to use devolution of
decision-making to reach them, is one that must be made with great
planning and care. To this end, enterprises often find it valuable to
undertake a formal organizational assessment prior to developing
modified decision-making processes that devolve some decision-making
authority to front-line workers.[^75]

The case study from
[Chile](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc) provides
an example of a large scale "assessment" in the form of a
multi-stakeholder dialogue. In that case study, the stakeholders
undertook a formal review of the various organizations' social dialogue
structures before they created the program to build firms' capacity for
devolved decision-making. Once the small firms and their workers began
to engage in the new dialogue, a consensus developed that, if greater
reliance was going to be placed on workers closer to the front lines of
production, they would have to be equipped with greater job skills for
this increase in authority. As a result, the need for job skills
training programs was recognized and a methodology was developed on that
basis.[^76]

A similar multi-stakeholder approach was adopted in Quebec, Canada, one
that also reflects the trepidation with which some of the parties
entered into the process of consensus building toward devolved
decision-making:

. . . (T)rade union groups were in favor of new organizational forms if
these were accompanied by a consensus-building approach. They saw in it
a path that led to an increased autonomy for employees in the
performance of their duties, thus promoting versatility and occupational
training and improving the union's participation in the life of the
institution. Furthermore, in the companies themselves the local unions
were often divided between caution and the wish to be involved in the
organizational changes proposed by management. However, this shift
towards work relations adapted to more efficient organizations required
to call into question the traditional model of work relations existing
between labour unions and employers. Consensus building was increasingly
seen as an "economical alternative" that could benefit both
parties.[^77]

In sum, the various initiatives to promote devolved decision-making that
we have seen in this chapter were motivated by the belief that
empowering people to take initiative at all levels of the organization
was good for the bottom line: the more that workers had an "owner's
mentality," the harder and smarter they would work for the good of the
business. Along with this realization, however, was the recognition that
"imposing" devolved decision-making on an organization is an oxymoron. A
program for devolved decision-making must be agreed to and jointly
developed by workers and managers so it can take into account both
parties' interests as well as maximize the amount of information and
creative power that will go into the new program.

To maximize the chances of success, there should be training for both
workers and managers prior to the devolution of decision-making. Even
though workers likely have a good intuitive knowledge of how to modify
work processes to make them more efficient and productive, they often do
not have experience in operationalizing that intuition into decisions
that feed back into work processes. Managers, for their part, often need
training to help them with the managing the process of "letting go," to
develop their own intuition regarding which decisions they should keep
for themselves, which they should devolve, and the various degrees of
devolution that are appropriate.

In addition, both managers and workers often need additional training in
communication as well as conflict management and conflict resolution
that are the inevitable growing pains of a program to devolve decision
making to front-line workers. Many organizations, pleased with the
benefits of input, creativity and enthusiasm from all workers that
results from a program to devolve decision making, feel that the growing
pains are well worth it. As they say in the world of physical fitness,
"no pain, no gain."

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 5 

REDUCE STATUS BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND WORKERS[^78]

This chapter discusses a helpful means to the end that is the focus of
LMG cooperation: a workforce that is incentivized, listened to and
empowered to improve efficiency, productivity and quality so that it
takes on an "owner's mentality." The "means" that we are referring to is
the reduction of hierarchical or status barriers between managers and
workers. This Tool in the Tool Kit flows logically from some of the
Tools that we have discussed thus far: improved communication, permanent
mechanisms for cooperation and devolution of decision-making authority
all imply a relationship that is on a more equal footing than the
traditional relationship between workers and managers that was discussed
in the Introduction.

This being said, we are still mindful that there are cultural aspects of
this question that should not be ignored. The APEC region contains a
rich panoply of cultures that have differing norms of deference to
hierarchy. Some of the economies' cultures are more amenable to a
breaking down of the formality and deference involved in traditional
relations between managers and workers. In other cultures, deference to
authority and seniority form an integral part of human interaction that
is encompassed in not only norms of behavioral deference but also in
terms of norms of more subtle verbal and physical interaction. In fact,
the idea of respect for authority and seniority is incorporated into
some cultures' written and spoken languages.[^79]

A Tool Kit such as this one is non-prescriptive in the sense that the
techniques that it recommends may be "taken out" and utilized at the
discretion of the person working with it, in a manner that is
appropriate for the context in which he or she is operating. With this
in mind, below we will describe a few of the ways in which companies in
the APEC region have reduced hierarchical boundaries between managers
and workers. The companies have reduced the hierarchical boundaries in
order to positively impact the bottom line: if their workers feel more
listened to and generally more valued, it is more likely that they will
adopt an "owners' mentality," which is always good for the bottom line.

**[Thai Honda
Manufacturing](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)**
has instituted several innovative policies so that workers would feel
valued and empowered to take as much initiative as possible to make the
plant more competitive. For example, as we have already seen, all people
in the factory \-- workers and managers alike \--wear white uniforms so
it is not possible to distinguish between workers and managers simply by
looking at the way they dress.[^80] In the same vein, everyone who works
at Honda all over the world, including Thai Honda, is referred to as an
"associate" whether they are an employee or a manager. According to the
case study "no "employees" or "employers" exist in the Honda
family.[^81]

As we have also seen, Thai Honda has even incorporated the idea of
equality into the physical layout of the plant. Pursuant to its *One
Floor Management* policy, there are no private rooms or partitions. All
associates can see one another. Working tables are arranged
face-to-face, whether they are staff member's tables or the president's
table.[^82] The case study describes the working philosophy that
underpins One Floor Management:

1.  It ignores a working hierarchy so that communications between
    management and staff occur conveniently and continuously. There is
    no secretary or any other formal barrier.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  It creates down-to-earth behavior by the management. There is no
    arrogant management at Thai Honda Manufacturing Co., Ltd., so the
    management has to study hard to understand basic problems before
    managing.

2.  It provides a spirit of cooperation both in individual working
    behavior and a team spirit in the workplace. All associates are
    inevitably socialized to this *esprit de corps* either formally or
    informally. The face-to-face working table layout enhances this
    attitude. If a severe problem occurs, leaders who sit together can
    immediately know of and promptly solve that problem.[^83]

In addition, the increased channels of communication at Thai Honda that
were discussed in [Chapter 3](#BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_3) (Create New
Channels of Communication) also imply a lowering of status barriers
through the recognition that workers are equal partners with management
and therefore must receive abundant, timely and accurate information if
they are to contribute all they can to the plant's competitiveness.
Thus, the morning *Chorei*, the Information board, the on-air programs
presented at the air-conditioned canteen, and the annual meeting for all
3,000 associates at the plant are all designed to inform workers as
equal partners in the success of the organization.

Similarly, at the **[Matsushita
Refrigeration](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)**
Manufacturing Plant in Singapore, the quarterly dialogue sessions, the
monthly Human Resources-Union meeting, various labor-management
committees (i.e., for safety, the canteen and recreation), and the
several procedures in place to promote information sharing all strive to
empower workers by putting them on an equal footing with
management.[^84] It is one thing to tell workers that they are valued,
it is quite another to dedicate resources to setting up the structures
to actively promote and reap the benefits of such equality.

As yet another example, the [**Hankuk Electric Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
**(HEG)** Plant in Korea chose to implement an "open book" management
philosophy. As a result, management began to provide daily briefings on
the status of the company so that the workers could be as informed as
possible in the wake of severe economic troubles facing the
company.[^85] In this way the workers could truly be partners. In
addition, in order to maximize their "open book" management style and
create confidence in company operations, HEG released a bi-weekly
newsletter that was sent to the families of their workers. Previously,
only top officials were such important information. Thereafter, everyone
in the company was made to feel like part of the "management" team and
this improved the workers' perspective of their contribution to the
company and relayed a message of value to all employees.[^86] Mentally,
the status barriers between high level officials and workers on the
assembly line began to diminish, which enabled them to focus their
energy on the main issue at hand: job security and the corporate
survival of HEG.

In effect, all of the mechanisms for improved communication, the
permanence of labor-management cooperation, and the devolution of
decision-making authority that we have seen so far reflect and
contribute to a lowering of the status barriers between workers and
managers. As the practitioners that use this Tool Kit go out and develop
their own programs of labor-management cooperation, it behooves them to
take a moment to think about how they might lower the status barriers in
a manner that is appropriate to the cultural context. This should not be
thought of as an end in and of itself, rather a means to the end of
having a workforce that is incentivized, listened to and empowered to
improve efficiency, productivity and quality so that it takes on an
"owner's mentality."

If we were to advocate lowering status barriers as an "end" in and of
itself, it would take us into a normative territory that is outside the
scope of this Tool Kit and in any event too culturally contextual to be
of any use as a generic principle. Instead, irrespective of social
considerations, the Tool of lowering of status barriers should be
thought of as a technique that is prudent from a business perspective in
light of the self-actualization principle that was alluded to in the
introduction: workers that are made to feel important will take a pride
in their work that will enhance their creativity and personal value
added. This is good business by anyone's definition.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 6 

**THINK IN TERMS OF INTERESTS, NOT POSITIONS**[^87]

Labor-Management cooperation is all about creating possibilities,
unshackling organizations from the constraints of their history and
their standard operating procedures. The global economy demands no less:
organizations that cannot quickly adapt and adjust to their customers'
demands will be undermined by their competition.

In order for an organization to generate the necessary creativity and
adaptability required in this environment, it must focus on new ways of
problem solving and communication. Phrases like "we've always done it
this way," "top management won't go for that," or "you're invading
someone else's territory" are phrases that are still extremely common in
organizations. These ideas sap workers' energy and creativity and stop
their ideas before they even get off the ground. In terms of the process
of negotiating a collective labor contract, those ideas impose a
rigidity on the parties that inhibits an organization's ability to
motivate its workforce to continuously improve and adapt to the global
economy.

More innovative organizations in the APEC region have embraced some form
or another of a formal process for empowering employees and stimulating
their creativity. This process is called *Interest Based Negotiations
(IBN)*.[^88] While the term grew out of the literature on the art and
science of negotiation, its principles now apply to virtually all forms
of relationship building and work processes -- -- from nation-to-nation
relations, to the workplace, and even to family relationships. For the
purpose of explaining the underlying theory, and because of the
importance of negotiations to labor-management Relations, we will retain
the term *Interest Based Negotiations* *(IBN)* but will discuss it in
several contexts beyond the realm of negotiations.

A.  **What is Interest Based Negotiations?**

Interest Based Negotiations refers to a process by which the parties
openly exchange information concerning the *interests* that they need to
satisfy (i.e., "We need to keep production costs low enough to compete
in the market.") and then engage in joint problem solving to develop
several means of satisfying those interests. Contrast that with
traditional negotiations, according to which parties demand inflexible,
absolute *positions* (i.e., "We must keep production costs low by
cutting wages 30%.") and then use power-based or rights-based arguments
to satisfy those demands. (i.e., "We will cut 30% of the workforce if
you do not agree to take a pay cut, and the law permits us to do that
after the collective bargaining agreement expires at midnight Tuesday";
or "If you keep pressing your demand we will go out on strike, and the
labor law statute protects our right to do so.")

While traditional negotiations may seem to reflect the reality of
workplace negotiations and are still in wide use in workplaces
throughout the APEC region, they often hurt organizations because the
parties overlook options that can satisfy both parties' interests and
help the organization move forward and improve. This point can be
illustrated by the following simple parable. There were two bakers in a
bakery who were very competitive with one another, always trying to
outdo one another by making treats that were more delicious than the
other's. One day, they were fighting over the only egg that remained in
the bakery. Both bakers felt that the egg was rightfully theirs, and
they took it for granted that they could not share the egg, as it is
seemingly a quite indivisible object. As they continued to fight over
the egg, it slipped to the ground and was shattered into many fragments.
At that moment one baker exclaimed, "Now I will not be able to use the
yoke of the egg to make my delicious yellow cake!" The other baker
exclaimed, "Now I will not be able to use the white of the egg to make
my delicious white angel cake!"

Instead of two cakes, the bakery now produced zero cakes. Obviously, if
they had just been able to communicate they would have discovered that
they could both bake their delicious treats with the same egg, one using
the yoke and the other using the white. Because of their
non-communication, the two bakers couldn't even coordinate well enough
to buy more eggs! In fact, they even held back on suggesting the
purchase of more eggs because they didn't want to tip off their
"competition" as to what they were planning to bake!

Yes, this tale is simple, but it does make a valuable point: unless
organizations become better at communicating to articulate common goals,
and exchanging information on the interests that workers and managers
must satisfy in order to accomplish those goals, tremendous inefficiency
and loss of productivity will result. This type of communication is
simple to explain in theory but hard to achieve in practice. Many
organizations struggle with power-based threats and demands to satisfy
positions. Workers and managers do not stop and think about working
together to satisfy everybody's interests to the benefit of the
organization.

B.  **The Elements of Interest Based Negotiations**

While in this Tool Kit we are interested in the broad applicability of
IBN to labor relations as whole -- and not just negotiations -- it makes
sense to pause and explain the five components of IBN, both because of
the importance of the negotiation process to labor relations, and also
to see the role that the principles can play in developing parties
relationships.

1.  **Component No. 1: Identify Issues**

It may seem an obvious point, but the first task in a negotiation is for
the parties to get a handle on just what is at issue. This is a step
that should not be ignored or even taken for granted. If the parties do
not take this step, the negotiations can become unwieldy as the parties
change or add to the issues according to the ebb and flow of
negotiations. In addition, negotiations that do not have clear issues
risk degenerating into acrimonious affairs that focus too much on the
difficulties on the past, or on personality differences between the
parties. This is the basis for the old IBN adage: "focus on the problem,
not the people" and the oft heard exhortations of the IBN facilitator
for the parties to be forward-looking as the negotiations proceed.

2.  **Component No. 2: Exchange Interests**

Following the delineation of the issues, in IBN the parties then
exchange their interests. In contrast to an issue, which is *what* you
care about, an interest is *why* you care about an issue. An interest
should be contrasted with a *position,* which is an inflexible demand
that represents only one way to satisfy an interest. As we will see, IBN
is about the parties working together to develop many ways of satisfying
an interest. The following are some examples of interests as opposed to
positions:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **POSITION**                        **INTEREST**

  We want ten bonuses of \$1,000      We would like some incentives for
  apiece given out at the end of      doing our jobs particularly well.
  every quarter.                      

  We want all employees to document   In order to structure our incentive
  what they are doing at all times    program to meet our mission, our
  throughout the day, in              business needs to have
  fifteen-minute blocks.              accountability from its employees.

  We want to have the right to work   We want flexible work arrangements
  at home two days a week.            in order to better balance our work
                                      and family responsibilities.

  Employees are not permitted to      Given the current technology that
  telecommute unless there are        the business can afford, the
  special circumstances, such as      business cannot properly service
  illness.                            its customers by having its
                                      employees work from home.
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The benefit of focusing on interests instead of positions is that, as
was the case with the bakers and the egg, there are often ways to
satisfy both parties' interests with one solution. For example, in the
first two examples above, the company can develop a results (not time)
based accountability system by which it determines a bonus on a sliding
scale. In the second two examples, perhaps the business can use the
savings from the reduced need for office space in order to invest in
technology to enable workers to telecommute.

The process is not always so cut and dry, and there are not always
sufficient resources to implement every option to satisfy both parties'
interests. However, the process of engaging in this type of dialogue
builds the parties' relationship and gets their creative juices flowing
in a positive direction. Those factors make it more likely that the
organization will have good enough relations to design a program to
adapt and thrive in the global economy.

3.  **Component No. 3: Brainstorm Options**

Brainstorming is the process of a group focusing on an interest and
generating options to satisfy that interest, with at least three
important ground rules: (1) there is no criticism of the ideas as they
are generated; this creates an environment in which people are
uninhibited and therefore free to be their most creative; (2) the focus
is on broadening the options on the table rather than looking for a
single answer; and (3) the parties try to search for options that
satisfy both parties' interests. Brainstorming works best when all
participants sit next to each other, with the participants on the
different "sides" randomly distributed, facing a flipchart, a screen or
a blackboard.

The process of brainstorming options is truly one of the most liberating
for an organization, but it is also difficult to achieve. It requires
professionalism and a maturity that is difficult to achieve in many
organizations. The element of non-criticism of ideas implies a
breaking-down of hierarchical barriers that many organizations find
difficult to realize. (See [Chapter 5](#best-practice-number-5).) The
suspension of the tendency to find "the" answer to a problem runs
counter to the culture of many organizations that are focused on quick
and immediate results. The race to "the" correct result that many
organizations are used to often precludes creative out-of-the-box
solutions that might seem strange at first, but which may actually be
modified into something workable with the benefit of the input of others
in the group. Finally, the idea of searching for *mutual* gains is
counterintuitive to many people, unless the organization has done a lot
of work to align workers and managers with a common vision and
objectives. (See, e.g., [Chapter 8](#best-practice-number-8).)

If an organization can incorporate brainstorming into its usual work
processes, the benefits can be enormous in terms of obtaining the
benefit of the input of each and every worker. In this way ideas can be
adopted that otherwise would never be possible in the context of
hierarchical, top-down decision-making.

4.  **Component No. 4: Evaluate Options According to Objective
    Criteria**

Once the options have been "brainstormed," the group is now ready to
evaluate them and adopt them according to objective criteria. This is
critically important to the IBN process and to collaborative and
efficient workplace processes in general. In the absence of objective
criteria, options may be adopted based on power or simple persuasion,
both of which are likely not conducive to satisfying the parties'
interests. At a minimum, the group risks adopting an inefficient or
unfeasible solution that can do more harm than good.

A group develops objective criteria through the use of the brainstorming
technique described above. Common examples of objective criteria are:

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| -   Equity                    | -   Productivity                     |
|                               |                                      |
| -   Efficiency                | -   Consistency with Organizational  |
|                               |     Culture                          |
| -   Cost                      |                                      |
|                               | -   Politically Sellable             |
| -   Feasibility               |                                      |
|                               |                                      |
| -   Applicable Law            |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Taking into account objective criteria keeps the IBN process on track
when, at the point of actually deciding on a concrete course of action,
all of the benefits of the parties' prior good work are at risk of being
subverted by power imbalances or other forces that are not geared toward
satisfying their interests.

5.  **Component No. 5: Decide on Plan of Implementation**

Finally, in order to move forward in adopting the options, a group
should think about how they will be implemented. This is not to say that
the group has to engage in a detailed discussion of every step required
in implementation. Rather it is to ensure the integrity of the IBN
process by making sure that there are individuals or groups empowered to
implement the options adopted by a certain milestone dates. If the
parties do not take this step, they risk compromising the IBN process
and the numerous benefits that they stand to enjoy from it.

C.  How Have Winning Organizations Incorporated Interest Based
    Negotiations and Principles Into Their Work Processes?

While several of the organizations in the case studies formally
incorporated IBN training into their LMG initiatives, it is likely that
others informally applied IBN's principles through their encouragement
of information sharing and frank, open dialogue among workers and
managers. We will consider both cases in turn.

1.  **Initiatives That Formally Incorporated IBN and IBN Training**

[**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)
in Canada, faced with years of bitter and damaging labor relations,
formally incorporated IBN into its program of joint labor-management
initiatives. For Ottawa Transpo, the challenge of negotiating the 1999
collective bargaining agreement using IBN marked the true test of
whether the various joint labor-management initiatives that it had
implemented during the late 1990s had been successful. The Canadian FMCS
conducted a joint IBN Skills Workshop for the parties an hour away from
its headquarters, requiring participants to stay there for three days.
General staff stayed for two days, and the IBN negotiating committees
from labor and management stayed an extra day to complete a
comprehensive collective bargaining simulation. According to the
trainers:

The training was extremely successful and had a huge impact on the
relationship. Senior managers, bus drivers, supervisors, and mechanics
all shared the same training, food, and accommodations and socialized
together in the evenings. Managers and line employees were able to share
and discuss their visions for the future of the company and many were
surprised to learn that they were not dissimilar.[^89]

Even though the pace of IBN at first seemed slower than in traditional
negotiations -- mainly because the information-sharing and the joint
development of options to satisfy mutual interests takes time -- in the
end the IBN negotiations took less than half the time that traditional
negotiations had taken in the past at Ottawa Transpo.[^90]

In the United States, [**Miller Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc)
has made significant improvements upon years of contentious labor
relations through the use of IBN. One by one, the facilitator from the
U.S. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service conducted IBN training for
union and management bargaining committees for four different collective
bargaining agreements with four different unions. In each case the
parties, with much hard work and great effort toward attitudinal change,
overcame years of acrimonious relations and set the course for the
future using IBN. Commenting on the fourth and final contract, the
mediator writes:

> Finally, it was time for the real test of Interest Based Bargaining.
> Was it possible to use such a process when the chief spokespersons for
> MDMC and the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) local union had
> such a contentious history with each other that involved deep-seeded
> personality conflict? Since the FMCS mediators who did the \[IBN\]
> training were well aware of the history of the relationship between
> MDMC and UFCW, the training was geared towards listening,
> understanding and team building. At the outset, ground rules were
> created based on \[IBN\], and they prepared a plan for how the parties
> would move to traditional bargaining if the \[IBN\] approach did not
> succeed. In addition, the Federal Mediator who facilitated the
> bargaining obtained an agreement from the parties to follow the
> process and not take short cuts. Not only did the parties arrive at an
> agreement based on consensus, but they dramatically improved their
> relationship. As they began to resolve issues through the \[IBN\]
> process, their trust increased and their relationship with each other
> greatly improved . . . \[The IBN process allowed\] two parties who
> were blindsided by previous history and personality conflict among
> party members to re-focus their interests back towards their
> respective goals and the needs of their members, a process that
> resulted in a successful, voluntary agreement.[^91]

Also in the United States, labor and management representatives from the
[**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
used the IBN process to articulate common goals and successfully reach a
collective agreement despite not only years of difficult labor
relations, but also numerous recent changes in the respective
negotiating teams.[^92] As was the case with Ottawa Transpo and Miller
Dwan Medical Center, the mediator prepared the parties by training them
in IBN techniques prior to the negotiations.

Finally, in Canada the Quebec Ministry of Labor has developed a capacity
to train parties in IBN as a means of supporting the recent emphasis on
long-term collective agreements. With training in IBN from the Quebec
Ministry of Labor, [**Nortel
Networks**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
was able to reach a multi-faceted 10-year labor agreement with its
union,[^93] and
[**Alcan**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
used the same process to reach an 18-year framework agreement and
five-year collective contract with its unions.[^94]

2.  **Initiatives That Informally Incorporated Principles of IBN Into
    Labor Relations**

Aside from the more formal IBN initiatives described above, all of which
took place in North America, there are several excellent examples from
elsewhere in the APEC region that utilized IBN principles even though
they were not conceived of as part of the formal IBN process. For
example, the numerous new channels of communication at Singapore's
[**Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries**[^95]](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
are entirely consistent with the principle of information sharing that
is included in the IBN rubric. Similarly, in Korea's [**Hankuk Electric
Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
the *Open Communication Room* instituted by the company went a long way
to forging a common vision for the union and the management based on
their common interests, as did the institution of joint and quarterly
meetings. [^96]

Thailand's [**Thai Honda Manufacturing,
Inc.**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
also has instituted *One Floor Management* to lower the formal barriers
between labor and management, and has established several joint
Labor-Management Committees to share information and jointly solve
problems as they arise.[^97] Finally, the Labor-Management cooperation
program of Mexico's [**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc)
emphasizes the exchange of information and joint development of
objective criteria with a view to providing for mutual benefits.[^98]

While none of the initiatives in this second category embodies the IBN
process in its entirety, it is not important that they do so. The value
of IBN lies not in the formality of its process, but rather in the
general applicability of its underlying principles to foster better
relations in a wide variety of contexts. In fact, it is the adaptation
of those principles to the different economic, social and cultural
contexts that provides the most fertile ground for the innovations that
this Tool Kit is attempting to foster.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 7

GET HELP FROM A THIRD PARTY NEUTRAL[^99]

As we have seen, good labor-management relations are often not possible
based on intuition alone. They require effort, discipline, objectivity
and a long-term view that is difficult to achieve given the many
divergent interests between labor and management. In a great majority of
cases, it is helpful to have an outside third-party to initially bring
the parties together, teach them the skills and processes that have
worked to improve relations in other contexts, and then keep the process
on track.

In the case studies, we see the use of third-party neutrals in several
places. Where the case studies focus on economy-wide initiatives, we see
the increasing use of government agencies to provide mediation and
conciliation services. (Please see the [**case
studies**](http://gnzlz.com/case_studies_in_bp.htm) from Canada,
Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines and the United States.) These
governments have realized the tremendous economic, political and social
benefits to improved labor relations and the excellent return that
mediation and conciliation services provide for the public's investment.

A.  What Services Do Third Party Neutrals Provide?

Above and beyond the specific services she provides, a third-party
neutral must serve as the visible advocate for labor-management
cooperation in an organization. She must be its principal cheerleader
and facilitator. She must "sell" the process to both sides, emphasizing
the benefits for each. She must have relentless energy, gaining a
multi-faceted understanding not only of all the issues affecting the
relationship, but a sense of the history behind them as well. She must
display leadership and at the same time empower new leaders to take her
place, and make the cooperative programs she is launching eventually
become self-sufficient. She must stay abreast of developments internal
and external to the organization, and keep track of them in case they
threaten the relationship that she has worked so hard to engender among
the parties.

Above and beyond serving as the moral and spiritual force in favor of
LMG cooperation in an organization, third-party neutrals perform
concrete functions that we will detail in the three sections to follow.

1.  Facilitator of Communications

Simply put, parties with divergent interests find it easier to engage in
problem solving with the assistance of a third-party. This is not
surprising. Third parties, among other things:

(1) offer important logistical support by scheduling discussions and
    providing appropriate locations for them;

(2) ensure that all parties have a chance to be heard and that one side
    is not silenced by differences in power, position, or persuasive
    ability;

(3) establish ground rules to keep discussions civil and focused on the
    problem at hand;

(4) assist the parties to express their interests, exchange information,
    jointly problem solve, and set up mechanisms for the timely
    implementation of agreements; and

(5) incorporate discussions at the table into written and signed
    documents.

While the above functions are among the most basic performed by
third-party neutrals, it is important to emphasize that third-party
assistance comes in a wide variety of forms ranging from most
facilitative/least adjudicative to least facilitative/most adjudicative.
Since the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is still
evolving, the processes described below sometimes come with different
names, or processes with the same name have different descriptions in
different contexts. Therefore it is not important to match the correct
name with the correct ADR process, but it *is* important to have an
intuitive grasp of the range of ADR services from most
facilitative/least adjudicative to least facilitative/most adjudicative.
With that in mind, the following is a sample of ADR services performed
by third-party neutrals:

(1) [Facilitation]{.underline}: In facilitation, the third-party neutral
    simply provides logistical support, helps parties "break the ice" to
    get down to substantive discussions, stay on track, and record the
    discussions. Facilitation is generally performed in groups greater
    than six people, so the techniques of a facilitator apply mainly to
    large-group dynamics.

(2) [Mediation]{.underline}:[^100] In contrast to a facilitator, a
    mediator takes her intervention one step further and actively works
    with the parties to jointly problem solve and reach a concrete
    agreement. This active intervention is harder to sustain as the
    number of people at the table rises. With higher numbers of people,
    a mediator may have to employ the techniques of a facilitator, or
    break the group up into smaller committees in order to work at the
    level of detail required.

(3) [Early Neutral Evaluation]{.underline}: An Early Neutral Evaluator
    is a facilitator who is also an expert in the subject matter at
    hand. The Evaluator gives his opinion as to which party is more
    likely to legally prevail on the issues in dispute, and uses this
    information as pressure points to encourage parties to reach an
    agreement using mediation techniques.

(4) [Non-binding Arbitration]{.underline}: In a non-binding arbitration,
    the arbitrator listens to the legal arguments of both sides,
    examines evidence, and then renders an opinion that the parties are
    not obligated to follow, but which they can use in negotiations.

(5) [Binding Arbitration]{.underline}: In binding arbitration, the
    parties present their case to a subject matter expert who renders an
    opinion that the parties contractually agree to abide by. An
    arbitrator's opinion is enforceable in a court of law except in the
    rare circumstance in which an arbitrator has somehow violated the
    law, abused her discretion, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

(6) [Mediation/Arbitration ("Med-Arb")]{.underline}: The parties present
    their case to a mediator, who works with them to reach an agreement
    using mediation techniques. If no agreement is reached, then the
    mediator renders a non-binding or binding opinion. The advantage of
    med-arb is that the parties must be as forthright as possible, and
    not hold any arguments or evidence "in their pocket" because at the
    same time the are working with the mediator to reach an agreement,
    they are also trying to influence the outcome of an arbitration.

    1.  Trainer in Cooperative Labor-Management Techniques

As several case studies demonstrate, one of the most important services
that a modern third-party neutral performs is to train parties in
cooperative labor-management techniques and related negotiation skills.

Under the rubric of cooperative labor-management techniques, we include
methods to help organizations develop workers that have a greater
personal stake in the quality, productivity and efficiency of their
work. This is the "owner's mentality" that we have alluded to in several
places in this Tool Kit. While at first blush this may seem to be a
one-sided management initiative, upon closer examination we see that it
involves empowering workers way beyond what many organizations are
comfortable with. In order to get to the point where much of an
organization's workforce has an owner's mentality, workers need to be
trusted with the freedom to create, a mechanism to incorporate their
input, and appropriate incentives for going beyond what is called for in
their job description. As was discussed in the introduction, it is this
type of empowerment that stands to provide the most humanizing force for
working life in the global workplace.[^101]

For example, as we saw in [**Chapter 4**](#best-practice-number-4),
third-party neutrals have helped many organizations to establish
mechanisms for empowering workers by devolving decision-making power to
the lowest levels of an organization. This is counter-intuitive to many
organizations. A third-party neutral can be immensely helpful in
assisting the organization to achieve the necessary paradigm-shift
required for it to trust its workers enough to empower them in this way
and thereby reap the great benefits of doing so. Part and parcel of this
paradigm-shift is training in methods of non-threatening communication,
Interest Based Negotiations, and policy and process changes that an
organization can make to lower the barriers to productive interchange
between workers and managers.[^102]

Even for organizations that are not quite ready to devolve too much
decision-making authority to their front-line workers, third-party
neutrals perform important training to improve the labor relations
climate. For example, third-party neutrals train labor and management
representatives in the legal and institutional framework of their
relationship -- i.e., the applicable labor law, the institutions
responsible for enforcing and resolving disputes under it, and some of
their most important rights under it.[^103] Such training gives parties
a road map upon which to base a more formal, objective and respectful
relationship. Third-party neutrals also train labor and management
representatives in techniques for improving cooperation and
communication within that framework.[^104]

Third-party neutrals also help organizations align the goals and
objectives of workers and managers alike, and engage in strategic
planning based on their common goals and objectives. While there is no
doubt that their interests diverge in many cases, their interests also
converge in many cases. Third-party neutrals can use their dispute
resolution skills to foster the type of interest-based discussions that
are conducive to alignment of goals and of strategic planning.[^105]

In the next sub-section, we will see that third-party neutrals also
provide consulting and technical assistance to labor and management in
order to institutionalize mechanisms to carry out their strategic
planning and resolve disputes on an ongoing basis. And once those
mechanisms are in place, they provide ongoing training in methods to
make them more effective. For example, in the [Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
case study, Commissioner Robert Ditillo conducted a diagnostic
assessment with the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)'s
LMC to help its members determine the areas of group dynamics and
interpersonal communications that they needed to work on in order to
make their LMC more successful. Following the assessment, Commissioner
Ditillo conducted a two-day workshop on the following modules:

1.  Effective Planning

2.  Effective Meetings

3.  Group Problem Solving

4.  Consensus Decision Making

5.  Effective Communications

6.  Understanding Self and Others

7.  Interpersonal Skills

8.  Group Dynamics & Shared Leadership[^106]

Finally, and most importantly related to their third-party mediation
work, third-party neutrals often provide training in negotiation
techniques that are more likely to produce an agreement: namely IBN
techniques. A common practice is to provide joint training to
negotiating committees from both sides just prior to negotiations.[^107]
This provides an important bonding experience between the parties, which
sets a positive tone for negotiations. It also makes it more likely that
the parties will still have a grasp of the interest-based techniques and
a conciliatory attitude when they sit down at the bargaining table.

1.  Consulting and Technical Assistance to Establish Permanent
    Mechanisms for Labor Dispute Resolution

In addition to just training labor and management representatives, more
and more third-party neutrals are working with organizations in a
consulting capacity to institutionalize the cooperative processes that
they either establish through negotiations or incorporate into their
joint Labor-Management training. We have already discussed various joint
committees and mechanisms for information sharing and feedback that have
been made permanent by the organization. Third-party neutrals work with
parties to set up such mechanisms, training them in how to start and
maintain them. In many cases they actually facilitate the first few
meetings, modeling good behavior and techniques as well as making sure
that the relationship does not fall apart before it has a few successes
under its belt.[^108]

In other cases, the Third Party Neutral serves as a consultant to help
set up an informal dispute resolution system within the organization. In
these cases, he helps the organization set up intake procedures,
criteria for when conciliation is appropriate, ethical guidelines for
both conciliators and parties, and appeals procedure, and a procedure
for processing complaints about conciliator misconduct. In addition, the
Third Party Neutral will advise the organization on how to best
internally promote the program so that all workers and managers
understand what it entails, trust it, and feel comfortable using it.

In some cases, an organization's cooperative initiative is too ambitious
to be dealt with by just a committee, and a more extensive "partnership"
is established. A partnership involves an agreement between the highest
union officials and the highest levels of management in an organization
to change the organizational culture for their mutual benefit. It
involves periodic high-level meetings, several ongoing smaller
committees, as well as mechanisms for evaluation and feedback on the
success of the initiative. These types of initiatives require a high
level of intervention on the part of the third-party neutral.[^109]

On the sectoral level, organizations such as the [Canadian Steel Trade &
Employment
Congress](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Zeinab - CP Final Final.doc)
and the Garment Industry Development Corporation promote cooperation
between labor and management to promote common interests such as
demand-driven training, worker readjustment, health and safety, and the
economic well being of the sector.[^110] These organizations, which in
effect are the third-party neutrals, play a vital role in facilitating
dialogue so that the parties can advance their common interests.

Finally, on the economy-wide level, organizations such as the Philippine
National Mediation & Conciliation Board,[^111] the Korean National Labor
Relations Commission,[^112] the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Services of both Canada[^113] and the U.S.,[^114] and the New Zealand
Mediation Service,[^115] serve their constituents generally free of
charge. While all of them provide dispute resolution services of the
kind described in Section (A)(1), above, they also provide training and
institutional consulting services to varying degrees. In recent years,
there has been an increased emphasis on training programs, not just to
resolve but also to prevent labor-management conflict and to
institutionalize those preventive mechanisms.[^116]

While, clearly, there are numerous benefits of calling upon the
assistance of a third-party to improve the labor relations climate
within an organization, it should be emphasized that without a
willingness to collaborate on the part of labor and management, even the
most skilled mediator will not be able to create peace. Thus, in the end
it is not a matter of technique or strategy to create labor peace,
rather it is a matter of the willingness of both sides to collaborate
for mutual benefit. If organizations can call upon third parties for
assistance in channeling their preexisting willingness into concrete
actions, they will have utilized one of the most valuable Tools in this
Tool Kit.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 8 

**GO OFFSITE TO TRAIN AND RETOOL**[^117]

## Offsite Training Enhances Effectiveness

LMG cooperation is best built on a foundation of understanding and
trust. Training is a good place to build that foundation. Offsite
training, in a neutral environment, creates an opportunity for people to
participate and learn new skills without the distractions or
psychological "baggage" that often interfere when the training is held
at the work location. No telephones intrude. Interruptions can be
controlled and minimized. Away from the office, participants can dress
informally, shedding some of the inhibitions or status distinctions that
may get in the way of open communication, fostering a more relaxed
atmosphere. There is a greater sense of "we are all in this together,"
if they take meals and breaks together, rather than hurrying off to the
office or shop floor to check on things. Several of the APEC members
spoke of training, and particularly offsite training, as one of the keys
to successful change.

For example, [**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)
transformed a historically bitter labor-management relationship by
organizing joint labor-management training in principles of in *Interest
Based Negotiations (IBN)* at a remote location. The training was
conducted by the *Canadian Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service*.
In addition, Ottawa Transpo organized joint trips to organizations that
had successfully navigated several of the challenges that it currently
faced in order to observe successful practices.[^118]

As was mentioned in [Chapter 1](#best-practice-number-1), [**The
Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
laid the groundwork for a change in a difficult labor-management
relationship through a retreat at which it had the *U.S. Federal
Mediation & Conciliation Service* conduct a *Relationship-by-Objectives*
program. (Please see the discussion later in this Chapter.) [**Miller
Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
while it did not conducted training offsite, was able to change a
contentious history between the hospital and its four unions, in one
case involving a deep-seated personality conflict, through training in
*IBN*.[^119] The [**Atlantic Baking
Company**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
[**Alcan**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
and [**Nortel
Networks**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
also were able to promote agreement and improve their relationship with
the help of training from their respective mediation services and other
stakeholders.

This Chapter of the Tool Kit highlights the most important elements of
successful training. Adult learning principles, ground rules and a few
examples of training designs are featured along with the importance of
needs assessment before the training

## Adult Learning Principles\*

## It's a myth that learning capacity dwindles as a person ages. Adults learn in ways that are different from the ways that children learn, primarily because adults have more experience to "filter" new information. The "learning filter" of experience is like a double-edged sword with both positive and negative aspects because you may be able to frame new information with old experiences, but experience may also interfere with new information being assimilated. That is why is it important to follow these principles in training.

1.  **Adults must want to learn**. If there are likely to be barriers to
    motivation, the trainer is wise to remove them. For instance, if
    trainees do not understand the purpose and need for training, they
    may not be as open to the new skills and information. Establish a
    friendly, open atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Motivation
    to learn can be increased if the learning is problem-centered or if
    it appeals to personal gain or growth. When the conditions are
    right, adults seek and demand learning experiences.

2.  **Practical applications are important.** Adults may not be as
    accepting of new information as children so theories must be
    supported with examples. Asking participants how they can or will
    apply the information may also lead to new applications as they
    build on each others' ideas.

3.  **Adults learn by doing.** They will be looking for practical
    applications and the trainer can coach them better if s/he can see
    how they expect to apply the knowledge and skills. Retention will be
    directly affected by how well participants initially learn the
    material and the degree of usage of the information.

4.  **Realistic problems are a great starting point**. The [**Hankuk
    Electric Glass
    Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
    case presents a good example. In that context, the need for new
    behaviors was a matter of survival within the context of their
    financial situation. While it is not always possible or necessarily
    desirable to provide that level of realism, it is usually possible
    to tailor learning experiences so they are similar to real-life.

5.  **Past experience affects adult learning**. In the context of labor
    relations, this may mean that training in the same room where there
    were heated negotiations may stir strong emotions. That is one
    reason why it is suggested to train off-site when that is practical.
    The trainer may want to surface past experience, including the
    emotional component, so the trainees have an opportunity to
    distinguish between past experience and the present situation and
    the new information and skills.

6.  **Varied methods work best**. While people may tend to favor one
    learning style or another, we all learn through a combination of
    visual, auditory and kinesthetic means. By varying the methods, all
    of the styles can be accommodated. Demonstrate the concepts you are
    teaching during the training.

7.  **Adults want guidance, not grades.** Competition distracts from the
    learning objectives in most cases. While most schools tend to
    separate learners by grades, the purpose of adult learning is to
    keep the group together and advance them as a whole**.** The degree
    of difficulty should be set high enough to challenge participants,
    but not at a level so high that they become frustrated by
    information overload. When "debriefing" exercises, focus on what was
    done right. Rather than asking what went wrong, ask what might have
    been done differently and why.

\*Adapted from Delian Corporation's "Eight Principles of Adult Learning"
and from the US FMCS guidelines for adult learning.

## Ground rules

Effective groups go through predictable stages of growth. Every group
will have its own personality, but there are a few principles that most
experts agree will help the group to maximize its potential. In the
beginning of a group's life, goals and roles are most important. As the
group matures, a code of conduct, or ground rules is very useful. As
members vie for control and influence, it is helpful to have a mechanism
such as ground rules to prevent unnecessary conflict and help the group
stay on track. Explicit ground rules, created by the members, can be
used to change destructive norms and clarify expectations for all
members. Some ground rules that have been used by APEC members:

1.  *The program belongs to you, and its success rests with you.*

2.  *Enter into the discussion enthusiastically.*

3.  *Give freely of your experience, but don't dominate the discussion.*

4.  *Confine your discussion to the problem, its causes and effects.*

5.  *Say what you think.*

6.  *Only one person should talk at a time. Avoid private conversations
    while someone else is speaking.*

7.  *Listen alertly to the discussion.*

8.  *Be patient with other members.*

9.  *Appreciate the other person's point of view. Check your
    understanding of the other's viewpoint by paraphrasing what you
    hear, and ask them if that is accurate.*

10. *Be prompt and regular in attendance.*

11. *Do not use any statement or action during the training as an action
    for a grievance or any other work action.*

If the group takes time and energy to assess its process periodically,
ground rules take on a life of their own, encouraging productive
behaviors in all sorts of group work beyond the context of training.

## Training and Topics to Consider

Topics for training that were useful to some organizations in the case
studies included:

-   Company strategy and finances

-   Customer needs

-   Interest-Based Bargaining

-   Brainstorming

-   Consensus decision making

-   Listening skills

-   Problem solving skills

-   Facilitation

-   Group dynamics and shared leadership

-   Evaluating decisions

-   Changing role of supervisors

-   Stewardship skills

-   Data analysis

-   Presentation skills

-   Relationships by Objective

-   Computer skills

-   Gender and other diversity related topics

-   Effective planning

-   Effective meetings

While this is not a fully comprehensive list, it provides a decent range
of the skills and topic areas that may improve the quality of
cooperation. More in-depth treatment of some of these training topics is
available from the United States Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service.

Effective training design takes into account adult learning principles
as well as a range of learning styles. Some people learn by best with
visual representations to support the material, others rely on hearing
the information, or reading. Most of us need the opportunity to process
new information and try out new skills. The best training design will
combine visual aides, some lecture, and multiple activities with
discussion to meet the range of visual, auditory and kinesthetic
learning styles.

One of the training programs mentioned by APEC members was RBO, or
Relationship by Objectives. The design for that program is presented
here, purely for illustrative purposes so the reader may see how a
well-designed training program is laid out.

***[Sample Training Program: Relationship by Objectives
(RBO)]{.underline}***

I.  **Prerequisites for the program:**

Prerequisites include a formal agreement by participants to:

-   Abide by the ground rules of the program.

-   Participate in all aspects of the program.

-   Share costs of the program (optional).

-   Not to use any statement or action during the program as an action
    for a grievance or any other work action.

-   Follow through on the developed action plans.

-   Participate in an RBO follow-up session.

**NOTE:** The program should [not]{.underline} be conducted if the
parties are less than one year away from contract negotiations. The
program has the most impact when conducted following a contentious round
of negotiations.

## II. RBO Program Agenda

## The RBO Facilitator Handbook is intended to be used as a template in designing the program. The third-party neutral should establish the agenda, which normally spans two and half or three days. The sections will be lengthy. Timing will depend on the complexity of concerns that are raised by the parties, the severity of labor-management problems, and the skill levels of the participants. {#the-rbo-facilitator-handbook-is-intended-to-be-used-as-a-template-in-designing-the-program.-the-third-party-neutral-should-establish-the-agenda-which-normally-spans-two-and-half-or-three-days.-the-sections-will-be-lengthy.-timing-will-depend-on-the-complexity-of-concerns-that-are-raised-by-the-parties-the-severity-of-labor-management-problems-and-the-skill-levels-of-the-participants. .unnumbered}

Although the agenda will vary somewhat to meet the needs of trainees, a
typical agenda for RBO looks like this:

-   Overview of the agenda

-   Purpose of the program

-   Purpose and role of the facilitator/mediator

-   Introductions/icebreaker

-   Ground rules

-   The RBO process and expectations

-   Identifying viewpoints, concerns and conflict

-   Skills building

-   Transforming viewpoints and concerns into actions

-   Developing an action plan

-   Planning next steps (and checking progress)

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## III. Facilitator Handbook Structure {#iii.-facilitator-handbook-structure .unnumbered}

The *Relationship-by-Objectives Facilitator Handbook* is designed
specifically to enable the facilitator to guide participants through the
process of relationship building. The handbook is composed of two
volumes:

-   **Volume One** contains information to assist the facilitator to
    develop sessions that cover the basic principles and procedures of
    Relationship-by-Objectives. This information begins with a brief
    module overview, instructor notes, and a list of module sections.
    Each section is a complete lesson plan with learning objectives,
    speaking points, proposed activities, and list of materials
    required.

-   **Volume Two** contains blackline templates for transparencies and
    handouts that correspond to the sections in each module. All
    transparencies and handouts are numbered for easy linking with the
    instructional material in Volume One.

    The trainer can create a participant handbook by providing to the
    participants copies of the agenda, transparencies, and handouts. A
    sample cover for the Participant Handbook is included in Volume Two
    of the Instructor Handbook.

    **IV. Organization of Modules in the Facilitator Handbook**

    The program is divided into modules that are intended to lead the
    group through the processes of:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   identifying problems,

-   outlining possible solutions, and

-   action planning

    in order to improve the labor-management relationship. Each module
    begins with a title page, which includes an **Overview** (A summary
    of the content of the module and a listing of sections within the
    module), **Facilitator's Notes** (A basic summary of items that the
    facilitator should be aware in presenting the module) and **Key
    Concepts and Terms** (A listing of concepts and terms that are
    covered in the module)

    Each module contains *sections* that concentrate on a specific
    aspect of the process. The sections provide the general content,
    suggested presentations, recommended activities, and titles of
    pertinent videos and other resources. In terms of the handbook, each
    section has the following guides for the facilitator:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Purpose:** A statement of the overall goal of the section.

-   **Objectives:** Statements of individual aspects that the
    participant should learn from the program.

-   **Materials/Equipment Needed:** A list of audio-visual equipment,
    activities, and materials needed to conduct the sections.

-   **Facilitator Notes:** A statement of considerations relating to the
    content, facilitation of activities, or other issues that should be
    addressed when presenting the section.

-   **Set-Up:** Presented in a script or bulleted format, this segment
    presents introductory comments to set the stage for the section;
    establishes concepts, premises, and terms relevant to the section;
    and sets the tone for the section.

-   **Activity:** An exercise or discussion that is designed to convey a
    specific set of skills and provide participants with an opportunity
    to practice specific skills. The activity usually includes:

-   **Activity Set-Up:** An introduction for the activity that informs
    participants of the purpose of the activity and sets the tone for
    the activity.

-   **Directions:** A set of instructions that is given to the
    participants, so that they understand their roles and
    responsibilities in executing the activity.

-   **Facilitating the Activity:** A segment intended to guide the
    facilitator in conducting the activity so that the appropriate
    points or concepts are conveyed as part of the activity.

-   **Processing the Activity:** A reiteration of the purpose of the
    activity, and an opportunity for clarifications of any aspect of the
    activity.

-   **Wrap-Up:** Presented in a script or bulleted format, this section
    provides a basic recap of the purpose, objectives, and concepts
    presented in the section.

## V. Instructional Guidelines {#v.-instructional-guidelines .unnumbered}

A third-party facilitator (neutral) with specific knowledge of the
history and current state of the labor and management relationship in
the organization should facilitate the program. Neutrals should tailor
the program to meet the unique circumstances of the client, based on the
facilitator's knowledge of the situation, current state of
labor/management relations, and a broad understanding of the union and
industry. In light of the intensity and volatility of both the content
and the audience, it is recommended that a team of neutrals conduct the
program. The division of responsibilities for this team should be based
on the strengths of individual neutrals and the unique circumstances of
the situation. However, certain responsibilities should be covered:

-   Logistics of the program

-   Session facilitation

-   Timekeeping

-   Maintaining lists of concerns and objectives

-   Final preparation of the Action Plan

-   Computer/word-processing

-   Trouble shooting

It is important to remember that the program requires substantial
word-processing time and the agenda should be arranged to allow for the
typing of lists generated in the activities.

## VI. Optional Cost-Sharing Agreement

A cost-sharing agreement between the union and management should be
developed and signed prior to the program. Parameters for determining
the costs include:

-   Participants paid at straight time (No overtime)

-   Participants receive mileage expense

-   Clerical/word-processing person available on demand during the
    program

-   Cost of the program location

-   Food/refreshments

-   Lodging expense

## VII. RBO Program Location

It is strongly recommended that the program occur outside the work
environment, preferably in a retreat setting. At a minimum, the program
environment should include:

-   Large meeting room with movable furniture and enough space to
    conduct group exercises.

-   Two breakout rooms for concurrent sessions.

-   Meeting room for facilitators.

-   Overhead projector and screen.

-   6 to 8 reams of paper

-   Photocopier, computer (laptop), printer

-   VCR and monitor.

-   Flipcharts (8 pads) and 4 easels

-   Masking tape and push pins

-   Note pads

-   Broad tip markers in red, black, blue, and green (6 of each color)

-   Three-hole punch, stapler/staples, and paper clips

-   Folders, pens, pencils, nametags, table tent name cards.

-   Binders for final document

**NOTE:** Secretarial/word-processing support should be made available
on demand throughout the RBO program.

## VIII. Needs Assessment

## Careful assessment of what is really needed will save time and energy in the long run. Questionnaires, observations and interviews are commonly used to assess training needs. 

## Conclusion

Training provides a channel to deliver new communication skills and new
information. Participants often find training sessions to be a "safe"
place to try out new behaviors. New information may be easier to digest
when it is presented in a new environment, away from the office or shop
floor. It may also be helpful for management and workers to share the
learning environment so that each can see the other in a new light and
reinforce the idea that cooperation is a journey of discovery, made
easier and more effective by mutual support.

Ground rules are likely to change or enhance productive norms. These
norms are likely to carry over into other group activities on the shop
floor or offices. This "ripple effect" is a strong argument for the use
of ground rules within the context of training and beyond.

Thorough assessment of training needs and professional design of the
training will yield the best results. A well-designed training session
takes into account a range of learning styles and will include a
combination of lecture and activities with plenty of time for the
participants to process the learnings and determine how they will apply
the new information and skills. Evaluation of the training should be
considered during the design phase so that improvements can be made
during and after the training is implemented.

As with all aspects of LMG cooperation, off-site training is a process
of continuous improvement, with both sides learning a little bit more
each time from their mistakes. This brings us back to the importance of
strongly committed leadership on both sides as well wise guidance from
the third-party neutral. With the wisdom and optimism provided by
quality leadership, the organization can maintain the patience to reap
the enormous benefits that can occur when workers and mangers have been
trained to think in a new way. Once that has occurred, the sky is the
limit to what they can achieve together.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 9 

**BUILD ALLIANCES WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS**[^120]

Stakeholder analysis is fundamental to any strategic planning process.
Stakeholders may hold the keys to success, or they may present
insurmountable barriers if they are ignored. Building alliances with
stakeholders is often an important ingredient of successful LMG
collaboration. In fact, even in its narrowest, most bipartite sense,
including and satisfying the interests of stakeholders is the essence of
labor relations.

In labor relations, a few of the obvious stakeholders are the union
professionals, union members, management representatives, and government
officials. Though it may not be as obvious, other stakeholders such as
the financial community, customers, trade associations, competitors or
local community organizations can be involved as allies with management
and labor to improve the business. At the APEC symposium, several
examples emerged that illustrate the promise and pitfalls of using
stakeholders as allies. This section will highlight the learnings from
those examples.

At the APEC Symposium, organizations from The **Philippines**, **New
Zealand**, the **United States** and **Korea** contributed [case
studies](http://gnzlz.com/case_studies_in_bp.htm) that illustrate the
promise and a few of the potential pitfalls of building alliances beyond
the scope of more traditional labor-management cooperation.

# Philippines: Alliance of Community, Police and Academics

"Plantations, like the Philippines' [**Lapanday Agricultural and
Development Corporation
(LADC)**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)
are communities, not just discrete, indifferent business entities. The
LADC experience suggests that all stakeholders -- owners, management,
labor force and their families, the community, and the local government
together with the police, should act as one community because their
survival depends on the survival of the plantation. The "peace and
order" problem at the LADC plantation-communities and the challenges
posed by globalization rallied labor and management of LADC to work
together in new ways that required sacrifices from both ends."[^121]
Survival was defined on very basic levels \-- supervisors were
threatened with bodily harm for disciplining workers, a manager was
killed, and factors in the global business environment threatened to
exterminate the firm. An alliance with the union was initially viewed as
dangerous because of fears that workers were protected and supported by
the communist party and urban guerrillas.[^122]

Lapanday's *Labor Management Cooperation Committee* (LMCC) built
important alliances. The LMCC reached out to the government, academia
and to the community. Government technical assistance to the LMCC
resulted in projects in the areas of healthcare, nutrition, sanitation,
parenthood, cooperatives, housing, transportation, sports, values
formation and income generation. A prestigious graduate school, the
*Asian Institute of Management*, was invited to teach problem solving
and labor-management cooperation models to union and management leaders.
Plantation owners provided workers and their families with "playground,
church, school, and sports facilities and support related activities
because the lives of the workers and their families revolve around the
plantations."[^123] Since then, negotiations for collective bargaining
agreements were expedited by the LMCC and the company continues to
account for 33% of the Philippines' total banana exports to Japan.[^124]

# Alliances in New Zealand

Collective bargaining in New Zealand recently changed from a highly
centralized, national-level structure to one in which individual
enterprises must bargain with employees and unions. The new framework
created by the Employment Relations Act of 2000 goes beyond the good
faith obligation that applies to employers and unions to include good
faith obligations for all parties involved in employment relationships
such as:

-   Employers and other employers,

-   Unions and other unions,

-   Unions and members, and

-   Employers and employees.

Within this changing legal framework, several initiatives were launched,
including free mediation services, best practice guidance, a monitoring
and evaluation program, and consultative committees to represent a range
of community interests. These consultative committees, or advisory
groups, are alliances that involve people from the Maori and Pacific
peoples, youth groups, academia, employers and unions. According to the
APEC case study, "This ensures that Government policies capture the
needs and issues faced by the participants in the labour market and by
the wider community."[^125]

Business interests in New Zealand commented, "while consultative
committees have considered a wide range of issues, there are dangers in
involving representatives of various community groups in such
discussions. Though such people may be very well-intended, it is often
the case that they have little real appreciation of the imperatives
under which enterprises operate and the effects that undue legislative
intervention can have on employment creation."[^126] In other words,
participants may need some preparation so that they can contribute
effectively. Part of that preparation may take place when the allies
share all of their different viewpoints to develop a common
understanding of the issues they face. Part of that preparation may need
to include basic business concepts, economics and group process skills.

The United States' Atlantic Baking Group: An Extraordinarily Innovative
and Complex Partnership Between Labor, Management, and the Public Sector

"One entity couldn't have done it by themselves," said Robert Ditillo, a
Commissioner of the US Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
(FMCS).[^127] Government and non-profit agencies played active,
important roles in the re-birth of the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
a start-up business producing snack crackers for the highly competitive
private label market in the United States and Canada. Alliances with
these community stakeholders added a whole new set of powerful
competencies to a traditional labor-management committee and opened the
door to both public and private funding.

Jim Crawford, of the *Steel Valley Authority* (SVA), plays a unique role
on the [Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)'s
labor-management committee. Crawford is not affiliated with either
management or labor, but plays the role of facilitator, guiding the
group process and lending his expertise when it is needed. "We couldn't
have done it without the Steel Valley Authority. Jim acted as a
quarterback throughout the process and also helped us with grant
applications," said Bill Cagney, business manager for one of the unions,
the Operating Engineers (IUOE), at the bakery.[^128] Crawford helped
with the FMCS grant application that funded start-up costs for the
labor-management committee. After the APEC symposium, the Bakery's LMC
was successful in obtaining a Department of Labor training grant for
almost a million dollars, again with Crawford's assistance in the
grant-writing process.[^129]

But Crawford and the SVA are not the lone community allies on the LMC.
The Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation (BGC) is another active player from
the community, lending its expertise in community development and
providing links to local political leaders and to sources of public
financing. "It remains a team effort here," said Crawford. "Everyone has
to maintain a certain level of autonomy, pursuing team goals with the
team, but still pursuing your own (individual) goals," he added. "Those
differences become a strength. The art of it is to allow each entity to
stay focused on their own agendas, while at the same time keeping the
big picture in mind."[^130] When Nabisco began to close the bakery, it
became a very public and dramatic process. Good jobs were highly valued
in a region that had lost more than 100,000 jobs in the steel industry.
At one point, nine different city councils and the mayor of Pittsburgh
were contemplating the use of "eminent domain," a legal Tool that allows
the government to take over private property in the US. Elected
officials were debating the best ways to keep jobs at the bakery.[^131]

For most start-up companies, the prospects of political complexities
overlaying the normal problems of running a business would be daunting.
In this case, because the [Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
had established strong alliances with the community, this potential
vulnerability was turned into a strength. "The group is maintaining
continuity and integration with the government/public service sector by
creating ongoing roles for the SVA and BGC in the daily life of the
group. This helps insure the group's discussions do not become isolated
from the broader community and that trusted yet objective third parties
are available to consider and help resolve internal disputes. The SVA
and BGC serve the group, however, only through the continuing mutual
request of management and labor that they do so."[^132] With help from
these powerful allies, the Bakery was able to convince another local
non-profit to contribute \$10,000,000 toward the "bricks-and-mortar"
costs of the start-up. Private investors saw the tangible support from
the community and agreed that the company was a good investment, adding
more funding to the venture. The public sector got a relatively secure
investment collateralized by the real estate, and private sector funding
could be focused on running the business- the strategies needed to be
successful in our highly competitive global economy.[^133]

According to another union representative on the committee, Tom Christ
of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union,
trust was the key to success. "I'm happy we all sat down and got the
bakery rolling again. We still fight over things like the cost of
medical benefits, but we've learned to work together, to trust. It can
be hard to decide when to fight and when to cooperate, but the outcomes
have been good for the communities and good for the workers."[^134] The
reservoir of trust may gain importance as the bakery struggles to turn a
profit, continuing the delicate balance between benefits for the
community, union members, and the highly competitive demands of the
industry. Bill Cagney noted, "It's working much better now than at the
time of the conference. Labor-Management Committee effectiveness
training (provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service) is
on our schedule. It's the best thing I have done in other similar
situations and I am really looking forward to it. I have seen people get
disenchanted and quit. It may not work the first time or the second
time, but you have to keep working at it . . . And that takes
trust."[^135]

In a world where plant closings destroy communities, neither management
nor labor may have access to all the information, or enough resources to
avert catastrophe. In the [Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
example, government and non-profit agencies stepped in as allies,
bringing new insights, additional skills and valuable resources to give
new life to an old bakery.

**Family Alliances in Korea**

Through newsletters and meetings, the [**Hankuk Electric Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
reached out to the workers' families. As we have seen, its new
president, Suh Doochil, implemented an "open book" management policy
that extended to families. Two times a year, there were special
newsletters and meetings for workers' families.[^136] Better
understanding of the firm's financial problems made family members more
likely to support their loved ones who chose to sacrifice weekends for a
year, working seven days a week. As more and more information was
shared, employee attitudes changed and they were better able to improve
operations and productivity.[^137]

# List of Possible Allies

Beginning with some of the stakeholders identified at the APEC
Symposium, here is a list of potential allies who may be able to
accelerate or support successful labor-management relations:

-   Union and management officials,

-   Supervisors,

-   Local community organizations, e.g., churches, non-profits,

-   Employees and their family members,

-   Investors and financial institutions,

-   National government organizations, e.g., mediation services,
    departments of labor,

-   Local government and quasi-government agencies and their officials,
    e.g., city councils, police, regional development corporations,

-   Educational institutions,

-   Trade associations and industry councils,

-   Creditors,

-   Customers,

-   Suppliers,

-   Stockholders,

-   Competitors,

-   Courts of law,

-   The business community,

-   Political groups,

-   Media.

Whether and how to build alliances with these stakeholders is a
strategic decision that comes from an exploration and analysis of how
they might be helpful. A general rule for deciding whether and how to
involve them: i*f the stakeholder can affect your business or will
affect your ability to implement strategy, find a way to include their
perspective.* The examples from the APEC Symposium make it clear that
early investments in alliances can pay big dividends over the long term.

## BEST PRACTICE NUMBER 10 

**GROUND YOUR INITIATIVE ONLY IN THE MOST SOLID MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES,
AND "SELL" IT THAT WAY**[^138]

As has already been emphasized in several places, if LMG cooperation is
not good for business it will not last. Very few people would quarrel
with the idea that there is an inherent "good" in promoting labor peace
and in making the global workplace into a more humanizing one[^139] --
separate and apart from any economic benefits it may bring. However, if
a LMG initiative does not ultimately have a positive bottom-line impact
it will likely be ignored, discarded, or the business will close because
a competitor will figure out how to use all of its workers to make a
better, faster, cheaper product.

For this reason it is crucial that, in launching a LMG cooperative
initiative, both top management and top union officials work very hard
to do two things: (1) "sell" the program both inside and outside the
organization in order to emphasize that it is not just a "feel good"
initiative but it is also vital to the health of the organization for
very sound business reasons; and (2) above and beyond the realization
that LMG cooperation is good for business, the initiative must also be
enhanced by the most sound and rigorous methods for maximizing profits
and growing the business in the most cost-efficient manner.

With respect to the first task of "selling" the initiative, [Chapter
1](#best-practice-number-1) discussed how important it is for top
management and union officials to visibly put all of their energy and
enthusiasm in support of it. We will re-emphasize that point here, but
also build upon it by adding that top management and union officials
should also emphasize how vital the initiative is for the economic well
being of the company. Workers and middle managers are more likely to go
along with an initiative if they are convinced that it will help
preserve their jobs or increase their salaries. This is an extension of
the Interest Based Negotiation principles that were the focus of
[Chapter 6](#best-practice-number-6). And it is not enough to just
convince workers and middle managers that the initiative is worthwhile:
top management and union officials must also work hard to effect a
*culture change* in the organization. The goal should be to create a
culture based on mutual trust, free and open communication, joint
problem solving, and continuous improvement. Collaboration should be
second nature to everyone.

The more that collaboration becomes second nature, the easier it will be
to employ sound and rigorous methods for maximizing profits and growing
the business in the most cost-efficient manner in the context of the LMG
initiative. A good example to follow in this regard is Mexico's [**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc).
At Grupo Resistol, every aspect of labor and management's collaborative
program is measured against strict, objective criteria, and the focus of
every aspect of the labor-management cooperation is on global
competitiveness. This idea is embodied in the very Vision Statement of
its labor-management initiative:

> To achieve success in making the companies of GIRSA into ones that are
> focused on quality, productivity, profitability and competitiveness,
> via the involvement of all stakeholders, and taking the leadership to
> establish a model for the process of change, modernization and
> technical adjustment of Mexico's Petrochemical Industry.[^140]

To this end, the watchword at Grupo Resistol is "measure, measure,
measure." Thus, the organization has formal performance measurement
systems in place for, among other things: (1) the adaptability and speed
of answers to operative demands; (2) quality, as measured by defect
rates; (3) organizational structure; (4) competitiveness; (5) use of
technology; (6) administrative procedures; (7) training; (8)
environmental practices; (9) health and safety; (10) working conditions;
and (11) wages.

Over the last three years Grupo Resistol has kept enthusiasm for the
initiative alive by tracking and reporting on its success. The
organization understands that no less is required in the global economy,
as its vision statement reads "To have only the strictly necessary and
best workers, with the best quality of life for them."[^141] Grupo
Resistol's reward for holding its labor-management initiative to such
high standards is a long series of national and international awards for
innovative business practices, and even one award for best environmental
practices.[^142]

Indeed, Grupo Resistol is an example of an organization that has not
made its labor-management initiative separate and apart from its
operations, but rather part and parcel of them; in effect infusing LMG
cooperation into the organization culture and practices at every level.
The same can be said for **[Thai Honda Manufacturing,
Inc.,](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)**
which has consciously instituted a series of changes in policy and
practice that has infused labor-management collaboration into every
aspect of its operations, even to the point that labor and management
sit across from one another in the same work area.[^143] The company
maintains high standards through periodic evaluations of its
labor-management initiatives.[^144]

[**Hankuk Electric Glass
Company**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
in Korea is an example of an organization that has had to infuse its
labor-management collaborative initiative into all aspects of its
operations in order to survive a profound economic crisis. According to
the case study, in the wake of the crisis the company "provided
information to its employees as if they were the Chief Director, vested
in the company's results \[so that they\] would participate in thinking
of ideas to overcome any obstacles." At one point the company President
met with the workers three times a day. In these joint meetings the
mangers and employees engaged in joint problem solving and decision
making related to quality, production, wages and other industrial
relations issues.[^145] The case study shows the benefits that flowed
from this improved communication: "upon realization of the company's
operations and its value, the attitudes of employees changed and the
production rate increased drastically."[^146]

Undoubtedly, Hankuk Electric Glass President Suh Doochil has fulfilled
both parts of the equation for managerial success with a
labor-management cooperative initiative: "selling" the program both
inside and outside the organization while emphasizing its urgency for
the health of the organization, and also implementing the efficient and
effective methods to enable the company to survive economically. Through
his energy and inspiration and the excellent response from the workers
and managers, Hankuk turned its fortunes around through such innovations
as:

-   restructuring the equipment line into a "total in-line" system, so
    that completed products could be forwarded to the next process
    without waiting in storage, thereby reducing the loss time as well
    as the cost of processing and protective devices needed by employees
    on the assembly line;

-   commencing production of more valuable quality by implementing a
    change from small/mid size TV glass to the production of mid/large
    size glass;

-   meeting the increased demand for computer monitor glass by
    concentrating on its production; and

-   developing new technology so that the company did not have to rely
    on overseas technology and could reduce the financial burden
    incurred from the royalty on imports.[^147]

While it may seem obvious, the importance of sound management practices
in the context of LMG initiatives cannot be overemphasized. As these
initiatives often begin with a lot of fanfare, good will, and political
correctness, in the end they are management techniques just like any
other, designed to maximize the efficiency, profitability, productivity
and growth of the organization. This idea can sometimes get lost in the
excitement of the kick-off, or in the urgency of a crisis. Indeed,
incorporating the highest standards of *traditional* management could be
the most important Tool in the Tool Kit for success with the other more
*cutting-edge* management initiatives.

## PUTTING THE BEST PRACTICES INTO ACTION

**HOW TO USE THIS TOOL KIT**[^148]

As we have emphasized previously in this Tool Kit, when launching a LMG
initiative the "Tools" described should be adapted to the particular
context -- i.e., cultural, social, legal, physical and economic \-- in
which the initiative will take place. For this reason in this Tool Kit
we have avoided use of the word "replicate," as replication is
inappropriate and unlikely to succeed if the context is different from
where the Tool was first successfully applied \-- and it always is. In
addition, replication is also a limiting concept in that by its very
nature it implies an uncritical subservience to something that someone
else has done somewhere else.

In the same vein, limiting consideration of Best Practices to just the
ten described in this Tool Kit would also chill the creativity,
sensitivity and flexibility that is so critical to the success of a LMG
program. We have chosen each of these ten Tools either because it is in
some sense among the most fundamental or because it appeared frequently
in the Best Practice case studies. In all candor, however, limiting the
discussion to these ten is to some extent arbitrary. This is an
important point, since LMG cooperation requires the creativity,
imagination and commitment of capable individuals in order for it to
even have a chance to succeed. Therefore, we do not envision that
practitioners using this Tool Kit will limit themselves to the
parameters of these ten Tools, but will instead use these Tools to
generate their own ideas that can succeed in their own context.

With the above considerations in mind, it is our intent that this Tool
Kit serves a useful baseline for labor relations practitioners who want
to develop their own innovative LMG cooperative programs. It is thus
useful to take a step back from the Tools themselves and focus
conceptually and sequentially on the steps necessary for a successful
LMG program that have the most applicability cross-culturally. If
practitioners can successfully navigate the following steps, the chances
of success are on their side.

-   **[Step One]{.underline} -- Articulate For Yourself A Clear Vision
    Of Where You Want To Go And How You Plan To Get There**

-   **[Step Two]{.underline} -- Approach The Key Players**

-   **[Step Three]{.underline} -- Agree With The Key Players On The
    Structure and Process for the Initiative**

-   **[Step Four]{.underline} -- Make Sure The Initiative Is Sustainable
    And Flexible**

We will elaborate on the elements of each step below.

In order to inspire others to act you must have an idea of what you want
them to do. This does not mean that you have to have an *exact* idea,
only a roadmap. In fact, consistent with what we have said above,
constraining the stakeholders by thrusting too rigid a vision on them
risks chilling the initiative and creativity and enthusiasm that is
indispensable to a successful LMG program. Nonetheless, it is important
to engage in some self-reflection at the outset of the initiative. In
doing so, you might want to address the following questions.

**Why are you promoting a LMG cooperative initiative? What problem will
it address?**

LMG initiatives generally arise from necessity. They almost never are
the product solely of the desire for a "feel good" measure. LMG
initiatives arise from threats to the stability of the organization and
to job security. These threats can be the product of many different
factors: e.g., sudden and intense competition (either domestic or
international); changes in the regulatory or legal environment; sudden
changes in consumer preferences; loss of a formerly reliable customer
base; a sharp increase in the cost of inputs; or political or economic
instability in the economy. In some cases, the threat to the
organization arises from strife caused by poor labor relations, separate
and apart from factors in the external environment.

Though it may seem an obvious point, in order to sell the initiative to
the key stakeholders, it is very important to be crystal clear on why
your proposed initiative is worth the considerable effort and resources
it will require.

**How do you plan to address this problem through LMG cooperation?**

Match the method to the solution. That is, think through the nature of
the problem that your initiative seeks to address and tailor your
initiative so that it best addresses that problem. Causation should be
clear. For example, the organization's problem may be that its
competition has designed a process to produce its goods faster and at a
cheaper price. The short-term response may be a joint committee of the
most insightful and creative front-line workers and managers that is
charged with developing a method that matches or hopefully surpasses
that of the competition. The long-term response might be to set up an
ongoing consultative mechanism -- e.g., in the form of a
Labor-Management Committee (LMC) of the type discussed in [Chapter
2](#_BEST_PRACTICE_NUMBER_2) -- to continuously monitor cost, quality
and efficiency and ensure that the organization does not fall behind the
curve again. The LMC can also be supplemented by other Tools in the Tool
Kit such as [**New Channels of
Communication**](#best-practice-number-3), [**Devolution of
Decision-Making**](#best-practice-number-4), and [**Interest Based
Negotiations**](#best-practice-number-6) principles. In addition, an
experienced Third Party Neutral can be brought in to guide the LMC in
its early phases.

The important point at this stage is to clarify for yourself how the LMG
initiative that you are proposing will produce the desired result.

**What are the forces in favor of and against the success of the
initiative?**

As was emphasized in [Chapter 10](#best-practice-number-10), a LMG
initiative cannot succeed if the proponent(s) do not sell it to the
affected stakeholders at the outset. The stakeholders must "buy in" to
the idea. To determine where and how to focus your energies in this
regard, it is useful to conduct a "force field analysis." A force field
analysis is a visual representation of the positive and negative forces
at work when moving toward a goal. To reach the goal \-- in this case
the establishment of a LMG cooperative initiative \-- the positive
forces must be strengthened and the opposing forces persuaded to buy in.

A useful visual Tool is to create a "T" table listing the positive
forces (those helping to create a LMG program) on the left side of the
page, and the negative forces (those opposing and potentially weakening
a LMG program) on the right side of the page, as in the following
example:

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###### Positive Forces (people)   | ####### Negative Forces (people)  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Union Leadership                  | Old Line Faction of the Union     |
|                                   | "Rank and File" Membership        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Chief Executive Officer           | Vice President for Human          |
|                                   | Resources                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Chief Financial Officer           | Middle Managers                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Shareholders                      | Chief Engineer                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Vice President for Public         |                                   |
| Relations                         |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

It is not important that you be able to fully assess every possible
supporting or opposing force. They will become apparent soon enough, but
the better prepared you are, the more likely you will be able to
galvanize your support base and persuade your potential opposition.
Importantly, from the beginning you should also keep in mind [Chapter
1's](#best-practice-number-1) admonition to ensure the support of
top-level union and management leadership, without which the initiative
is almost definitely doomed to failure.

***How* will you galvanize support from those likely to be in favor of
the initiative and persuade those who might be against it?**

Remember the crucial acronym, WIIFM (What's in it for me?). This is an
extension of the Interest Based principles that were discussed in
[Chapter 6](#best-practice-number-6). More concretely, emphasize the
benefits of LMG cooperation in terms of how it will help the interests
of the people you are trying to persuade to support it.

For example, consider the case of the middle managers that are afraid
that their decision-making authority and control over their units will
be diminished if the initiative involves devolution of decision-making.
In response to their concerns, you may tell them that LMG cooperation
actually tends to *increase* accountability all around. They will get
more and better information about what is going on in their units, and
will be able to make better decisions accordingly. The only sense in
which they may lose some "control" is if front-line workers are allowed
to make on-the-spot decisions concerning efficiency and quality. Remind
the middle managers that devolving appropriate decision-making authority
to front-line workers enhances their enthusiasm for their work because
it allows them ability to "create" in accordance with their values,
talents and abilities.[^149] Such enthusiasm tends to inspire the
maximum effort that any rational manager wants, in terms of quality,
efficiency and productivity (or however the incentives are structured).
If a manager would rather have control, as opposed to enthusiasm and
effort that produces enhanced quality, efficiency and productivity, he
or she may not be the best manager for the job.

To more concretely address the middle managers' concerns, however, it
might be prudent to include a mechanism that provides for their
subsequent review of front-line workers' decisions and the ability to
overturn them if they do not meet specified criteria such as increasing
quality and efficiency. Another safeguard would be to carefully
delineate the types of decisions that front-line workers can make
according to the D1-D3 framework that was discussed in [Chapter
4](#best-practice-number-4).

In the early planning stages of your initiative it might be useful to
conduct an initial *interest analysis* for the key stakeholders. An
interest analysis is your best assessment of the interest(s) that each
stakeholder will be trying to protect and further as the organization
decides on whether to embark on a LMG initiative. Your interest analysis
might look something like this:

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###### Stakeholder                | ####### Interest(s)[^150]         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Traditional segment of union      | Avoid change that may require     |
| "rank and file" membership        | them to learn new skills in order |
|                                   | to remain relevant to the         |
|                                   | organization; avoid elimination   |
|                                   | of jobs due changeover to         |
|                                   | quicker, more efficient or more   |
|                                   | capital intensive production      |
|                                   | methods                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Vice President for Human          | Avoid becoming irrelevant in the  |
| Resources                         | wake of a breakdown of the        |
|                                   | traditional system of job         |
|                                   | classifications or through        |
|                                   | alteration of the traditional     |
|                                   | incentive structure               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Middle Managers                   | Avoid reduction of                |
|                                   | decision-making authority and     |
|                                   | control over their units          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Chief Engineer                    | Avoid a compromise of the         |
|                                   | integrity of the manufacturing    |
|                                   | design process that could result  |
|                                   | if too many workers can alter it; |
|                                   | avoid loss of control             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Once you have identified the parties' interests, it is not too early to
begin thinking how one might address those interests. However, it is
critical to let the parties themselves have a major role in crafting a
solution to address their interests. It is much less likely that they
will buy into something that you propose, especially if they feel
threatened by the LMG initiative in the first place. Nonetheless it is
helpful to come to the discussion armed with some food for their thought
that they can, through joint Interest Based Problem Solving,
operationalize into solutions that meet their interests. This step is
called a *Preliminary Analysis of Solutions.* (PAS).

+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| ###             | ####### Interest(s)      | ######                 |
| ### Stakeholder |                          | # Preliminary Solution |
+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Traditional     | Avoid change that may    | Ensure adequate        |
| segment of      | require them to learn    | training with          |
| union "rank and | new skills in order to   | sufficient time to     |
| file"           | remain relevant to the   | become trained; do not |
| membership      | organization; Avoid      | penalize those who are |
|                 | elimination of jobs due  | slow to learn; reward  |
|                 | changeover to quicker,   | those who learn new    |
|                 | more efficient or more   | skills                 |
|                 | capital intensive        |                        |
|                 | production methods       |                        |
+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Vice President  | Avoid becoming           | Give the Human         |
| for Human       | irrelevant in the wake   | Resources VP a         |
| Resources       | of a breakdown of the    | significant role in    |
|                 | traditional system of    | developing the         |
|                 | job classifications or   | structure for          |
|                 | through alteration of    | modifying the job      |
|                 | the traditional          | classification system  |
|                 | incentive structure      | to accommodate the LMG |
|                 |                          | initiative, if it is   |
|                 |                          | necessary at all; same |
|                 |                          | idea for the incentive |
|                 |                          | structure              |
+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Middle Managers | Avoid reduction of       | Increase               |
|                 | decision-making          | accountability of      |
|                 | authority and control    | front-line workers to  |
|                 | over their units         | middle managers; build |
|                 |                          | in a review process by |
|                 |                          | middle managers        |
+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Chief Engineer  | Avoid a compromise of    | Give the Chief         |
|                 | the integrity of the     | Engineer a prominent   |
|                 | manufacturing design     | role in determining    |
|                 | process if too many      | which decisions would  |
|                 | workers can alter it;    | be appropriate for     |
|                 | Avoid loss of control    | front-line workers;    |
|                 |                          | make front-line        |
|                 |                          | workers in essence     |
|                 |                          | "gatherers" of         |
|                 |                          | important data about   |
|                 |                          | the work process that  |
|                 |                          | can feed into the      |
|                 |                          | Chief Engineer's       |
|                 |                          | future decisions       |
+-----------------+--------------------------+------------------------+

Finally, as a general rule it is important to remind the various
stakeholders that not all of their interests are mutually exclusive of
others', that in fact there are many mutual interests that can arise
from a LMG cooperative program. Looking for mutual interests is one of
the most helpful habits for workers and managers to develop and can mark
the development of a true cultural change in the organization. For this
reason it is also helpful to list the parties' mutual interests:

####### [MUTUAL INTERESTS]{.underline}

-   Greater profitability

-   A more pleasant work environment

-   Greater job security

-   A more enthusiastic and fulfilled workforce

-   Clearer procedures that do not chill initiative or morale

Now that you have your game plan in mind, it is time to go out and sell
the initiative.

**How to get the key stakeholders' attention?**

As was alluded to in [Chapter 9](#best-practice-number-9) (Build
Alliances with other Stakeholders), in a more narrow sense in [Chapter
1](#best-practice-number-1) (Support for LMG Cooperation Must Come From
the Top), and in the previous section, at the outset of a LMG initiative
it is crucial to "sell" the initiative to key stakeholders. They must
come to conceive of it as "their initiative."

While the last section dealt with your own internal strategizing for
this process, this section deals with the actual process of mobilizing
the stakeholders. As any good businessperson knows, it is hard to be a
good salesperson without also being good at marketing, i.e., getting
your message across. There are various ways to do this, but in all cases
it is good to build *top-down* support.

By top-down support, in the context of a LMG initiative it makes sense
to approach top management and union leaders (and appropriate government
officials if the government is to be involved), explain to them your
assessment of the problem and how the LMG initiative that you are
proposing is tailored to address the problem. Emphasize the *urgency* of
developing this initiative in order to address the problem. It would
also be appropriate to address your preliminary assessment of interests
and how some of those interests might be addressed through joint
Interest Based Problem Solving.[^151]

As is the case with all sales situations, your enthusiasm and your
genuine belief in the value of your product are paramount. The desired
goal of such initial consultations with top officials is to get them to
agree to sit down to a meeting to organize the initiative. That meeting
will be discussed in the next subsection.

Once top-down support is assured, it is also helpful to build
*bottom-up* support. By generating bottom-up support, we mean informally
disseminating ideas throughout the rank and file workers in the
organization as well as middle managers. In this regard, if you are able
to count on a cadre of confidantes and strong supporters of the LMG
initiative (preferably bipartite or tripartite), it would be helpful to
have them go back to their units and informally spread good publicity
concerning the numerous benefits of LMG cooperation. Get the rumor mill
going, but in a positive way. Have them encourage people to start
thinking about how LMG collaboration can meet their interests. You will
not be able to win over everybody in this way, as there are always
doubters and people who thrive on conflict, but you will hopefully
create enough of a consensus to get the initiative off the ground and
sustain it as it develops.

A word about sequence: it is generally wiser to first approach top
management and labor officials to get their buy in. If for some reason
they do not buy in, and the rank and file like the idea, there is a risk
of actually making labor relations worse. As with the medical
profession, labor relations practitioners must remember to "first, do no
harm." However, the proponent of the initiative should not put her
instincts entirely to the side. In some circumstances it may be possible
to use bottom up pressure to convince top management and labor officials
to buy into a LMG initiative. Whether that is the case depends on the
particular circumstances in an organization.

##### How to organize the key stakeholders once you have their attention

Now that you have the buy in of representatives of your key constituents
(i.e., labor, management and government officials with authority to
represent their constituents[^152]), you should arrange for an initial
meeting to incorporate them as partners in moving the initiative
forward. As was illustrated by the cases discussed in [Chapter
9](#best-practice-number-9), if there are other stakeholders from the
community that may influence the success of the initiative, they should
be included as well. It is important to "let go" to some extent at this
meeting and let the group take ownership of the process. It is crucial
that all key stakeholders leave the room feeling that they have been
heard and that their concerns will be addressed through this process. If
you are too intimately associated with the interests of one side, you
might consider working with a Third Party Neutral to get the initiative
off the ground.

This initial group that meets may be referred to as the *Steering
Committee*.

At the first Steering Committee meeting, the parties should develop of
"road map" of where they want the initiative to go. Basic elements of
action planning will suffice. An effective action plan will clearly
define a task to be completed by someone in the group, state "by whom"
it will be completed, "by when," and may have some milestones where
appropriate. The following chart shows these basic elements of an action
plan and their applicability to a LMG Initiative.

+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| **TO DO**                   | **BY WHOM**   | **BY     | **STA       |
|                             |               | WHEN**   | TUS**[^153] |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Finalize list of            | #             | March 1  |             |
| representatives on Steering | ####### Carol |          |             |
| Committee to develop the    |               |          |             |
| structure and process for   |               |          |             |
| the initiative              |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Develop agenda for the      | Nigel         | March 15 |             |
| second meeting of the       |               |          |             |
| Steering Committee,         |               |          |             |
| including possible issues   |               |          |             |
| for the initiative to       |               |          |             |
| address or resolve and      |               |          |             |
| possible structures and     |               |          |             |
| processes for it to do so   |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Hold second meeting of the  | Linda (Third  | April 1  |             |
| Steering Committee: assign  | Party         |          |             |
| a small working group       | Neutral)      |          |             |
| consisting of at least one  |               |          |             |
| person from each            |               |          |             |
| stakeholder to develop a    |               |          |             |
| formal structure and        |               |          |             |
| process for the initiative, |               |          |             |
| consistent with the         |               |          |             |
| guidance provided by the    |               |          |             |
| Steering Committee (e.g.,   |               |          |             |
| an LMC and devolved         |               |          |             |
| decision-making, supported  |               |          |             |
| by an offsite retreat,      |               |          |             |
| training in Interest Based  |               |          |             |
| Problem Solving, and        |               |          |             |
| implementation of rules to  |               |          |             |
| reduce status boundaries    |               |          |             |
| and produce other cultural  |               |          |             |
| changes)                    |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Small working group         | Small Working | April    |             |
| communicates with           | Group         | 1-May 15 |             |
| Constituents to obtain      |               |          |             |
| feedback as the initiative  |               |          |             |
| progresses; meets off-line  |               |          |             |
| as needed                   |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Hold third meeting of the   | Linda (Third  | May 15   |             |
| Steering Committee. Provide | Party         |          |             |
| feedback on the work of the | Neutral)      |          |             |
| small working group         |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Communicate with            | All parties   | May      |             |
| constituents to obtain      |               | 15-June  |             |
| feedback as the initiative  |               | 15       |             |
| progresses. Stakeholders    |               |          |             |
| meet off-line to iron out   |               |          |             |
| any differences concerning  |               |          |             |
| the structure and process   |               |          |             |
| of the initiative           |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| At fourth meeting of        | To be         | June 15  |             |
| Steering Committee, small   | determined at |          |             |
| working group proposes      | April 1       |          |             |
| formal structure of         | Meeting       |          |             |
| initiative to Steering      |               |          |             |
| Committee                   |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| Steering Committee obtains  | All parties   | July 1   |             |
| approval of initiative by   |               |          |             |
| constituents                |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+
| At fifth and final Steering |               | July 1   |             |
| Committee meeting, the      |               |          |             |
| Steering Committee          |               |          |             |
| designates members of       |               |          |             |
| permanent structure that is |               |          |             |
| empowered to launch         |               |          |             |
| initiative                  |               |          |             |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+-------------+

Of course, the action plan can be modified as time goes on. For example,
someone can be assigned the task of assessing the resources for the
initiative at the May 15 meeting. Another person can be assigned the
task of obtaining survey data to assess the receptivity of middle
managers and the rank and file workers with respect to certain issues.
The important point is to have a process that is open, flexible and by
which everyone can feel that they have been heard. In the end the goal
is the launching of the initiative itself.

The above sample action plan takes us from the initial Steering
Committee meeting right up to the launching of the initiative itself. In
this section we will take a step back, to the part of the action plan
that involves the work of the "small working group." The small working
group has the crucial task of developing the "meat and potatoes," or the
substance of the initiative. This section will examine what structure
and process the small working group might consider as it develops it
proposed initiative, and will serve as a brief as a review of some of
the Tools from the Tool Kit.

To illustrate the flexibility of LMG cooperation, we will consider it
from the perspective of three different time lines: (1) *immediate
problems* that are so pressing that there is no time for small working
group acting pursuant to a formal action plan; (2) *ongoing issues* in
the organization that can be dealt with through LMG cooperation; and (3)
the desire to effect a *culture change* in the organization to enable it
to mobilize labor and management over the long term. Accordingly, the
Tools from the Tool Kit below can be placed on a continuum of their
applicability ranging from immediate crisis to long-term culture change.

Immediate Ongoing Long-Term Culture

Crisis Issues Change

For purposes of this discussion, it is not important that we pigeonhole
each Tool into one particular category. As we will see, an **LMC** can
be used to address an immediate crisis but is more often used for
ongoing relationship building. [**IBN** or **IBPS
Training**](#best-practice-number-6) can be used to enhance parties'
ability to communicate effectively or it can be used to effect a
long-term culture change. The same can be said for [**Going Off-Site to
Retrain and Retool**](#best-practice-number-8). [**Lowering Status
Barriers**](#best-practice-number-5), for its part, falls squarely in
the category of long-term culture change.

**How to stop the bleeding: what problems are so pressing that they need
to be dealt with immediately?**

An organization does not always have the luxury of time required for a
full-blown action plan of the nature described above. Sometimes crises
arise in the form of a physical disaster, a sudden and severe economic
crisis provoked by a specific event, or simply a financial crisis that
has not yet been dealt with, where massive layoffs and the closure of
the plant are an imminent possibility. In such cases, an organization
would be wise to call in a [**Third Party
Neutral**](#best-practice-number-7) and set up a *Labor-Management
Committee (LMC)* to deal with the crisis.

While a LMC may not produce all the answers or have all the resources to
resolve a crisis, it is a helpful Tool not only to obtain different
perspectives from within the organization, but also to manage the crisis
politically so that it is not made worse through internal strife. A LMC
can provide a critical mechanism through which workers may be heard and
management may clear up any misunderstandings in the wake of a crisis.
And once a crisis has hopefully passed, within a LMC the parties can
start to develop some long term mechanisms to both prevent and weather
future crises. That would bring the LMC closer to the second group of
mechanisms to be described below: mechanisms to deal with ongoing issues
in the organization through LMG cooperation.

**Upkeep for the relationship: dealing with issues that arise on an
ongoing basis**

The vast majority of LMG initiatives are not to address immediately
pressing crises, like those described above, or to effect a long-term
culture change throughout the entire organization, like those described
below. Rather most LMG initiatives deal with ongoing issues concerning
the relationship of labor and management and the impact of external
factors on that relationship.

Communication is the key to successfully dealing with problems on an
ongoing basis. That is why virtually all of the Tools in the Tool Kit
are ways of helping the parties to improve their communication skills or
their mechanisms to communicate. For this reason at the top of the list
we have to put [**New Channels of
Communication**](#best-practice-number-3). In this category we can
include: (1) a LMC; (2) changes in the physical infrastructure of the
workplace that facilitate bipartite communication (e.g., [**Thai
Honda's**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
*One Floor Management)*; (3) training programs such as the *Relationship
by Objectives* program that was conducted by the Third Party Neutral by
the [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc);
(4) periodic meetings such as those used by [**Hankuk Electric
Glass**](../../../../My%20Documents/My%20Webs/lmg1x/Case%20Studie%20Docs/Korea%20-%20HEG%20-%20CP%20Final%20Final.doc)
and [**Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc);
(5) broadcast messages and bulletin boards of the type used by [**Thai
Honda**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc);
and (6) newsletters such as [**Hankuk Electric
Glass's**](../../Case%20Studie%20Docs/Korea%20-%20HEG%20-%20CP%20Final%20Final.doc)
*Open Communication Room*.

Of course, a New Channel of Communication will be more meaningful if it
is incorporated within the rubric of a broader initiative to **[Make LMG
Cooperation a Permanent Part of Operations](#best-practice-number-2)**
such as a formal LMC. Even though they do not contemplate the same type
of relationship building that is the focus of an LMC, standing
committees of the type established at [**Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
and **[Ottawa
Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)**
also qualify as permanent mechanisms for labor-management cooperation.
At the national level, entities such as the Philippines' National *Labor
Management Cooperation Council* are invaluable permanent mechanisms to
promote LMG communication on a broader scale.

Another mechanism to enhance parties' ability to communicate effectively
on an ongoing basis is training in *Interest Based Negotiations (IBN)*,
which is sometimes called *Interest Based Problem Solving (IBPS)*.
Utilizing the Tools of IBN (i.e., identify issues, exchange interests,
brainstorm options, evaluate options according to objective criteria,
and decide on plan of implementation), [**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
[**Miller Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
the **[Philadelphia
Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
[Nortel
Networks](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)**
and
[**Alcan**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
were able to reach agreements that better satisfied the parties'
interests and improved their relationship over the long-term. They were
able to overcome the tendency to state demands in terms of inflexible
positions, which almost always produced stalemates or "horse trading"
that left both parties unhappy in the end. By heeding the advice to
**["Think In Terms of Interests, Not
Positions"](#best-practice-number-6)** the parties in these
organizations were able to understand one another better and set the
course for a more productive relationship in the future. Interest Based
Problem Solving even set the stage for a long-term culture change of the
type to be described in the next section.

**Radical reconstructive surgery: effecting a culture change in the
organization**

Moving along the continuum, some organizations utilize *IBN* or *IBPS*
training not just so the labor and management partners can better talk
to one another to solve ongoing problems, but also to effect a culture
change throughout the organization. Notably, [**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
[**Miller Dwan Medical
Center**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
and the [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
were able to effectively shift their relationship from conflict to
cooperation. Note the following passage from the [**Ottawa
Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)
case study, summarizing the results of the joint IBN training:

Another valuable lesson was that respect was paramount for success. For
the process to work, the input of every individual at the table must be
treated as valuable and important. The effort to understand group
members' views cannot be interrupted by insults, rudeness or even
negative attitudes. If a solution was abandoned, it had to be because it
did not meet the criteria set by the whole group. Group members found it
necessary to constantly remind themselves not to get embroiled in
discussions about past history and to resist the temptation to assign
blame for mistakes of the past. The unofficial three Ps were: polite,
positive and professional.[^154]

The [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
and its unions were especially committed to improving a contentious
relationship in the wake of great change and challenges, so F.M.C.S.
Commissioner Barbara Lichtman very purposefully utilized the Tool
referred to as ["**Go Off-Site to Retrain and
Retool**"](#best-practice-number-8) in [Chapter
8](#best-practice-number-8). As we saw in that case study, following the
*Relationship-by-Objectives* retreat the parties left the meeting with
an explicit commitment to treat one another with trust and respect and
to make a concerted effort to build and maintain a positive and
harmonious labor-management relationship.[^155] This commitment
signified the beginning of a culture change at the Zoo and has helped
the parties to sustain their relationship throughout the many subsequent
challenges they have faced.

While following the *Relationship by Objectives* program the labor and
management partners at the Philadelphia Zoo were quite pleased and
optimistic that the labor relations culture would change, they have
found that a culture does not change overnight as a result of a program
along the lines described in [Chapter 8](#best-practice-number-8). Such
programs should be thought of as a jump-start but not a magic wand that
produces instantaneous change. Instead, organizations have found that
they had to effect culture change over a long period of time through a
combination of training, policy changes and in the long-term a change in
the work process.

An example of a series of policy changes designed to effect a culture
change is at [**Thai Honda
Manufacturing**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc).
As we saw in [Chapter 5](#best-practice-number-5), Thai Honda's *One
Floor Management* is a comprehensive program designed to effect culture
change through a series of policy changes and changes to the physical
infrastructure of the plant. For example, all people in the factory \--
workers and managers alike \--wear white uniforms so it is not possible
to distinguish between workers and managers simply by looking at the way
they dress. In addition, everyone who works at Honda all over the world,
including Thai Honda, is referred to as an "associate" whether they are
an employee or a manager. According to the case study "no "employees" or
"employers" exist in the Honda family. Thai Honda even incorporated the
idea of equality into the physical layout of the plant. There are no
private rooms or partitions. All associates can see one another. Working
tables are arranged face-to-face, whether they are staff member's tables
or the president's table.

While in the Tool Kit many of the case studies involved LMG initiatives
that promoted the **[Lowering Of Status
Barriers](#best-practice-number-5)** as a means to the end of improved
labor relations, [**Thai Honda
Manufacturing**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)
was the one in which the parties most directly addressed the issue.
However, several of the other Tools in the Tool Kit such as **[Creating
New Channels of Communication](#best-practice-number-3),** [**Thinking
In Terms of Interests, Not Positions**](#best-practice-number-6) and
[**Going Offsite to Train and Retool**](#best-practice-number-8) by
their very nature assumed a Lowering Of Status Barriers. The very act of
communicating more frequently and through multiple channels implies a
more respectful relationship, especially in those cases in which the
parties engaged in joint problem solving techniques (IBPS). The joint
training initiatives highlighted -- most notably by
[**Alcan**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
[**Atlantic
Baking**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
**[Miller Dwan Medical
Center](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
[Nortel
Networks](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
[Ottawa
Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),**
and the [**Philadelphia
Zoo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
and their respective unions, were squarely focused on promoting dialogue
in the context of an equal relationship.

There is no greater example of a lowering of status barriers and a
culture change than in organizations that have [**Devolution of
Decision-Making**](#best-practice-number-4) to front-line workers.
Mentioned in the Tool Kit were [**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
the **[Atlantic Baking
Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),**
the **[Chilean Bipartite
Committees](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc),
Kaiser Permanente** and, most notably, **Harley Davidson**. These
organizations have taken the biggest "leap of faith" in delegating some
authority to their workers but they have not done so without careful
planning and preparation. They have also not done it simply as a morale
booster. Rather these organizations decided that it was good for
business to empower and incentivize people closest to the action to make
decisions to improve quality, efficiency and productivity.

The above organizations, and others that have devolved decision-making
authority to front-line workers, have undergone challenges in doing so
and are still in the learning process. In no cases can it be said that
there has been a 100% culture change. However, all have made a start and
a few are well on their way. The world is watching too, as several of
them including the [**Atlantic Baking
Group**](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
[**Grupo
Resistol**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
**Harley Davidson** and **Kaiser Permanente** have won awards for their
efforts and have been asked to make presentations in many venues in
addition to APEC symposia.

Based on the above discussion, we can elaborate on our continuum to
place some of our Tools in the following order:

Immediate Ongoing Long-Term Culture

Crisis Issues Change

+-----+-----+-----+------------+-----+------+------+---------+---+
|     | LM  |     | Other      |     | Inte |      | Dev     |   |
|     | C\- |     | Permanent  |     | rest |      | olution |   |
|     | \-\ |     |            |     | B    |      | of      |   |
|     | -\- |     | Mechanisms |     | ased |      | D       |   |
|     | \-\ |     | for LMG    |     | Pro  |      | ecision |   |
|     | -\- |     | C          |     | blem |      | -Making |   |
|     | \-\ |     | ooperation |     | Sol  |      |         |   |
|     | -- |     |            |     | ving |      |         |   |
+-----+-----+-----+------------+-----+------+------+---------+---+
|     |     |     |            |     |      |      |         |   |
+-----+-----+-----+------------+-----+------+------+---------+---+
|     |     |     | New        |     | Go   | Re   |         |   |
|     |     |     | Channels   |     | Off  | duce |         |   |
|     |     |     | of         |     | site | St   |         |   |
|     |     |     | Com        |     | to   | atus |         |   |
|     |     |     | munication |     | T    | Barr |         |   |
|     |     |     |            |     | rain | iers |         |   |
|     |     |     |            |     | and  |      |         |   |
|     |     |     |            |     | Re   |      |         |   |
|     |     |     |            |     | tool |      |         |   |
+-----+-----+-----+------------+-----+------+------+---------+---+

Note that four of our Tools absent from the continuum. [**Support for
LMG Cooperation Must Come From The Top**](#best-practice-number-1) and
[**Build Alliances With Other Stakeholders**](#best-practice-number-9),
both alluded to in the discussion under Step 1, above, are Tools that
are critical in launching and sustaining an initiative but are not
initiatives in and of themselves. **[Get Help From A Third Party
Neutral](#best-practice-number-7),** and **[Ground Your Initiative in
Only The Most Solid Management Principles, And "Sell" It That
Way](#best-practice-number-10)** are critical to the ongoing management
of an initiative, but also are not initiatives in and of themselves so
are likewise not included on the continuum.

As was mentioned in [Chapter 10](#best-practice-number-10),
organizations should be wary of treating a LMG initiative purely as a
morale booster and not a concrete program that has to be actively
managed at a high level, just like any other program. Any initiative
that is not both treated and presented as such will fail to convince
skeptics and, more importantly, those in charge of funding it, who tend
to look at concrete results. It will also fail to model the kind of
behavior that you want the partners to engage in. Needless to say, a
poorly managed LMG initiative will likely meet the same fate as any
other poorly managed initiative. With that in mind, let's look at some
ways to manage an initiative so that it is sustainable and flexible.

So far in this chapter we have discussed: (1) the importance of having a
workable vision in your head of what the initiative will look like and
how you will sell it; (2) the process of selling the initiative within
the organization and helping the key stakeholders take ownership of it
and get it off the ground; and (3) what the initiative might look like,
and how you might base your choice of Tools on the need(s) you are
trying to address. This fourth and final section looks at how the
initiative might be best sustained once it is off the ground. It would
be a big mistake not to give some thought to this at the outset.

##### What Could Go Wrong?

Whenever one is trying to effect change, there are bound to be pitfalls.
In any organization there are vested interests opposing change. Change
requires resources such as time, effort, money, know-how and political
capital, just to name a few. This section will examine several potential
pitfalls. Its goal is to build up your intuition about how to react to
these and the numerous other things that could go wrong.

*People may simply disagree, or be unable to work cooperatively.* In
such cases it behooves the proponent of the initiative to suggest the
guidance of a Third Party Neutral who can help the parties talk in a
calmer, less personalized and more interest-based fashion. Third Party
Neutrals have experience in difficult contract negotiations, where
economic issues abound. Most are very well equipped to navigate the
issues of a LMG initiative, drawing upon their experience from
collective bargaining.

######### Old habits die hard. The parties are simply used to treating each other with hostility. Training is in order. The parties should be trained on the numerous benefits of working together and in the communication and conflict management skills necessary to do so. Not everybody will be able to be converted that way, but if you build enough of a majority in favor of the initiative the better chance it has of flourishing.

*Workers accuse the union leadership of getting too close to
management.* This is a common occurrence. The way to deal with this is
to stress that labor-management cooperation is in no way a substitute
for collective bargaining, and their interests will be represented as
vigorously in that forum as ever before. In addition, stress that, far
from selling out to management, a LMG initiative is a chance to
establish a regular dialogue on matters of importance, a dialogue that
would not otherwise be possible.

*People lose interest in the initiative.* If there truly are no pressing
issues between labor and management to deal with, and the company is
operating at peak performance, then it's OK for people to lose interest.
Remember, LMG initiatives are not just "feel good" measures. They meet
concrete needs. If there are no concrete needs you should not promote it
for the sake of its self-perpetuation. However, there are likely no
organizations that are in such a state of utopia. All organizations have
issues. As we have repeatedly emphasized, the main point is to narrowly
tailor the initiative to resolve concrete issues. If it becomes too
expansive and unwieldy, it will be criticized as wasteful of many
resources. More to this point, people will lose interest in it, and
rightly so. Once you are sure that a problem assists and that your
initiative can remedy it, any promotional efforts that you might make
have a greater chance of succeeding.

*The initiative fails to produce its intended results.* In this global,
competitive economy, it's tough out there! There are many factors in an
organization's external environment that it cannot control and that
challenge it day after day. We have listed them before: e.g., sudden and
intense competition (either domestic or international); changes in the
regulatory or legal environment; sudden changes in consumer preferences;
loss of a formerly reliable customer base; a sharp increase in the cost
of inputs; or political or economic instability in the economy. And
there are others. The way to deal with this complaint is not to let the
LMG initiative become a proxy for the performance of management itself.
Management's job is to make strategic decisions to help the organization
respond to threats and take advantage of opportunities. That does not
change in a LMG cooperative program, nor do external conditions. What
can change, though, are the resources that the organization has to
confront its challenges. LMG cooperation adds another, invaluable
resource to the mix available to management: the ingenuity, know-how and
support of the people who carry out the work of the organization. So an
effective way to respond to this complaint is to invite the people
complaining to contribute their know-how to resolve the problem, As an
added bonus, it is an opportunity for these critics to have their own
interests dealt with at a high level.

*The well runs dry:* LMG initiatives can cost a lot of money in certain
circumstances -- i.e., when there is training, an off-site retreat, or
numerous meetings on company time. Sometimes there are full-time staff
members devoted to the initiative. The way to deal with this is to make
your best, most realistic cost projections and work with those funding
the initiative to include them in the budget allocations. Emphasize the
economic benefits to those who hold the purse strings. If possible, use
statistical forecasts to project those economic benefits. To economize,
use existing company resources (e.g., meeting space). If your economy
offers Third Party Neutrals free of charge, take full advantage of the
many services they offer. In all cases, ensure that funds for the
initiative are handled with the utmost integrity, and arrange for
internal accounting mechanisms to ensure such integrity and to be able
to respond to any inquiries.

*The "founding fathers" of the initiative leave.* Even if you plan on
lifetime employment with your organization, you will not be there
forever. Some great initiatives have fallen apart because their main
proponent has left the organization. The way to deal with this issue is
to let others take ownership, get credit and become publicly associated
with the initiative as early as possible. This way, there is no cult of
personality that is irreplaceable. More concretely, you should start
undertaking *succession planning* as early as possible in the initiative
to ensure a smooth transition if key players leave.

# How Will You Know Something Has Gone Wrong? Is It Too Late?

A core principle of good management is evaluation. Unless there are
mechanisms in place to periodically measure the initiative's
performance, there is a real risk that problems will suddenly surprise
you after it is too late to do anything about them. With that in mind,
it is advisable to establish mechanisms to measure the existence of the
problems discussed in the previous section.

Some of the potential problems are attitudinal -- i.e., workers believe
that the union leadership of getting too close to management, people
blame the initiative for things it cannot control, people have not
changed and made their attitudes more collaborative, people lose
interest. In those cases measuring changes in these attitudes is a
matter of developing effective survey instruments and administering them
periodically. A note of caution, though: survey design is a highly
technical and refined science, so if there are funds, it would be wise
to have the assessment conducted by an outside professional.

In the case of funding resources, it would be wise to internally audit
the management of the initiative's funds on a continuous basis and to
have an outside audit conducted at appropriate periodic intervals as
well.

In the end, an evaluation can be a big help to an initiative, and can
very often provide useful feedback, as long as the initiative's goals
are made clear and measurable -- i.e., reducing the number of grievances
filed, reducing the length of contract negotiations, increasing the
number of issues resolved informally, improvements in productivity,
efficiency or quality traceable to devolution of decision-making,
improved attitudes concerning labor relations, as measured by surveys of
a random sample of employees and managers. However, the proponent of an
initiative should be strategic about when to request an evaluation. If
the evaluation is done too early, before all key stakeholders have been
won over or before it has produced measurable results, it could have a
harmful effect on support for the initiative.

**How to keep up morale and encourage further innovation?**

Finally, if an initiative is going to effect a long-term culture change,
as was discussed above, it is going to need constant nurturing and
cheerleading from its proponents, hopefully bipartite or tripartite. The
goal is not just to sustain your initiative, but to have others make it
their own, take it to the next level, and further innovate. To this end,
an initiative's proponent should be its principle advocate. This means
frequently talking with others about it to shore up its support, and
also using the (hopefully) several [**New Channels of
Communication**](#best-practice-number-3) that are available (e.g.,
e-mail, bulletin boards, committee meetings) to promote it. As was
discussed above, it should be promoted as the high-quality initiative
that it is: well planned, well staffed and evaluated to show measurable
results. There should also be ample opportunity for bottom-up feedback
up to the initiative's leadership. It is very important to model good
behavior by allowing ample opportunity for all of the affected
stakeholders to communicate their interests to you concerning the
initiative on an ongoing basis.

\* \* \*

On that note, we will model good behavior by inviting readers to submit
to us any comments, questions and, most importantly, your ideas and
stories about creative innovations that have moved the field of Labor
Management Government Cooperation to the next level. Stop by the
project's website at [www.gnzlz.com](http://www.gnzlz.com/) and click on
the "comments and questions" link within the Tool Kit link. And best of
luck to you as you set out to change the world, one workplace at a time.

[^1]: ^\*^ Please note: We will use "Labor-Management-Government" (LMG)
    and "Labor-Management" interchangeably throughout this Tool Kit.
    While sometimes there is governmental involvement in an initiative
    as a third party neutral, a funder, or occasionally in a more direct
    role in the employment relationship (e.g., if it owns the
    enterprise), in most cases in this Tool Kit we stress the
    cooperative efforts of labor and management only, since their
    interests can conflict with one another's in a way that they do not
    conflict with the government's interests. (Although, as we will see,
    labor and management have many common interests.) Therefore the most
    interesting and challenging initiatives are those that bring labor
    and management together, while the government usually has an
    overriding interest in bringing labor and management together.

[^2]: By David Thaler, with the assistance of David Glines and Jennifer
    Oritz.

[^3]: The Lapanday Development Corporation (LADC)
    Labor-Management--Government Cooperation Case Study (hereinafter
    referred to as
    "[Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)"),
    at p. 5.

[^4]: See, e.g., 2000 Bandar-Seri-Begawan Leaders' Declaration at paras.
    7-8, 20; 1999 Auckland Leaders' Declaration under "Participation in
    Prosperity" paragraphs; 1998 Kuala Lampur Leaders' Declaration at
    paras. 24, 32. For a discussion of the connection between social
    capital and other social indicators, [see]{.underline}
    [also]{.underline}, Putnam, Robert, [Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
    Revival of American Community]{.underline}, Simon & Schuster, Aug.
    2001. (orig. June 2000)

[^5]: [See]{.underline} Maslow, Abraham, [Toward a Psychology of
    Being]{.underline}, Wiley, John & Sons, 3d ed. 1998. (orig. 1962)

[^6]: The Summary Report, including all of the case studies, from the
    Victoria Colloquium is available on the World Wide Web at
    http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html.

[^7]: By David Thaler, with the assistance of Jennifer Oritz and Rebecca
    Walton.

[^8]: By "LMG Initiative," we are generally referring to any organized,
    concerted effort to unite representatives of labor and management in
    a cooperative endeavor to improve their relationship and also work
    toward the benefit of the organization. In the sense in which we are
    using it here, it usually refers to activity at the plant level, but
    if its focus is clear enough, such as in the Canadian Case Study on
    the *Steel Industry Worker Adjustment Program*, it can refer to
    activity that is sectoral or even national in scope.

[^9]: The drafters of the [*Philadelphia
    Zoo*](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)
    case study used the term "leap of faith" to emphasize that the
    managers and workers had to make the effort to improve relations
    despite the fact that both present circumstances and history
    conspired against them, and that they had no assurances of success.

[^10]: *Labor Management Cooperation In the Face of Rapid Change in the
    Workplace: The Ultimate Roadway for Thailand Thai Honda Motors*
    (hereinafter referred to as "[Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc)"),
    at p. 3.

[^11]: *Grupo Girsa: Cooperation Enterprise-Union: A Competitive
    Advantage* (hereinafter referred to as "[Grupo
    Resistol](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc)"),
    at pp. 1-2; [PowerPoint
    Slides](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation.ppt)
    7-9, 12, 14-16, 24, 27-28, and 31 from the Project Symposium.

[^12]: Matsushita Refrigeration Industries (hereinafter referred to as
    "[Matsushita")](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc)
    case study, at pp. 4-5.

[^13]: *The Atlantic Baking Group Labor-Management Committee*
    (hereinafter referred to as "[Atlantic
    Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)"),
    at *passim*.

[^14]: *Labor-Management Cooperation at Miller Dwan Medical Center*
    (hereinafter referred to as ["Miller
    Dwan"),](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc)
    at pp. 9-11.

[^15]: *The Amalgamated Transit Union, OC Transpo and The Federal
    Mediation and Conciliation Service of Canada* (hereinafter referred
    to as "[Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc)"),
    at pp. 6-9.

[^16]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 8.

[^17]: *Survival in the Face of Crisis: Hankuk Electric Glass Co., Ltd.*
    (hereinafter referred to as "[Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)"),
    at p. 3

[^18]: A "retreat" refers to an organization's taking both labor and
    management representatives off site, to a facility far removed from
    the worksite and its usual distractions, in order to focus their
    creative energies on the critical business of looking forward to
    improve labor-management relations. The retreat "Tool" is discussed
    more fully in [Chapter 8](#best-practice-number-8) of this Tool Kit.

[^19]: *A Leap of Faith: Labor-Management Cooperation at the
    Philadelphia Zoo: 1992-2000 (hereinafter referred to as
    "[Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc)")*,
    at pp. 4-7.

[^20]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 7.

[^21]: By David Thaler, with the assistance of Jennifer Oritz.

[^22]: It should be noted, however, that a LMC is not a substitute for
    collective bargaining. A LMC's focus is on maintaining and
    strengthening the labor-management relationship as well as the
    enterprise, but is not designed for handling the ultimate
    distributive questions that are the traditional focus of collective
    bargaining. While it is certainly possible for the parties to
    develop behaviors and negotiating practices in a LMC that make
    collective bargaining run more smoothly, the fundamental right to
    collective bargaining, as recognized by the ILO, implies a degree of
    independence of the trade union that may not be possible in the
    institutional collaboration that is implicit in a LMC.

[^23]: [Atlantic
    Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^24]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 4-5.

[^25]: [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 9-10.

[^26]: *Long Term Collective Agreements : New Approaches in Labour
    Relations in Quebec* (hereinafter referred to as "[Quebec Labor
    Relations"),](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc)
    at p. 20. It should be noted again, however, that a fundamental
    ground rule for a LMC is that it is not a substitute for collective
    bargaining.

[^27]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 18-26.

[^28]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 14-17.

[^29]: *Case Study: The Role Of The National Conciliation And Mediation
    Board (NCMB) In Dispute Prevention And Settlement* (hereinafter
    referred to as "[**Philippine
    NCMB**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)"),
    at p. 9.

[^30]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^31]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 10.

[^32]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^33]: *The Lapanday Development Corporation (LADC) Labor- Management --
    Government Cooperation* (hereinafter referred to as
    "[Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc)"),
    at p. 5.

[^34]: Sometimes IBN is referred to as *Interest Based Problem Solving
    (IBPS)*, and those terms will be used interchangeable throughout
    this Tool Kit.

[^35]:
    #  [**Ottawa Transpo**](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc), at p. 5.

[^36]: *[Chile](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc)
    Case Study*, at pp. 4-5.

[^37]: [Philippine
    NCMB](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
    at p. 9.

[^38]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^39]: [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 9.

[^40]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-9.

[^41]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at p. 5.

[^42]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^43]: *Canadian Case Study: Steel Industry Worker Adjustment Program*
    (hereinafter referred to as "[Canadian Steel
    Industry](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Zeinab - CP Final Final.doc)"),
    at pp. 4-9.

[^44]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 4-8.

[^45]: [Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^46]: By David Glines, with the assistance of David Thaler.

[^47]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^48]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at p. 5.

[^49]: [Chile](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc)
    Case Study, *passim*.

[^50]: [Grupo
    Resistol](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^51]: [Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^52]: [New
    Zealand](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/New Zealand 11 June final final final.doc)
    Case Study, at p. 8.

[^53]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at pp. 3-5, 8.

[^54]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 9.

[^55]: [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^56]: [Atlantic
    Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 7-10; [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 7-9; [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at pp. 4-6.

[^57]: *New Indonesia Industrial Relations System: Promoting Freedom of
    Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining* (hereinafter
    referred to as "[New Indonesia Industrial Relations
    System](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Indonesia-Case Study Endang-Final1x.doc)"
    at p. 10.

[^58]: [Atlantic
    Baking,](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc)
    at p. 4.

[^59]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass,](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc)
    at pp. 2-3.

[^60]: [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at p. 6.

[^61]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^62]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^63]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^64]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^65]: By David Thaler, with the assistance of Jennifer Oritz.

[^66]: See , e.g., Slater Robert, [Get Better or Get Beaten; 29
    Leadership Secrets from GE's Jack Welch]{.underline} (2d ed.),
    McGraw Hill 2001, at pp. 111-114; Frieberg, Kevin & Jackie, [Nuts!:
    Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal
    Success]{.underline}, Bard Press 1996, *passim*.

[^67]: [See]{.underline} the Introduction at pp. Section III.

[^68]: [Grupo
    Resistol](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
    at p. 3; See also, [Grupo Resistol PowerPoint
    Slides](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation.ppt)

[^69]: [Atlantic Baking
    Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^70]: [Chile](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc)
    Case Study, at p.5-6.

[^71]: The Summary Report, including all of the case studies, from the
    Victoria Colloquium is available on the World Wide Web at
    [http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html](http://www.law.uvic.ca/~apec/apectxt.pdf).

[^72]: Harley Davidson Case Study,
    [http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html](http://www.law.uvic.ca/~apec/apectxt.pdf),
    at p. 6

[^73]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 4.

[^74]: Excerpt provided courtesy of the International Association of
    Machinists and Aerospace Worker's Office of High Performance Work
    Organizations, in conjunction with the Harley Davidson Case Study.

[^75]: See, e.g., [Atlantic Baking
    Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^76]: [Chile](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Chile - Final 1.doc)
    Case Study, at pp. 6-8.

[^77]: [Quebec Labor
    Relations](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 8.

[^78]: By David Thaler, with the assistance of Jennifer Oritz.

[^79]: See, e.g., the discussion by Shigeru Miyagawa of the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology on politeness and honorific
    markers in the Japanese language at
    http://www-japan.mit.edu/articles/JapaneseLanguage.html#styles.

[^80]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^81]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^82]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 4.

[^83]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 3.

[^84]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^85]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 2-3.

[^86]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^87]: By David Thaler.

[^88]: In this Tool Kit we will use IBN interchangeably with IBPS, or
    *Interest Based Problem Solving.*

[^89]: [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 7.

[^90]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^91]: [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 8-9.

[^92]: [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at pp. 6-7.

[^93]: [Quebec Labor
    Relations](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 23-26.

[^94]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 14-17.

[^95]: [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    at pp. 4-5.

[^96]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^97]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^98]: [Grupo
    Resistol](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation Speech.doc),
    at p. 2[; Grupo Resistol PowerPoint
    Slides](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Mexico-Girsa Case Study Presentation.ppt)
    at at http://www.gnzlz.com/case_studies_in_bp.htm.

[^99]: By David Thaler.

[^100]: In some economies, the terms "mediator" and "conciliator" are
    used interchangeably, while in other economies the two terms take on
    different meanings. This Tool Kit will treat the terms as
    synonymous.

[^101]: See the Introduction, at Section III.

[^102]: See, e.g., [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 7-9; Harley Davidson Case Study,
    [http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html](http://www.law.uvic.ca/~apec/apectxt.pdf),
    at *passim*.

[^103]: [Quebec Labor
    Relations](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 12-14.

[^104]: See, e.g., [Atlantic Baking
    Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 9-10.

[^105]: [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at pp. 4-7.

[^106]: [Atlantic Baking
    Group](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 9.

[^107]: See, e.g., [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 7-9; [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 4, 7-8; [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at p. 7; [Quebec Labor
    Relations](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 16.

[^108]: See, e.g., [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at p. 9; [Quebec Labor
    Relations](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Quebec - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 17.

[^109]: See, e.g., the Kaiser-Permanente Labor-Management Partnership,
    highlighted at the June 1999 APEC Victoria Colloquium on Successful
    Human Resources Practices in the Workplace: Contributions from
    Labor, Management and Government, at
    [http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html](http://www.law.uvic.ca/~apec/apectxt.pdf),
    at p.4; See also
    [Matsushita](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Singapore - Matsushita - Final.doc),
    *passim* and [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    *passim* (Numerous committees, policies and structures Developed
    based on underlying principles of labor-management cooperation.)

[^110]: [Canadian Steel Case
    Study](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Zeinab - CP Final Final.doc),
    *passim;* See also, Garment Industry Development Corporation Case
    Study, at
    [http://www.capi.uvic.ca/publications.html](http://www.law.uvic.ca/~apec/apectxt.pdf).

[^111]: See the [NCMB Case
    Study](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc).

[^112]: See the Korean NLRC Website at
    <http://nlrc.molab.go.kr/nirc/main.htm>

[^113]: See the FMCS Canada Website at
    <http://labou-travail.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sfmc_fmcs/message/index.cfm/doc/english>

[^114]: See the U.S. FMCS Website at
    [www.fmcs.gov](http://www.fmcs.gov/)

[^115]: See the [New Zealand Case
    Study](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/New Zealand 11 June final final final.doc),
    at pp. 6-8.

[^116]: See, e.g., [Atlantic
    Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 9-10;
    [Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
    at p. 4; [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 4; [Philadelphia
    Zoo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - Philly ZOO - Final1.doc),
    at pp. 4-6.

[^117]: By David Glines, with the assistance of David Thaler.

[^118]: [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at pp. 6-9.

[^119]: [Miller
    Dwan](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - MDMC - Final1 Final.doc),
    at pp. 8-11.

[^120]: By David Glines, with the assistance of David Thaler.

[^121]: [Lapanday](http://gnzlz.com/Post Sym Files/Philippines - LADC Case Study - Final1.doc),
    at p. 6.

[^122]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 2-3.

[^123]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 4.

[^124]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 2, 7.

[^125]: [New
    Zealand](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/New Zealand 11 June final final final.doc)
    Case Study, at p. 6.

[^126]: [Id.]{.underline}, at p. 8.

[^127]: David Glines' Interview of Commissioner Ditillo, July 2001.
    (Hereinafter the Glines Interviews will have the format "Glines
    \[last name\] interview, July 2001.")

[^128]: Glines Cagney Interview, July 2001.

[^129]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^130]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^131]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^132]: [Atlantic
    Baking](http://www.gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/US - ABG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 6.

[^133]: Glines Crawford Interview, July 2001.

[^134]: Glines Christ Interview, July 2001.

[^135]: Glines Cagney Interview, July 2001.

[^136]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^137]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^138]: By David Thaler.

[^139]: Please see the Introduction, at Section III.

[^140]: Please see PowerPoint Slide 9 from the Project Symposium at
    http://www.gnzlz.com/case_studies_in_bp.htm

[^141]: [Id]{.underline}., at PowerPoint Slide 23.

[^142]: Id., at PowerPoint Slide 39 .

[^143]: [Thai
    Honda](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Thailand - Honda - Final 1 Final.doc),
    at p. 4.

[^144]: [Id]{.underline}., at p. 8.

[^145]: [Hankuk Electric
    Glass](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Korea - HEG - CP Final Final.doc),
    at p. 3.

[^146]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^147]: [Id]{.underline}., at pp. 4-5.

[^148]: By David Thaler.

[^149]: Please see the discussion of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs
    in the Introduction at Section III.

[^150]: The interests of the "negative" forces are listed here for
    illustrative purposes. It would also be prudent to list the interest
    of the likely supporters of the initiative in order to galvanize
    their support and keep them on board in case problems arise.

[^151]: It should be noted that Interest Based Problem Solving (IBPS),
    while quite intuitive once it is learned, is also a highly refined
    skill that often must be imparted through formal IBPS training. A
    significant number of Third Party Neutrals are qualified IBPS
    trainers.

[^152]: The importance of frequent and comprehensive communications with
    constituents cannot be overemphasized. Many Third Party Neutrals
    have had the experience where management representatives agreed to
    something that was not approved by top management, or where union
    representatives agreed to something that was not ratified by the
    members. In both cases, the agreement was totally undermined. As
    with collective bargaining, there is a similar danger that improper
    communication can undermine the most well intentioned LMG
    initiatives.

[^153]: The status will be filled in at subsequent meetings.

[^154]: [Ottawa
    Transpo](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Canada - Ottawa - CP - Final Final.doc),
    at p. 8.

[^155]: Please see the [Philadelphia Zoo's PowerPoint
    presentation](http://gnzlz.com/Case Studie Docs/Post Sym Files/USA-Philadelphia Zoo Case Study Presentation.ppt)