From Enraged to Engaged: Connecting Through Collaboration

Winnipeg Transit, Amalgamated Transit Union & Helen Maupin

From Enraged to Engaged: Connecting Through Collaboration

Winnipeg Transit, Amalgamated Transit Union & Helen Maupin

THEN – August 2008

Organizational Structure• Top-down management hierarchy (ratio 1:350 bus operators)• Communication via bulletins and policy directives

Organizational Culture• Efficiency driven (policing for compliance)• Blame and mistrust

Organizational Leadership• Long-serving within both Union & Management • Entrenched viewpoints and win-lose attitudes• Adversarial problem-solving driven by animosity

The Winnipeg Transit Story

A CRISIS

• Transit and ATU attempted to ratify a contentious contract (2008) and the membership rebelled.

• Strike vote was taken. Management prepared for work shutdown.

• To avert a strike, the CAO committed Management to collaborate with the Union “towards achieving positive change by involving employees in meaningful discussion about the changes needed.”

The Tipping Point

There are no bad people, only bad systems

that frustrate good people from doing good work.

Governing Philosophy

• Create an organizational culture of Engagement and Collaboration

• Facilitate a cultural shift from Command and Control to a Participative Workforce

• Increase productivity through development of a Motivated, Committed Workforce

Governing Design Objectives

Why a Collaborative Work System?

Innovation (creating) at the speed of light

Unpredictable business climate

Sophisticated, complex, demanding work

Rapid response to meet customers’ needs

Constantly learning new skills

Multiple perspectives, knowledge and skills are required to solve these complexities.

Hierarchies are designed to “repeat” rather than “create.”

• Trust and respect in all interactions• Egalitarian attitudes among all ranks• Shared leadership where all members take initiative• Valuing of diverse perspectives• Commitment to the success of all, not just oneself• Valuing of truth and truth telling• Commitment to active learning and continuous improvement of the whole organization• Personal responsibility and accountability

Collaborative Culture

• Greater commitment among all stakeholders – members/employees, managers and union

• A flatter, more flexible structure adapts to changing business conditions

• Fewer layers greatly improves vertical and horizontal communication

• Staffing costs are reduced

Qualitative Benefits of CWSs

• Monsanto: 50% productivity increase over 5 years (Chemical Processing, 1990)

• Celestica, $3B chip manufacturer: 100% productivity increase without additional labor or equipment; manufacturing cycle time reduced eight-fold; quality improved by a factor of two (Dyck & Halpern, 1999)

• Pratt & Whitney, aircraft engine components manufacturer: defects dropped 30%; operating costs fell 20%. (Wall Street Journal, 1996)

• MTS: 0 grievances in one year with a cost saving exceeding $1M (Painter & Maupin, 1990)

Quantitative Benefits of CWSs

• Neutral 3rd party engaged to facilitate the process

• Transit/ATU Working Conditions Committee established – 3 Management reps + 3 Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) reps

• Focus groups held (over 60 bus operators)– Mistrust & miscommunication identified as key issues– Prioritized direction and actions

Created Transit/ATU’s CWS

Transit & ATU WCC expanded7 members/employees – selected by 1000+ workforce3 management reps + 3 ATU reps

Task groups established along priority themesEmployee/Management/Union relationsSchedulesHealth & Safety

Mandate for WCC definedImprove working conditions Improve operating efficiencies Improve customer service

Create CWS

• Rebuilding trust between management, ATU and bus operators

Policy grievance on bus stop announcements resolved by withdrawal of individual disciplinary action

Video surveillance camera policy presented to workforce and implemented without resistance

Implemented a management/ATU/bus operator pre-grievance issue review process

New process to fast track and resolve on-street issues brought forward by bus operators; previously bus operator issues were “filed” and never addressed

Built relationships

Building connections

• Improved communication with bus operators

Face-to-face Communication Circles with management, ATU and bus operators

Transit/ATU WCC bulletin boards

E-mail links between task groups and individual bus operators

New employee web site – inTransit

Dedicated staff role to Transit/ATU communications

Built connections

Building morale

• So You Think You Can Drive?Focus groups revealed low moral, management and ATU were out of touch with the challenges of operating a bus and bullying was the perceived mode of conflict resolution.

A regular draw where bus operators win a ½ shift off with pay and choose an Operations Manager or ATU Executive Member to replace them.

• Tripartite Collaborative Work System Process Commitment to the partnership as the way of doing business

• HRMAM Connect Conference – Best Practices

Built morale

Building new systems

• Collaboration with other Transit Divisions

Scheduling department and Transit/ATU WCC jointly researched changes for a new rostering and day-off system

• Transit Assault Prevention Programdeveloped and provided to 1000+ bus operators

• Critical Incident Stress Management Programimplemented with a peer support system

Built new collaborative work systems

Building new systems

• Face-to-face, on-site communication circles

• Consultation workshops Engaged in redesign workshops with over 600 bus operators

• Shifted the progressive discipline program (Counsel and Guidance) from punishing failure to coaching success

Individual circumstances considered over consistency Performance interviews emphasize retraining and motivationAccident adjudication emphasizes skill development

Built new collaborative work systems

• Employee Survey (February 2010) confirmed significant improvements in:

Respect and consideration of supervisors

Receiving credit for a job well done

Understanding the need for work-life balance

Improving working conditions -- safety and technology

NOW (2010 +): Key Indicators of Success

NOW (2010 +): Key Indicators of Success

2009 Saving: $156,762.00

NOW (2010 +): Key Indicators of Success

ATU $152,000.Transit* $304,000.

$456,000.$156,762.

$612,762.** conservative estimates

• New Scheduling and Day off System

Designed to address priority issues identified by bus operators

Involved over 370 bus operators in consultation workshops

Held a Mock Sign-up to preview proposed system

• ATU membership vote on new system88% Voted NO & 12% Voted YES

WHAT HAPPENED?

NOW (2010 +)

• Consultation Workshops with bus operators revealed these themes:

Mistrust of management and ATU -- bus operators were not involved in designing their new system

Keep working together with bus operators to make needed changes

• Proposed change was too big, start small with incremental steps • Too much information; too little information; more communication • Mock sign-up was too confusing• Fear of the unknown • The status quo is fine – you cannot make everyone happy

NOW (2010 +)

Organizational Culture Change• Increased investment in employee engagement

• Improved responsiveness to employee issues

• New leadership style with a focus on training, coaching and skill building

• Increased trust between ATU and management

• Improved problem-solving when dealing with employee performance issues

• Increased decision-making for bus operators

• Commitment from ATU, Management and Bus Operators to improve working conditions using CWSs

NOW (2010 +) Key Indicators of Success

Lessons Learned for 2010 +

• Never assume

• Create change by thinking outside of the box• Creativity = complexity + diversity

• Learn by doing• Learn from disappointments

• Believe in the power of 3 • Believe in the process• Believe in the impossible

Thank you for participating