Getting to Yes, Chapter 4 – Invent options for mutual gain

For years at the electric utility where I handled labor relations, at least 45% of our apprentice linemen failed to complete the four years of rigorous training required to become a journeyman lineman. When they failed, they were fired. Months – and sometimes years – of effort were just down the drain.

This high failure rate became a sore spot for the company, which was paying an apprentice’s wages and benefits just to watch him eventually fail; and also a black eye for the lineman union, which provided the skilled labor for the company.

When the union and company tried to negotiate a solution, it always reached the same impasse: The union demanded that new apprentices come internally from their ranks based on company seniority; and the company demanded the ability to hire externally from accredited line schools.

Finally, the company and union sought the help of a mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS). She trained the union and company jointly to negotiate using “interest based” techniques instead of trading proposals and taking positions.

The parties, guided by the mediator, brainstormed any and all options they could imagine for solving their lineman training dilemma. Ground rules protected the union and the company and encouraged free-flowing discourse.

For example, nothing that any person said could be admitted into evidence in any kind of proceeding or used in any fashion against the other party, or even referred to in any way.

Positions or proposals were strictly forbidden. Only interests and options were allowed.

Another rule was that the parties couldn’t comment on ideas as they were expressed in the brainstorming session. Comments could dissuade parties from suggesting options, or could result in fewer options coming forward.

After hours and days of arduous joint brainstorming, a large conference room’s walls were papered with option after option – some holding promise, other’s intentionally whimsical – for getting the right people into the line apprentice program.

The mediator helped us refine and polish the most promising options, being careful to consider all stakeholders’ needs.

When the smoke cleared and the work was done, the union and company were creating a jointly administered lineman prequalification program where wannabe apprentices underwent a rigorous, week-long, hands-on curriculum designed to separate potential utility lineman from those who did not have the aptitude or desire to succeed.

The union’s represented employees got first shot at enrolling. The company could then fill the rest of the program’s slots with external candidates.

The program’s candidates, perhaps 20 initially, would dwindle to perhaps four in the seven-day program period. All the candidates who failed to complete the program self-terminated – they just withdrew as the week went on.

And those who made it through? They became linemen. Nearly all of them. Union-represented, and external candidates alike. Everyone benefitted, including the young candidates who figured out that climbing swaying, 60-foot wooden poles wasn’t their life’s dream.

That was in 2008. The program is still alive and well today.

This is an example of Chapter 4 of Getting to Yes – Invent Options for Mutual Gain.

They used brainstorming and ground rules and “expanded the pie” before dividing it. They got creative in a safe space, where nothing said could be used against them. They avoided making proposals or taking positions until every effort had been made to find mutually attractive solutions to their problem.

When we make proposals or take positions, our egos quickly make us reticent to change our minds. We get stuck.

But when we smartly create options together, those “options” take on a tentative, “maybe we can” quality that frees our minds to pile on other options and expand the range of solutions for everyone.

The authors prescribe a four-step approach in Chapter 4:

1. Invent options for mutual gain through non-judgmental brainstorming, as illustrated above.

2. Separate option creation from deciding – get rid of early proposals and positions.

3. Broaden options, piggy-back on options, expand the pie and get as many ideas out there as possible; consider different perspectives.

4. Find shared interests and make it easier for the other side to agree – far more interests are shared between parties than are different.

It is critical as we negotiate to get away from zero-sum, fixed-pie mindsets. Expand the pie and find that there is a slice there for everyone.

We needed a trained, neutral mediator to guide us through interest-based, “Getting to Yes” processes. I strongly recommend that you do the same. It is too easy to fall back on traditional tit-for-tat, proposal-based bargaining processes when those have been our career experiences and the heat is on.

Let MARC help you with your tough labor and employee relations issues like these.

Use our “Contact Us” form

Or Call Gary Kleckner at 216-963-7223.