ED 230 707-

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 036 075

Brower, MichaelStarting Labor-Management Quality of Work LifePrograms,Labor-Management.Services Administration'(DOL),Washington, D. g.Sep 43224p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice; Washington, DC 20402 ($3.25). ,Reports - Descriptive (141)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Cooperation; Employer Employee Relationship; *LaborRelations; Productivity; Program Design; *ProgramDevelopment; *Program Implementation; *Quality ofLife; *Unions*Quality of Working Life

ABSTRACTThis report summarizes the experiences of the

Massachusetts Quality of Working Life Center in assisting theattempted and actual start-up of a number of quality of work life(QWL) programs in 1976 and 1977 and in providing ongoing'assistance.Lessons learned by the three sites the center launched, other sites,as well as those sites that chose not to develop programs arereported. A definition of QWL is provided first. These requirementsof a QWL program as learned from the sites' experiences are thendiscussed: a systems viewpoint; commitment and personal involvementof the top manager and the top union leader; acceptance by themanagement of the legitimacy of the union; joint union-managementownership; commitment of union and management to human goals andbenefits, and organizational effectiveness; realistic expectations;an organizational diagnosis; strategic planning; ome structure tomake participation work; involvement of middle managers and ,

first-line supervisors; formal training for participants; evaluation;need to be prepared for a union pullout; third party neutralprofessional consultants; program owned by the inside people;interrelatedness of collective bargaining and QWL; and problems ofprograms in municipal government. (YLB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the begt that can be made

from the original document. *.

********************************************************************A**

N-CD

NC)teNCVO-w,

N

Starting Labor-Management Qualityof Work Life Programsf"----

U.S Department of LaborRaymond J. Donovan, Secretary

Labor-Management Services AdministrationDonald L. Dotson, Assistant Secretaryfor Labor-Management Relations -Ronald J St. Cyr, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Labor-Management Relations

September 1982

This refort was prepared byMichael Brower, Executive DirectorNortheast Labor Management CenterBelmont, Massachusetts

-

Material contained in this publicatignis in the pubhc domain and may bel*reproduced fully or partially, withoutpermission of the Federal Govern-ment. Source credit is requested butnot required. Permission is requiredonly to reproduce any copyrightedmaterial contained herein.

1U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCAZJON

1ThN TIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

E0 CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC,

os document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organuabonongonatong a

%nor changes have been made to rmprovereproduction qualay

, Points of view or oponions stated m this docureent do not necessanly represent offtcuI NIEposrtoon or policy *

Fur sale loy the Superintendent of Documents, L.S. Government Printing Officeynshington..D r 20402,

Thc.', Division of Cooperative Labor-Management Programs was created bythe Department of Labor in 1982 toencourage and assist employers andunions to undertake joint efforts toimprove productivity and enhance thequality of working life Central to theDivision s purpose is the conviction thatcooperative relations between the partiesparticularly those creating new oppor-tunities for worker participation indecisiOn-makina can contribute sub-stantially to the furtherance of theirmutual interests

Although the full scope of this programwill develop gradually initial attent,onwill be.directed to meeting alreadyidentified needs for technical assistanceand information throughout the privatesector A chief aim will be To Support andextend existing institutional capabilitiesby working, in close collaboration withtrade associations international unionsarea labor-management committeesand national state and regional productivity, quality of -working life centers inaddition it will regularly compile and chs-seminate information on current issuesapd practices through publications con-ferrnces and workshops

For further information contact

Chief Division of CooperativeLabor-Management Programs

Labor-Management ServicesAdministrationS Department of Labor

Washington D C 202103

INTRAUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Center.,

The Massachusetts Quality of Working Life Cen-ter 'Was set up in the fall of 1975 as a nonprofitcorporatioll by a group of people _from business, or-ganized labor, State government and universities. Itsboard of directors was drawn from all four of thesegroups, with business and labor members in rpughlyequal balance. For its first two or three years most ofits efforts were directed towards conducting confer-ences and seminars, publishing a monthly newsletter,and in other ways seeking to raise the awhreness andinterest among Massachusetts managers and union lead-ers about quality of working ,life (QWL) programs. Inmid-1979 the center changed its name to the Massa-chusetts Labor-Management Center. In early 1981 thename was changed again to the Northeast* Labor-Management Center in, response. to a wider arena ofactivities.

The goals of the center have remained relativelyunchanged throughout these years and name changes,although its area of activities- has broadened outside ofMassachusetts. The Center's goals are:

1. To help businesses, State and local govern-ments, and other organizations to increase their effec-tiveness in providing lower cost and higher qualitygoods and services;

r

2. To help increase labor-management coopera-tion, develop joint problem-solving, and improve thequality of working life;

, 3. By these means to help existir4 business tostay, prosper, tind expand and new business to beattracted here, leading to more and better jobs, higherincomes, and jncreases in State revenues.

t

The center employs a small, full-time, profes-

1

4

sional staff which serves as neutral third parties, pro-cess consultants, and facilitators to bring togetherunions and managements in the public Wand privatesectors in labor-management, QWL, and other employeeinvolvement programs.

This Report

This is a report on the experience of our centerstaff in assisting in the Attempted and actual start-upsof a number Nof quality of *fork ,life prograins inMassachusetts in 1976 and 1977 and on our experiencein the following years in, providing ongoing assistance toseveral programs that did get launched. These effortswere subsidized by a grant from the U.S. Department ofLabor, Employment and Training Administration. The,sites were: The city of Cambridge together with Local195, Independent Public Employees Asiociatiori; thetown of Arlington together with Loca1.680, American,Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.(AF,SCME); land the Gemini Corporation along with.La Cal 226 of the International Ladies' Garment Workers'Union (ILG WU).

This report is a summary of the lessons learnedfrom these three sites, plus a number of others notinvolved in the Department of Labor grant work, andfrom a large number of potential sites where we talkedwith leaders during the first years of,the grant that didnot choose for one reason or another to push forwardinto an actual program. , r

54_

Acknowledgements -

The grant from the U.S. Department of Labor wassupported. and authorized by Howard Rosen, then Di-

i''. rectOr, Office of Research and Development, Employ-ment and Training Administration (now retired), and byDr. Robert Foster of that office. Richaid Shore, SocialScience Advisor in the Office of Policy, Evaluation andResearch, was also very helpful in developing internalinterest with the Department in this field and our

-%. 52 ,_

a

\

.:'.:C. ',>'

center. Two other Department of Labor officials on%loan for several years to the now dead National Centerfor Productivity and Quality of Working Life, EdgarWeinberg and William Batt,, were instrumental in help-ing to make joint labor-management cooperation abetter understood 'process, in helping create an aware-ne4s of the potential of QWL programs, and in assistinga number -of programs and centers, including ours, toget started. To all these organizations and men I wouldlike to express my appreciation and that of our center.

The Staff, members of our center in addition tothe author of this report who provided at .one time orotther one or another form of consulting or trainingassistance to - the par.ticipants in these three sitesincluded: Joe Krzys, Will Phillips, Susannah Nickerson,Bill Duffy, Grarit Engle, Gil Dube and Tony Penzone. Inaddition Lee Ozley,, although never a regular membr ofour staff, served as-a contract consultant at ,the Geminisite starting in January 1979. Theaettrthmr would like toexpress here his appreciation to all these people top-their many- contributions to these programs and to ourcenter's growing knowledge about the components andprocesses of a successful QWL program. The opinionsand judgements exRresseri in this report are, however,solely and fully the-responsibility of the author and arenot to be attributed to any of /hese people, nbr to theparticipants from the various program sites or thevarious U.S. Government officials mentioned above.

Finally, the author would like to express here hisdeep appreciation and admiration of the many officials,union leaders, and employees in the sites listed abovewho believed iii the QWL process and who struggled tomake it work; sometimes succ.essfully and sometimesnot. - .

4 .

DEFINITION OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE (QWL)

When we started working with managers and unionleaders to help them understand the new experiencewith quality of working life programs in other parts ofthe country, and to decide whether or not they wishedto implement their own program, we did not have a,very clear definition to offer them of QWL. However,over time we have heard many definitions and read anumber of discussions about what it is and is not. Thd,author has over the years come to the conclusion thatquality of work life is a combination of three relatedcomponents, which is one reason why it is so hard todefine and so hard to practice successfully.

My definition:then, is as follows: -Quality ofworking life is a phildsophy of management, a process,and a set of outcomes. It is a philosophy of managementthat accepts the legitimacy of existing unions, thatbelieves cooperative relationships with those unions areworth developing, and believes that every employee hasthe ability and the right to offer intelligent and usefulinputs into decisions at various levels of the. organiza-tion. QWL is a process to involVe employees at every'level of the organization in decisions about their workand workplaces. QWL also refers to the intendedoutcomes of practicing this philosophy and process, with

"improvements in working conditions, environment, andpractices, and in the general climate or dulture of theworkplace. This same process also brings organizationalbenefits of cost reduction and quality improvement andpersonal development benefits which are also integralparts of the QWL concept, in this author's opinion.

7

4

LESSONS AND LEARNINGS rlc

Systems View ..

An organization to perform work, whether it is ahapparel factory or a municipal government or onedepartment such as p{iblic works or a city hospital, is asingle, complicated social system composea Of many^subsyStems. In these sYstems, every person and group isinterrelated in a variety of ways with every other one.Significant change in any one part or levet of the systemwill have impacts on all other parts and levels and willrequire changes in each of them. Participants in achange- process, and consultants assisting that pr cess,need to be aware'of these multiple linkages and im actsand need to plan for them as much as possible r ,therthan be continuously surprised by them. Specifically,introducing more labor-management cooperation into apreviously tense and totally adversarial situation willhave many repercussions and will require changes'in theways many people and subsystems perceive and relate toeach other. And introducing processes for bottom-levelemployee input into a system which did not previouslyallow or value this will require prior, parallel, andresulting changes in the attitudes and behaviors of manyother parts of the system. Many of the lessons andlearnings which follow are in whole or in part elabora-tions on this one)Dasic systems viewpoint.

Top Manager Committed and Personally Involved

For survival and success of a QWL program, thetop manager in the organization or at the particular siteof the organization that is launching a QWL programmust be_committed to the program, including its philoso-phy, its intended multiple outcomes, and its structureand process requirements. Even more, he or she must bepersonally involved in the program and 'in its steeringcommittee. This is the mbst important single factor indetermining success, 'in our experience. In sites wherethe top executive has not participated, the program haslagged and eventually folded.. In sites where the

5

4r,

executive has initially stayed back and then becomehivolved, the program has initially suffered and thenpicked up. Personal involvement is not a sufficientcondition for program Success, but, it is a necessarycondition. It is vital for several-reasons. First, it is .avisible, continuing signal to the other managers that thehead of the organization supports this program, takes itseriously, and gives it high enough priority to investpersonal time in it. Secondly, it is an equally importantsignal to the top union officials. Our experience is thatwhere the top manager is absent, the top union peoplemay start out participating, but eventually they maytend to drift away as they sense an imbalance incom m itm ent.

Thirdly, the steering committee will bp.ndergoing along series of learnings about group process,\ about eachothers' problems and points of view, about how tocommunicate with each other, and about the potential inQWL programs. 'If the top manager is absent from thesesessions, subordinates will be undergoing growth that heor she is not experiencing, and before long the managerwill become hot a leader of the process, but an anchorholding it back.

.Top Union Leader latvol ement

' It isequally important. that the top union official(s)be committed and personally involved. The argument isthe same as that for the top manager. But in ourexperience, once the union leadership has committeditself to a QWL program; there has been no problem inhaving them also personally involved. They don't want toleave this (or anything else of any great importance) tosubordinates. So, while the point is important, inpractice we have had little experience with programssuffeting because of lack of top union leadershipinvolvement.

6

Management Accepts Legitimacy of the Unionand of Union Benefitting

A QWL program cannot wdrk if management doesnot accept the legitimacy of the union but has insteadsome hidden agenda or hope of using the program toweaken\or destroy the union. If management hopes thatafter a few years of QWL the union will be weakened, orthat, employees will be ready to decertify the union,seeing it' as no longer deeded since their work life is somuch impr.pved, then the program will be subtly sabo-taged by this attitude all along the line. The converse isin fact required: Management must be willing to acceptthat the program will have positive benerits not only for

\ themselves and for their employees, but also for the

\union.They should realize and accept that the union will

In all.probability be held in higher regard by the em-P oyees for having helped them to obtain the -QWLpr gram.

Join Ownership Developed Early

It is important that joint ownership of a union-management program be sought and developed as earlyas possible. Both sides should be involved in discussingand determining the goals and the ground rules for aprogram. When management unilaterally initiates aprogram, the longer it waits to involve the union(s) asequal partners, the harder it becomes to develop a trulyjoint program, and the more likely it is that the union(s)will see it as a management-only tool and will declineto cooperate.

Both Union and Management Committedf. to Human Goala and Benefits

Management and union leaters should be com-mitted, if the progrem, is to be successful, to utilizingevery' employee's talents to the fullest extent possible,to m'aking the organization a better place' to work forall employees, and to providing opportunities for indi-vidual growth and development. When bot,h sides work

.1

successfully, towards these objectives, the effectivenessof the -organizatión in reaching its cost, quality, andother goals .also increases. Jf on the other hand only the-utiion is interested in the human outcomes of a QWLprogram, and management seeks only economic andorganizational outcomes, the program is much lesslikely to be successful.

Both Union and'Management Committedto Organizational Effectiveness

.1,

A QWL program will be more successful in. thelong run if it is task oriented as well as people oriented.ft should have as part of its overall purpose tandexpectations the improvement of cost,- quality, andother factors of competitive effectiveness. Manage-

'merit must be- concerned with these factors or theorganization, will not survive and thrive. If theseobjectives are not incorporated openly into the QWL

, program, QWL will reivain something separate andapart from the mainstream of management concernsand activities and will eventually suffer as a resultfrom inadequate commitment and support.

There is no reason for management, to deny orhide its necessary conce?ns with cost; quality, andOrganizational effectiveness.. Denying these objectiveswill o ly lead to suspicions among union leaders thatmana rs are 'either trying to hide the truth 'or areinco petent. In many cases, but not all, unions andmanagement can also openly add productivity as a partof the oferall objectives of a QWL program. We canand should make a distinction between a narrow defini-tion of productivity (more output per man hour, equal-ine a speedup in many union leaders' and members' eyes)which does not need,;kbe a part of the program, and abroader definition of productivity acceiStable , to all.This includes reducing a wide variety of costs, such asthose due to turnover, absenteeism, accidents, poorquality, scrap, rework, machine down time, grievances,matexials waste, etc. And_ it includes.. helping. theorganization become better organized to be responsive

a t,,

' . r \ , ''''P

'to chanting market and environmental conditiOcand' needs. Every union we have 'worked ,with, and indeed

most that we have talked with; are willing, and in mostcases eager, to codperate in programs to help improvesonl or m6st of these factors. The result is a healthierqrganization that is more likely to survive, and one morecapable of providingA job security, regular Wage in-creases, and pride for its employees. -.

Realistic Expectations ..

i . .It is important that leaders on both sides have .

positive ekpectations about whaf the prograni 'Shouldproduce. But they Must alSo have reahstic expectations

. abourthe length of time that is required to launch a"QWL'prOgram, to develop throughout the çrganizationthe necessary skills and attitudes; to accomjklish signifi-cant organizational changes, )and to- develo significantoutcomes. These programs are a great de lower tbdevelop, in most cases, than wc expected, and much,

-Irnuch slower than the impatient expectations of many of- the leaders we worked with. In most cases. we have.

learned to caution people not to expect any significant-results in the first year of a program, but that if itmoves along well, results should be forthcoming during

, the ,second year. This frequently clashes with manage-ment impatienèe and also with the great pressures thatsome managements are under to save a great deal Of ,

Amoney qinckly or to rescue a bad gltuation win) somequick cure. .

cOrganizational Diagnosis;.. 4

C, In -otte early QWL prOgrams we did not engage in

any focussed effort to diagnose.the organizations thatwe were beginning to work with. Such a diagnOsis willturn tip information and a variety of perceptilins about

, the mission and purposes of the organiiation, about howit, is structured, what the role definitions (or lack th rel-of) are tibiz9tit iaterpersonal and interdepartmental r la-tioithips; and about rewards and leadership and otheraspects of what makes it an effective organization,

i

t. .

0 . 9

1 2

or not so effective. During the first weeks and. months weswould of course learn a great deal about the

organization and its leaders. But without a formaldiagnosis on entry into our early programs, by the timewe learned many of these things the opportunity hadpassed for structuring the QWL program -and varioustraining prbgrams and workshops towards assisting insome Significant need areas. In most cases an organiza-tional diagnosis early on, using hour long.interviews withkey managers and union people, would have helped us toavoid some errors and to provide the client organizationswith a better planned QWL and training program tailoredto' fit their needs. .,We now make this an eaily itage inmost of Our new programs.

Strategic Planning

An organizational diagnosis often turns up theinteresting fact, among others, that top management hasno-t been keeping adequate track of important changes inthe environment which affect or will affect the organi-zation's activ1ties. We silso- frequently find that thepeople we interview have widely varying views (if any)on the basic core mission.or purposes of the organizà-tion. Strategic planning involves a careful scan of thechanging environment, developing a new or re-;establish-ing an old core mission, and setting long- lInd middle-range objetives. We now assist the manage ment in ourQWL programs to do some strategic planning if they arenot already doing this. The reason is that if theorganization is misreading its environment, or has notdeveloped an adoquate, up-to-date, clear mission, or hasnot developed top management consensus around thismission, then a QWL program is not likely to succeedvery well, if at all. If it does Atcceed in some respects,the organization may .still perish. We do not wish to helpmodern day.equivalents of buggy whip companies developever better labor-management cooperation, more andmore worker input, and greater and greater costeffectiveness and quality, only to see them fail becausethey persisted in producing an outdated product for adying market. QWL alone will not save such a company;

t

it takes a combina-tion of good strategic planning plusQWL. We have therefore decided to offer both and notleave the strategic planning, and with it the fate of theQWL program, to chance.

Some Structure Is Needed to Make Participation Work

If a program is to be a joint program betweenmanagement and one or more unions, then some form ofsteering committee at the top level should be set up torepresent this joint support and to provide overall direc-tion. This steering committee may need to start offwith equal or roughly equal numbers from each side tosymbolize the balance of support for and ownership ofthe program. Over time however, and in some caseseven at the beginning, the members from one_side or theother may significantly outriumber those from the otherside. It is important that the top managers and top .unionleaders be on this committee. It is also important that ithold regular meetings every two to four weeks, perhapsmore often in the beginning, and not just when someonewishes to gall a meeting. We believe that it is unwisefor a steering committee to make decisions by voting; itis much preferable that it operate by some version orother of consensus. It is also important that this betalked about and decided openly by the committee in oneof its early meetings, so that there is some degree ofconsensus around how it will reach *decisions.

At the bottom of the organization, if employeeparticipation is-to be on a regular basis, it needs to besupported with some appropriate structure such as em-ployee involvement circles or work teams that areformed, trained, led, and supported from above in hold-ir4 regular weekly or biweekly meetings. If managementsays it has an employee participation program, but itturns out, that employees are only called together whenthe need arises or to help solve a particular problem,then we question the depth of commitment to QWL.Again, if only selected (or even elected) employeerepresentatives are serving on committees or taskforces, the program, although possibly useful in solving

14 11

some problems, is falling far short of the potential of afull scale QWL program with direct participation of allinterested employees.

Between the top-level steering committee andbottom-level work teams or circles, there may also needto be some committee structun to provide ongoingsupport and guidance for the work team activity. If theorganization is quite small this will most likely not beneeded. But if it is large tnere will need to be divisionalor departmental steering committees at these inter-mediate levels, or perhaps even both.

In all cases it is important that the structure bedeveloped for and tailor made to fit the specific situa-tion and the needs of the individual organization.

*Middle Managers Involved, Not Bypassed

In many organizations there are two or threelevels of superintendents, general supervisors, keneralforemen, and other middle manageis between the firstline foreman or supervisor and the head of the organi-zation. Ana in some cases top management commits toa QWL program (or to it. first cousin, a quality circleprogram) and then tries to lead downward and startwork teams or circles very quiCkly. This is a seriousmistake which is almost certainly going to impedeprogress at best and to backfire at worst. A QWLprogram cannot in the long run succeed or survivewithout the active arid growing involvement of alllevels of managers and of union personnel.

First-Line Supervisors Involved

What was said above about middle managers ap-plies equally of course to the first-line supervisors andto the union stewards. Their active support and in-volvement are needed. If they feel that the program issomehow for the benefit of the union worker but not forthem, resentment will tend to build. If the program islaunched from above and they are told to get involved,

12

15

to support it, to start up their own work teams,resentment will ouild even farther and faster. We nowrecommend that the first-line supervisors lead the firstefforts and prooably also the secona wave of workteams. After a couple of years and leis of successexamples, there will be time for top management toimplement a policy that requires all cepartments andsubunits to get involved, including all supervisors. Butfor those initial rounds it is far better to have tne effortled by sincere volunteers. Qv L Should be for allemployees at all levels, including supervisors and middlemanagers, but this is often forgotten in the rush toinvolve hourly people.

Formal Training Needed for Participants

In our first QWL programs we offered very littletraining to the joint committees and worker-supervisorteams, and none at Etll to managers and_union officialsseparately. We would help the joint steering committeemembers break the ice, to voice any anger over pastbehaviors on the other side, ana to,move beyond that oylooking at common goals and objectives for the future.Fram time to time we would stop steering committee orsafety or other meetings when we found people notlistening to each other, and we would ask them to noticethis and reflect on its meaning for possible success. Wealso offered participants a problem solving model andoccasional exercises in improving, their communicationsskills. But generally we were trying not to impose verymuch training time up front; preferring to help labor andmanagement to start solving their problems together,knowing they were impatient to get started on this andassuming that it alone would bring the desired changesand outcomes.

Our experience has taught us to modify this. Inone program our new consultant, upon entry in early1979, insisted that, as part of their QWL program,management initiate a series of management develop-ment workshops, one for the upper-middle group and asecond for first-line supervisors. In another program,

16 13

after two years of working with the steering committeeand various subcommittees and task forces, we wentback to basics and ran a series of workshops for avertical slice of top, middle, aria bottom managers andunion pepple. Now during the initial contacts we beginto talk about the importance of training, and during the*entry process we develop a proposal for one or moretraining programs. We try to require that the steeringcommittee, top management, middle' rpanagement, andfirst-line supervisors all participate in some trainingworkshops in how to lead a QWL change process. In ourmost recent programs we have begun to provide 5 fulldays of offsite training to a combined vertiCal coregroup that includes the steering committee plus 3 ormore superintendents or other middle managers, 5 or 6foremen, and 10 or 12 hourly workers. These trainingprograms emphasize the process of change and thenecessity to lead it, communications (especiallylistening) skills, a problem solving model, how to holdproductive meetings, and the roles of internal facili-tators. We also train internal people to be facilitators ofthe ongoing process so that our involvement can declineover time. -

,

Set Up Evaluation Method at Barinning

QWL program supporters, especially among topmanagement, sometimes are overly eager to evaluateevery single aspect of a new program, including, moni-lltoring exactly every dollar ana hour of cost,. an 'tryingto measure every dollar of savings. 'There is impliedand sometimes explicit expectation that th programshould have an adequate return on investment within afixed and probably short time period. heacting againstthis, other supporters in management and the union side,and also among third parties, sometimes try to ignore orsubmerge the, whole issue of evaluation, stating that theprogram should be supported 4for its own sake," or rorthe human values alone, which cannot be measured indollar terms. This is probably a mistake. A middlecourse would appear better.

- 1 7

14

The program should be evaluated, with some rec-drds kept on the investment made and on at least themore easily quantifiable dollar savings. Over time thesteering committee will need this information to justifyto top management the continuation of the program andfor its own information about how well the program isworking. In the long run the program will not besupported Dy management if tt is not cost effective. Toignore this reality of life in our competitive economy isto engage in wishful thinking. In many of our programs,and in other sites, the decision to evaluate costs andbenefits is mace only after the program is a year ormore old. Then it becomes a question of digging for oldstatistics, and in the case of attitudes on ooth sides,asking people to rememoer now they felt a year or moreago. If changes in attitudes are to be measured, it is farbetter to measure them before the program begins, or inthe very early stages, before they nave begun to changevery much.

We also see self-evaluation al important for eacnwork team and each level'of steering committee. We

encourage people to think about what they are trying toaccomplish, over what tinge period, and how tney want toevaluate themselves as a part of their learning process.In fact, this is prooably the most important singlepurpose and use of evaluation. It is the ope we nowstress the most.

Be Prepared for a Union Pulloutk'

From our experience it seems highly likely that, atsome point ir, the first year or two of a QM, program,the union will pull out in protest of some managementaction. Along tne way they may threaten to pull out anynumber of times. In one site the joint committeeagreed to a "heat Gay" policy which set neat anahumidity limits above which outdoor vmployees would besent home. But on one occasion a department n-Ainagerwho did not believe in the program or the policy calledhis employees in On such a heat day, but then kept themsitting in a hot room for several hours rather than

16 15

send them nome. The union happened to have a regularmeeting scheduled the next night, and it was hardly asurprise that the membership voted at that meeting towithdraw from the program. In another site the unionpresident sent us a letter that "terminated" the programon the grounds of lack of progress for his members andpoor communications with him. The real reason, un-stated, was that some dissatisfied union members hadraised at a QWL meeting issues about a failure to gettheir wages increased adequately during the recent nego-tiations. Our staff made it clear that QWL could nothandle these issues, but It was embarrassing to the unionpresident to have it raised in this forum. In a third, theunion withdrew for a five month period to give manage-ment time to complete a badly needed reorganizationand to "get its house in order" since the current situationwas badly _hindering the QWL effort. And there havebeen many other times when unions have threatened topull out of various programs.

It is i.mportant that pressures on union leaders from

their membership to pull out be anticipated and that theprogram take this into account. First, the agreementshould call for a cooling off period before any drasticsteps are taken if things do go wrong. Second, allparticipants should be encouraged to think ahead aboutthe nature of the process they are entering and about the 'likelihood that ,errors will be made and things not gosmoothly, and about the importance of regarding eachstep as a learning experience from which a better pathcan be charted and then followed. Mistakes and failurescan in. this way be built in as a normal part of learning,rather than as a reason to quit. ("Watch the babylearning to walk.") Third, all parties should be urged tomake a real commitment to the QWL program andprocess and to not use it, or the threat of withdrawingfrom it, as a bargaining chip in the inherited adversarialrelationship. Fourthly, when such a crisis does occur,the role of professional neutral third party consultantsbecomes especially criicial around these issues. First itis one of the functions of the third party to develop aframework and climate so that the above points will be

.161

..1

understood and accepted by all parties. And second,when a walkout does occur, it is the job of the thirdparties to find out why, to listen caiefully and nonjudge-mentally to both sides, and to find the reasonable path,and any necessary restructuring, for bringing the partiesback together. In all three of the above cases our staffcontinued their behind the scenes work, and in all threbthe unions returned after tW,o, three and five monthsrespectively.

Third Party Neutral Professional Consultants Needed

It is my opinion that most QWL programs will needexpert assistance from rieutral professional process con-sultants for at.least the first couple of years. The mainfunctions that they fill are:.

,(

1. Bring the parties together 'for the initial meet-ings,to consider a program.

. 2. Provide an initial drganizatioual diagnosis andfeedback, with recommendationg for structuring the pro-gram and necessary training flowing from the diagnosisand feedback, shaped jointly by consultants and partici-pants.

3. Assist top management in strategic planning ifit is needed.

4. Chair the initial meetings of the steering com-mittee. Where anger is present, as it often is, controlthe agenda, and the setting for the initial meetings andprovide the neutral presence which allows anger to beexpressed but kept controlled and within acceptablelimits.,

, 5. Help both sides initially to construpt a commoagenela which con6entrates onlareas they are willing to kwork together on, while avoiding areas in which dis--agreement is too great for likely successful cooperation,at-least in the beginning. ,

17. 20

6. Demonstrate and train by 'example how tb con-duct a meeting so that it starts on time, follows a. planned agenda, reaches certain agreed upon conclusions,builds in followthrough, and ends on time.

..,

7. Help committee participants identify issueswhich can bkest be worked on 'in smaller groups, taskforces, or subcommittees and assist in setting up suchgroups and in having the parent committee give themclear guidelines and instructions and deadlines.

8. Provide training to committee 'participants,various levels of management, union stewards, and workteam members in such key skills 'as agenda building,problem analysis/problem solving, cornmunications,active listening, team building, how to *Idle valuedifferences, and behavior for effective small group func-tioning.

9. Work with and help to train internal processfacilitators to replace gradually the outsiders in Per-forming many of these functions.

,10. Provide one-on-one consultation with individualmanagers and union leaders. QWL calls for. great wisdomand patience at times, for skills most managers andunion leaders have only parts of, and for changes inattitudes and behaviors that are difficult for humanbeings to accomplish rapidly. The consultant can helpthese key people works through these issues,, give themnew insights and encouragement in how to proceed, andsometimes can provide them with a mirrer to see theirown behavior better and how it impacts on the organi-zation, on the other side, and on the workers below. .

11. ,Bring In and model for all participants a non-. -

judgemental open minded "freth-slate" attitude towardsall the participants, thereby creating the space andopportunity for people on both sides to break free of pastbehaviors and stereotypes and to rnove towards morecooperative, more creative, problem solving approaches.

* .

18 21

12. Set the framework to deal with errors andmistakes as learning opportunities rather than reasons to

, pull out and help to bring the parties back together if infadt one side or the other does pull out.

13. Provide the parties information about priorexperience in other programs which might be useful in

.avoiding pitfalls or achieving rapid progress.

14. Help the participants Plan and conduct self-evaluations for their own growth and learning, and to beprepared to justify the continuation of their program toothers above them (in management) and below (in theunion ranks).

the Inside People Must Own the Program,Not the Outsiders

Important as are 'the roles of the outside thirdparty consultants, they should avoid coming to think ofthe program as theirs. It must belong, right from thebeginning, and increasingly over time, tp the insideparticipants. Because the outsiders play such importantroles, insiders often terid to rely on them too much andto look to them as the designers of the program, as itsleaders, as experts on all things related, and as saviorswhen things go badly. This is unhealthy and should befought againstA Third party staff shduld be carefullyscreened and trained to avoid using people with toostrong a need for contFol or credit. Inside people, on theother hand, must be given every encouragement to takecharge'of their program early on and to use the outsidersonly as advisors, as sounding boards, as trainers forspecific skills, and"as consultants to the inside peoplewho remain in control. There is a very difficult anddelicate balance here which needs to be observed,thought about, and discussed since at start-up there is aninevitable dependency on the outsiders which must shiftover time towards reduced dependency and towardgreater and greater internal autonomy.

22 19

Collective Bargaining and QWL are Separate,but Closely Interrelated

To make a joint QWL program successful, it isvirtually always tssential to agree in advance that issuesinvolved ,in the collective bargaining contract are notappropriate Subjects for discussion at QWL steering*committees or work teams. Everyone agrees to this, butthe.dividing line is sometimes blurry. Wages are clearlyoutside QWL. But QWL does deal with many aspects ofworking conditions, by common concern_ and' agreement,even though some few of these issues might son,leday beaddressed through bargainkng. And some issues, such ashow overtime is allotted, may go either way, being kepttout of QWL talks because it is a bargaining issue, orallowed in because 'both sides want to improve theprocess and don't want to wait two br three years untilthe next contract talks. The general rule of thumb isthat either side has the Het to take an issue out of theQWL arena on the grounds that it is a contract issue.

QWL overlaps with bargaining in another waywhich we did not anticipate initially. The QWL-com-mittee, and consultants should have :it,114in to do withthe bargaining when contraCt renewal time rolls around,and they 'don't. But the QWL program does have, overtime, profound effects on the collective bargainingclimate and therefore on the process. Over and overwe have heard managers and ynion leaders say, duringand after completion of bargaining which began 5 or 6or 12 months after a QWL proeram had begun, that itwas the smoothest, best, easiest, etc., bargaining inwhich they had ever participated. Leaders on bothsides learn through the QWL process how 'to com-municate clearly, they come to respect each othermore, some degree of tryst is built up, anger is dissi-pated, and all 6f this carries over into the bargaining,room.

-20

Unique Municipal Problems

Municipal managers are at least as ready for, andinterested in, these programs as are private managers.But they do not have the facility of private managers tocommit funds to hire consultants or other outside help.One or two or three private managers can usuallycommit Kunds from training or other budget ,itemst, Butpublic managers usually do not have much freecioqi "ofaction. Even modest funding for part of the costs, of aprogram must pass the hurdles of a finance committee,city council, perhaps also a town meeting, and maybemore.

In such public and politicized bodies, one or twoenemies or skeptics can kill almost any new idea orprogram. After a year or two of experience, withmanagers and unibn leaders ready to explain and arguefor support, such public support can be forthcoming. Inthe absence of such experience, funds to pay initial costsfor outside consultants will continue to be very difficultfor even the mast committed and dedicated topm,unicipal Manager to secure. For these reasons, outgide

flinding of at least part of these programs is importantfOr success in municipal government.

.1

2 4

21