Interest-Based Problem Solving

Our National Agreements commit us to operating principles that you won’t find in most labor contracts:

Power of partnership

Interest-based bargaining doesn’t guarantee success. It works for us because our partnership works.

The partnership between Kaiser Permanente and the Union Coalition came about in 1997, in a challenging environment. The company had a long and close history with the labor movement. But amid growing market pressures and labor unrest in the 1980s and ’90s, we were at a crossroads. Most of the local unions representing KP workers formed the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions to launch a unified corporate campaign.

Facing what would have been a mutually destructive strike, the leaders of both parties took a chance on an alternative approach. They agreed to:

• Work collaboratively to improve the quality and affordability of care for the patients and communities we serve
• Help Kaiser Permanente lead the market in health care
• Involve unions and individual workers in workplace decisions
• Provide job security and be the best place to work in the industry.

Solving tough issues

Today it is the largest, longest-running and most comprehensive such partnership in the country. It covers 80 percent of our represented workforce and includes 43 local contracts, in addition to the national agreement. It has delivered industry-leading contracts, and helped Kaiser Permanente achieve industry-leading quality, solid growth and a culture of collaboration.

In short, our partnership is more than a labor relations strategy, it’s an operational strategy that provides strength and stability for Kaiser Permanente and our workforce, and better care and service for our members, patients and customers. It provides an infrastructure for continuous performance improvement and a way to better resolve difficult issues.

For example, during the Ebola crisis of 2014, health care providers and members of the public were concerned about how to best control spread of the disease. Kaiser Permanente, our union partners and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stepped back from the fear and misinformation that prevailed elsewhere. We worked together to develop training processes, educate people and agree on steps to ensure the safety and compensation of employees involved in caring for patients with the Ebola virus. Two of our hospitals were among the first in the United States to be recognized as part of the nation’s Ebola preparedness and response plan.

Frontline teams lead change

Day-to-day partnership is most evident in more than 3,400 unit-based teams—our term for the natural work groups that deliver care and service. Team members are trained in performance improvement techniques to spot opportunities, conduct small tests of change, assess results and implement solutions. They provide a new level of learning and decision making about the quality of their work and how to do it better.

UBTs are co-led by a union member and the manager or supervisor. In clinical settings they include physicians. We track the performance quarterly of every team, based on jointly set measures of performance, and we set aggressive goals for the number of teams to reach high performance, measured on a 5-point scale.

Seventy percent of them are rated high performing. That’s important because our data show that high-performing UBTs get better outcomes on service, quality, safety, attendance, patient satisfaction and employee satisfaction.

New tools and skills

Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, has studied Kaiser Permanente’s model of teaming and offered this assessment:

Unit-based teams are a way to be entrepreneurial and a way to build greater accountability by those on the front line. The teams push people to brainstorm, to be attentive to what they see and to put their own experience to good use. The teams have the opportunity to identify challenges and they have tools and skills with which to work, but it’s up to them to put them to good use to make a difference for patients.

Our teams now have more than 7,700 frontline improvement and innovation projects under way. To align local team efforts with the organization’s broader strategic goals, all projects are focused on one or more points of the Kaiser Permanente Value Compass – a guidepost that shows our four shared goals of best quality, best service, most affordability and best place to work, with our patients and members at the center of all we do.

Kaiser Permanente Value Compass

About 35 percent of these projects are focused on reducing waste or improving affordability. And 267 of those projects, produced joint savings of $10 million in 18 months; potential savings are much more. Twenty-eight percent of projects are focused on service enhancement. Here’s a snapshot of improvement projects conducted at each point of the Value Compass:

• Best quality: A medical imaging team worked across departmental lines to ensure that patients who visited the medical office for a flu shot, and also were due for a mammogram, could get one promptly, many within 20 minutes.
• Best service: A cross-functional team of service center workers redesigned work processes to handle incoming calls in the wake of the Affordable Care Act. The team cut the number of customer handoffs by 60 percent and reduced mean processing time for members’ issues from 26 days to three days.
• Most affordable: An inpatient pharmacy team launched a cost-reduction effort that is saving more than $600,000 a year by better managing inventories, alerting physicians to less costly equivalent drugs and reducing drug wastage.
• Best place to work: As part of our voluntary workforce wellness program, 62 percent of eligible employees – more than 80,000 people – participated in a confidential health assessment to identify potential health risks. 

Getting measurable results

We know our strategy is having an impact on organizational performance and the workplace experience. Our 2014 employee survey showed strong correlations between several measures of employee engagement and job performance.

Departments that scored high on an index of 18 measures of workforce effectiveness (including things like taking pride in the organization, information sharing, understanding of goals and being held accountable for performance) reported significantly better results in service, quality, workplace safety and attendance. For instance:

• 9 percent higher patient satisfaction scores
• 18 percent fewer lost work days
• 41 percent fewer workplace injuries
• 91 percent fewer bloodstream infections in at-risk patients

In addition, members of high-performing unit-based teams are far more likely to say they have influence in decisions affecting work, are comfortable voicing opinions, and feel co-workers are respected despite differences.

Higher job satisfaction also contributes to significantly lower employee turnover. In California, for instance, our turnover rate for all hospital-based employees ranges from 6 percent to 8 percent, depending on the job type – versus the 2014 industry average of 9.4 percent statewide reported by the California Hospital Association.

Union Coalition members and Kaiser Permanente also collaborate on many issues rarely open to union participation. For instance:

Workforce planning and development: We invest heavily in workforce training and development – and we develop and implement most of that work jointly. For instance, a union-management Jobs of the Future Committee in Southern California is identifying emerging technology, assessing the impact on workers, managers and physicians, and developing training plans and career paths. More such efforts and investments are under way.

Market growth: Bringing together union members and Kaiser Permanente sales and marketing teams, our joint growth campaign helped win, expand, win back or retain 33 accounts covering 125,000 Kaiser Permanente members in 2014.

Meeting organizational challenges

Our partnership is not perfect. It can stretch us to engage and educate our many stakeholders, and find time to solve problems and improve work processes in the course of day-to-day operations.

But in my experience, the biggest challenge is spreading innovation – facilitating the exchange of ideas and the adoption of successful practices from one team, medical center or region to another. We know that new initiatives can take root faster and more consistently if they’re modeled on a proven concept – especially when they are championed by our own work teams. Variation can be a plus when you’re looking for new and better ways to do things; when you’ve found the best way, you need to make it a work standard.

We recognize and spread success by communicating with teams regularly in multiple formats; through peer consultants and sponsors in every facility; a system-wide database that tracks teams’ tests of change and outcomes; and UBT Fairs, where teams share their findings in person.

Keys to success

Our Labor Management Partnership is now in its 18^th year, and we are still learning how to take it further. We continue to believe it can be a model for labor relations and health care delivery. Four factors in particular are essential to success:

• Develop leadership at all levels: Since its founding, our partnership has thrived under three different Kaiser Permanente CEOs and three different Union Coalition executive directors. Change is not sustainable if it depends on one top leader. Frontline and mid-level leadership, on both the management and union side, is key. We train for partnership at all levels, and have found that interest-based problem solving and bargaining are powerful learning development tools for up and coming leaders.
• Build trust: To work together, partners must trust one another. That trust must be earned, and is established over time. It will be tested, but the building blocks are well known: Do what you say you will do. Honor your commitments. Treat others with respect and deliver results.
• Measure results and share data: We set goals and track performance for all our teams. We share business and financial data with our partnership unions in bargaining, and share departmental and unit-level results with teams working on performance improvement projects. Teams can’t succeed without good information upon which to set clear expectations.
• Create a shared framework: Our workforce is diverse in every way – demographic, geographic, professional and technical. We also have different (and sometimes competing) needs, interests and concerns. But we share a desire to make our members’ and patients’ lives better. The Value Compass – with the member and patient in the center – provides a common touch point that we use to set priorities and guide decision making.

Our union and organizational leaders know how to do business in traditional, more adversarial labor relations settings. We’ve done it. We choose to work in partnership – not because it feels better (though it does) or because it’s easier (it’s not). We do it because it gets results – for the organization, the unions and workers, and the members, patients and communities we serve.

It’s time to look beyond labor relations and find new ways to innovate and engage teams. Our leaders took a risk 18 years ago to listen, understand and work together. It proved to be better way to deliver health care and achieve our social mission.

This article was originally published in “Perspectives on Work,” the magazine of the Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA), Volume 19. Reprinted with permission. For more information, visit LERAweb.org.

Also see a PDF of the original article, with additional information about Kaiser Permanente and the Labor Management Partnership.

Each day, more than 3,500 unit-based teams use interest-based problem solving and consensus decision making to improve performance and resolve issues throughout Kaiser Permanente. Those same techniques guide negotiations for the National Agreement.

The interest-based process differs from traditional bargaining in several ways. The first major difference can be seen in the room, says Dawn Bading, vice president of human resources for the Georgia region.

“The way we physically sit is different,” she says. “In traditional bargaining, labor sits on one side and management sits on the other. With interest-based bargaining, we sit at a U-shaped table and we are interspersed together. Beside me may be a union rep and on the other side may be someone from management. This physically represents the interweaving of thoughts and ideas.”

This intermingling continues as the negotiations begin, says LaMont Stone, labor liaison for OPEIU Local 29 in Northern California.

“In regular bargaining, you start apart and try to come together,” says Stone, who has participated in bargaining the last two National Agreements. “Here, we start together and try to stay together.”

Part of the power of interest-based bargaining is that in the early stages, the parties aren’t staking out possible solutions.

Walter Allen, executive director and CFO of OPEIU Local 30, says that in traditional bargaining, sides may start off with extreme positions to better their chances of getting what they actually want in the negotiations. “I’ve heard some unbelievable proposals, such as having Groundhog Day off,” Allen says. “Because we don’t do proposals (positions)—we do interests—you don’t get that here. You have to say why this is an interest. How can you argue seriously for Groundhog Day off? No one wants to defend a stupid proposal. Interest-based bargaining eliminates a lot of nonsense.”

This step also helps each side see how much they have in common before moving on to develop options and reach consensus.

“At times it was tedious,” says Angela Young, a unit assistant at Roseville Medical Center. An SEIU-UHW member, Young was a 2010 and 2012 member of the Common Issues Committee and is headed to bargaining again in 2015. “But it keeps the conversation going, and got us where we needed to be. That’s a good thing.”

I just used interest-based problem solving (IBPS) while I was at a union convention in Philadelphia. We got five people to rent a car together and go sightseeing on our one day off. So we had to decide what to do in Philadelphia for 24 hours. We brainstormed, then identified the ideas we all supported. We went to Valley Forge, Amish country and the boardwalk in Atlantic City. It worked great.

My husband and I used interest-based problem solving to make a decision about a major purchase recently. I used IBPS to get to “yes.” IBPS is the easiest way to organize your mind. My mind automatically goes to it and that whole process. If a conversation gets confusing, you can go back to the structure provided by it.

Being at a round table with interest-based problem solving is the best way to move health care forward. What we do at the bargaining table with IBPS is great, but we need to do a better job bringing that back to the workplace. We can make it better by having more frontline managers at the bargaining table.

Frontline managers, especially the newer ones, need a sense of the history and commitment of our National Agreement. And frontline managers need more support. There are still problems with backfill, with allowing employees to be involved in LMP activities.

The way we do business at Kaiser Permanente is the Labor Management Partnership, so we need to have those interest-based discussions. I’ve been involved in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2012 bargaining. I am in awe of the great work labor and management representatives do—and how we can come up with common goals in a nonadversarial manner. I hope we all see it as a value.

A former KP administrator, Michael Belmont now works for Restructuring Associates Inc., the consulting firm that helped during the creation and initial implementation of the Labor Management Partnership and that now helps facilitate national bargaining. He sees interest-based bargaining as a way to solve the problems of the future, before they arise, instead of getting stuck dealing with the baggage of past grievances.

My time at Kaiser Permanente dates back to the late 1980s. I was assistant hospital administrator in Panorama City, dealing with several unions. We were facing so much discord. It was all-encompassing, and it took the focus off improvement issues. The move toward interest-based bargaining and [the] Labor Management Partnership allowed us to put the focus on improving the member experience instead of continually trying to resolve labor problems.

Partnership, especially interest-based bargaining, gives employees and their unions a chance to have an impact on things they might not otherwise. They have a say beyond wages, hours and working conditions. In 2012, there was a bargaining subgroup on growth, focusing both on growing Kaiser Permanente and the unions. In a traditional setting, that doesn’t happen. For employees and their unions, the other side of the interest-based process is responsibility and accountability to take on and help solve the problems of the organization.

When we do trainings on interest-based problem solving, people will say, “This is how I deal with relationships.” If you are going to be a good partner—and have a successful relationship with a partner, kids, friends—you have to have your partner’s interests in mind as well as your own. Making this connection helps people connect the strategy to their work lives.

After 2000 bargaining, the Southern California region was looking for a change in labor relations, away from traditional, toward partnership. We were trying to move labor relations away from being a wall between the unions and management and toward facilitating a productive relationship between unions and management. I saw a gradual transition toward more of a partnering role. I left KP in 2006. I could come back [with Restructuring Associates] as a neutral [party] in 2010 and 2012 because of the [nature of the previous] relationships with union and management officials.

Interest-based bargaining is focused on solving problems up front rather than on grievances. People have to unlearn a lot of habits and build a lot of trust. There was 50 years of baggage [when the partnership started]. A traditional approach leaves lots of scars. Traditional is the comfort zone for most organizations. Traditional approaches are backwards looking: They are about solving problems from the past that pile up and wait for bargaining. Interest-based bargaining is about solving problems and issues that may come up in the future. Using the interest-based approach in bargaining and in day-to-day work is a much more forward-looking way to solve problems—and so much more effective.

No one does it like we do.

Our negotiations for a new National Agreement will be one of the largest private-sector contract talks in the United States this year. No one else brings together such a large and diverse group of representatives from labor and management—plus physicians—to arrive at a single contract for so many union locals nationwide.

We’re so accustomed to this being our norm, it’s easy to forget how revolutionary our Labor Management Partnership is—and how democratic our interest-based methods are.

“At the table, everyone has an equal right to speak and explain their interest,” says Linda Gonzales of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps facilitate the negotiations. “There’s more open dialogue and sharing of information.”

The tone set by interest-based bargaining carries over to the work of unit-based teams. UBTs were one of the outcomes of 2005 bargaining. Today, they are the engine for performance improvement at Kaiser Permanente. They are also the structure giving frontline workers a voice in making decisions. The work UBTs do to improve care for KP members wouldn’t be happening if partnership weren’t in place, and if each successive national agreement didn’t commit everyone to finding innovative ways to address common interests.

It’s not always smooth sailing. But the interest-based model grounds everyone in shared values.

“There are some hard issues, and bargaining still has to take place,” says Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, a professor at the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois. “At the end of the day, you have to find the right balance.”

The Transportation department in the Northwest is coming out of a tumultuous time. A lack of trust between managers and employees created a barrier that affected morale—and made it difficult to focus on improving routes and processes.

The department uses a robust but complex process for optimizing its routes. For maximum efficiency, it has to integrate a variety of work streams and figure out where there are redundancies that can be eliminated. Because of the complexity of the process, however, it had been more than 15 years since the criteria and requirements for the transportation system from the customer’s point of view had been reviewed.

Eventually, the UBT worked out a thorough route-modernization plan based on data-driven service requirements and metrics that established parameters on how to revise and design its routes.

But before it got there, it had to fix its communication, which broke down so badly the team entered into an issue resolution. In the Northwest, the LMP Education and Training department is responsible for facilitating issue resolutions.

Blame-free solutions

“There was a lot of tension in the department, and people were nervous about losing their jobs as a result of our work around revamping routes. Poor communication was a problem,” says Greg Hardy, sponsor and manager of the department.

The issue resolution process uses interest-based problem solving, and that helped the team focus on a common goal: Serving its customers was the top priority and improving communication was a necessity. From there, other agreements came more easily, and the department was able to maintain staffing levels and improve processes as a result of its efforts.

Improved communication improves service

As a result of the improved communication, the team was able to improve service levels and achieve the efficiency and cost savings it had strived for.

“We have a group of dedicated workers who want things done the right way,” says logistics supervisor Chris Dirksen, the team’s management co-lead.

When it came to improving communication, the team members’ first step was to get a baseline measurement of what they were trying to improve. They created a survey that would measure not only communication but also morale and UBT effectiveness. Once they had that information, they created a SMART goal: to improve employee perception of communication, morale and UBT effectiveness by 15 percent within three months, raising the overall survey score from 2.55 to 2.93 by February 2014.

As the team began to investigate the issues, it discovered email was not a good form of communication. Fewer than 20 percent of the team members knew how to log on and use Lotus Notes. The team brainstormed ways get employees to use Lotus Notes email and frontline staffers began to instruct and coach one another.

Three months later, the team sent the survey out again and found it had met its goal. Perception of communication improved 48 percent, morale improved by 56 percent and UBT effectiveness improved by 21 percent. The team scored 3.4 on its survey, exceeding its stretch goal of 2.93, and anecdotal reports are that the communication success is continuing now that the team has successfully completely the issue resolution.

New ways to communicate

Team members use several means now for communicating with one another, including email. A communication board has been set up in the department’s headquarters, near dispatch, that includes information about the projects the team is working on, notes from UBT meetings and a copy of the department’s weekly e-newsletter, “Heads Up.”

In addition, the team has gone from a representative UBT to a general membership UBT and now has regularly scheduled meetings throughout the region, so that all employees are able to participate. “This has been our biggest success to share information,” says UBT union co-lead Nickolas Platt, a courier driver and member of SEIU Local 49.

“It’s cool to watch from meeting to meeting how more people show up each time,” Hardy says. “The engagement of the team has increased as we began to see improvement, and people could see change.”