Using Interest-Based Strategies In Practice

1. Using Interest-Based Strategies In Practice Presenters: Marie Edlund, IBS Trainer and Facilitator Charlotte Wenham, Wood, Wenham & Henderson Consultants, LLC. Rod Green, Superintendent, East China School District MASA Mid-Winter Conference January 23, 2008 Detroit

2. To understand the components, attitudes and behaviors of IBS (Interest-Based Strategies) and to think about the readiness of your District for Interest Based Bargaining Objective

3. What is check in? Why do we do it? Let’s try a little bit of it. Check-In

4. Overview of Today’s Session • Traditional Bargaining versus Interest Based Bargaining • Components of IBS • Behaviors of IBS • What IBS is NOT • Comparison of IBB and Positional Strategies • Ten Mistakes to Avoid • How to Get Started with IBB

5. Traditional Bargaining By focusing on positions, parties in a dispute: • see only a predetermined way to solve a problem; • spend time staking and defending extreme positions rather than dealing with the heart of the matter; • tend to settle with a compromise rather than getting what they really need; • limit creative options; and • risk damaging ongoing relationships.

6. Interest Based Bargaining In contrast, a discussion that allows for an understanding of interests underlying positions... • moves people away from contending positions; • promotes mutual education; • allows a cooperative atmosphere to develop; • sets the stage for reframing the issue; • encourages the generation of multiple options; • permits the search for a creative solution.

7. Traditional versus Interest Based • Cost – usually shared between the parties, pay for the facilitators instead of the chief negotiator (not a costly process) • Time – more time might be spent with IBB, but it is more productive • Relationships – It is important for the superintendent to develop relationships with the staff and union. IBB definitely is a better way to do so than traditional bargaining

8. What is Interest Based Bargaining? • More collaborative than traditional bargaining • Each team member is expected to contribute in some fashion in the sessions • Training for both sides is available • Facilitators from management and union help facilitate the bargaining sessions • Work together to find creative solutions to issues

9. Components • Story – everyone contributes • Interests • Options – brainstorming • Straw Design – combinations of options • Consensus Agreement – everyone has to agree • Action Plan

10. Behaviors • Focus on issues, not on people • Describe, don’t accuse • Focus on interests - not positions • Understand interests - don’t judge them • Defer evaluation and commitment • Respect the role & responsibilities of others • Seek to meet mutual & separate interests • Use consensus to decide • Think systemically • Sustain the relationship & the process

11. An Interest-Based Strategy IS about… • Leveraging our limited power for expanded constituent gains • Seeking creative solutions • Better decisions • Addressing all issues we “want to” • Finessing areas of agreement • Questions of “Why” if it looks forward for a purpose (and treats our behavior as subject to our free will) • Seizing opportunities • Understanding

12. An Interest-Based Strategy IS about… • Believing primarily in the productivity and potential of the group • Putting heads together • Commitment to solutions based on principle • “Best way” only • Dialogue • Being trustworthy • Reconciling interests • Focusing on the merits of the problem • Pulling together with each other (Group focus) • Assisting

13. An Interest-Based Strategy is NOT about.. • Exercising our limited power for narrow constituent gains • Seeking compromise solutions • Quick decisions • Addressing only issues we “have to” • Focusing on areas of disagreement • Questions of “Why” if it looks backward for a cause (and treats our behavior as determined by prior events) • Seeing problems • Ultimatums • Believing primarily in the strength and knowledge of the individual

14. An Interest-Based Strategy is NOT about.. • Butting heads together • Commitment to positions based on pressure • “This way” only • Monologue • Being mistrusting • Reconciling positions • Focusing on the mettle of the parties • Pushing each other back and forth • (individual focus) • Insisting

15. Comparison: Interest-Based and Positional Strategies

16. Comparison: Interest-Based and Positional Strategies

17. Comparison: Interest-Based and Positional Strategies

18. Comparison: Interest-Based and Positional Strategies

19. Positional Statements versus Interests • Group Activity to show the difference between positional statements and interests • This will take about 15 minutes

20. The parties need to understand the process is NOT a panacea.It requires hard work and honest effort. You must be prepared to listen and consider the other’s interests and concerns and acknowledge them.It requires some sharing of control. IF YOU WISH TO USE IBS . . .

21. The parties must make themselves available to go through an assessment to assess whether or not there is a “readiness” for the process.

22. There needs to be a clear agreement and understanding on when sessions will be scheduled (released during work day, after work, etc.) and who will pay for what.

23. The parties must agree to treat the facilitators as CONFIDENTIAL and to NOT call them as witnesses in any sort of hearing.

24. TWO outside facilitators need to be assigned and work with the group throughout the process.

25. All participants must participate in two days of training prior to using IBS.

26. The Top Ten Mistakes in IBS Avoiding these mistakes will help you be more successful . . .

27. 1. Trying to use IBS when not all (or any) of the participants have been through the training.

28. 2. Thinking IBS takes less time than traditional bargaining (doing IBS correctly is a time-consuming process)

29. 3. The “real” power/decision makers are not at the table to commit to the solution.

30. 4. Participants coming and going---“round robin”

31. 5. The communications (internal & public) NOT being done together—two different versions or “spins” going out.

32. 6. Not spending enough time at the end after you reach agreement on a straw design defining who will do what and by when.

33. 7. Not clarifying who and how the charts/digital photos/ records will be maintained.

34. 8. Doing it at the wrong time for the wrong reason (i.e., just trying to get out of a current bargaining mess)

35. 9. Teams failing to meet separately before to get organized and identify their story and interests

36. 10. Participants not really owning the chosen solutions. (False consensus)

37. How do I get started? • Talk with your Uniserv Director and Local President • Discuss interest based bargaining • Contact MECA (Michigan Educational Collaborative Alliance) • MECA is a joint group between MASB, MASA, MEA, and MFT • Set up the assessment

38. Assessment Process • Two-Facilitator Interview of Two Teams All Bargainers Other Interested Parties • Assessment Report to MECA • Response to Superintendent and Association

39. Assessment Request • Joint Request Uniserv Director Local Unit MEA President Superintendent • Submitted in writing to: Bob Thomas MECA Coordinator P.O. Box 2573 East Lansing, MI 48826-2573 bthomas@mea.org

40. Assessment Request Date: __________________. District Requesting Assessment: ______________________. Intended Use of IBS: ________________________________. Signatures: Uniserv Director: ____________________________________. Local Unit President: ________________________________. Superintendent: ____________________________________. Send to: Bob Thomas MECA Coordinator P.O. Box 2573 East Lansing, MI 48826-2573 Phone 517-393-3371 bthomas@mea.org