Is It Possible to Build a True Partnership Between Management and Unions
This quote by Adam Grant caught my eye and it reminded me of a story.
Many years ago I worked in a steel mill. It wasn’t just any steel mill BUT the last integrated steel mill built in the USA. Built-in 1964.
Fresh out of college and ready to learn I was embedded in a group that generated, transmitted, distributed power to all of the mills in the plant. It was a great role for a young engineer.
The company, Bethlehem Steel, at that time was the number 2 steelmaker in the US. The plant was a union plant. The plant union president worked out of my group.
So why am I telling you this story?
I have always believed that unions are a good thing for companies to have. Unions serve the purpose of protecting worker rights. Most of the time they are good except when one of their members acts like an idiot and they are unwilling to tell them to stop acting like an idiot. This creates a situation where management has to create rules to hold the whole group accountable vs. the one individual that is the problem.
There are also a lot of laziness issues from members doing minimum and never being punished for that behavior. BUT those I would label as management’s inability to lead. And that is not the point of this article.
So what is the point?
The company decided to improve relations with the union and create a “partnership”. They wanted the hourly workers to be more of contributors and not just receivers. The management wanted ideas from the union on how to do things better and new ideas to implement that would improve the performance and environment.
With this in mind, we structured training in which blended groups of management and hourly guys would spend a week in training how to be better partners and contributors. This might not seem too revolutionary today. BUT in the late 80s and early 90s, this combined single mission training was revolutionary.
The process created many ideas and I would say that 80% of them were environmental creature comfort ideas. Better lunchrooms, better tools, better chairs, etc… I can not think of any that were game-changers.
What was interesting was the training. IN the training we often were given a very difficult scenario to solve as a team. No one person could possibly know the answer. BUT as we worked together, ideas would flow and we would come up with a solution that would work. IT might not have been the optimal solution BUT it was good enough to solve the problem.
The purpose of the exercise was to teach us that ideas can come from anyone in the group. Ideas did not only need to flow from management BUT could be contributed by everyone. The ability to tap into the wisdom and experiences of all members is key to leadership success. Ultimately a decision has to be made without politics and let the best answer for the company prevail. BUT you must start with everyone contributing their best ideas. Every conversation and idea should help the leader make a better-informed decision.
The partnership process existed for a few years and then it eventually died. So you might be wondering why? The union saw it as a bargaining chip and the first time they disagreed with how management was operating a particular mill they slowed down work in it to hold the plant manager captive. He was replaced by corporate due to performance.
What happened next was that we got a new leader, Dr. Walt Bargeron, who was a lot better leader than the last manager BUT he was also a no-nonsense kind of guy. When the union tried their games with him he told them no and proceeded to operate the plant as it should have been done. Ultimately the leader is who is responsible for the results. Dr. Bargeron separated the partnership process from execution. That did not go over well with the union and they decided not to participate.
I am still an idealist and hopeful that management and union can come together and make a company more innovative and competitive. Great ideas do not sit in management’s head only. The only conflict that should exist is whether actions violate a person’s rights or some discipline rule that has been agreed upon. Management that works hard at minimizing violating rights will be seen as great management. Unions that self-discipline their members and hold them accountable for poor choices will also be seen as fair and forward thinking.
My four cents…
