1. Partnering and Collaborative Work Processes What Are They and Why Do They Work?

2. Overview: The Management Edge experience Partnering Definitions Collaborative Work Processes Previous IR paradigm: Assumptions & Characteristics Outcomes of “old way” of doing business

3. Overview: continued What are they and Why do they work? Partnering Assumptions Keys to success Summary Questions and Answers

4. The Management Edge Experience The Management Edge (TME) provides: Team Building and Partnering Facilitation Training and Development Conflict Resolution Organization Development Consulting Project & Management Environmental Teams () DOD: Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, & Pentagon Department of Energy (DOE) EPA (7) regions States (15)

5. Partnering Definition “Partnering is a process by which two or more organizations with shared interests act as a team to achieve mutually beneficial goals.” Dept. of Defense Guide to Partnering

6. Other Definitions of Partnering “Partnering is a commitment between government and industry to improve communications and avoid disputes.” Army AMC Partnering Guide “Partnering is common sense. Partnering is good government, in that we are trying to streamline the process to integrate the missions and mandates of the different agencies. Consensus Journal Interview,

7. Collaboration A decision making or problem solving process that is both assertive and cooperative The problem is defined together Negotiations do not begin from a “position” There is actually no negotiating or bargaining Win/Win solutions are the goal It fosters innovation, builds trust and strengthens buy in

8. Collaborative Work Processes Assumptions We define the problem together We work together to resolve it Everyone’s concerns are important Everyone’s input and participation are essential The problem can be resolved or dealt with to our satisfaction We are open to creative solutions We are seeking what works best for all of us

9. Prior to Partnering… Any of you in EPA Region 4 and 3 still remember those old days---it would be 1994 and before. Any recollections to share? How did you get your work done? Easy? Hard? Slow? Fast?

10. Characteristics of “old way” of doing business Distance and formality between agencies “Arms length” relationships, especially with contractors Use of impersonal means of communicating, such as official letters Low level of information sharing and lots of unwelcome surprises Rare “face-to-face” meetings Guarded interactions between the parties seemed appropriate and prudent

11. Characteristics of “old way” of doing business Parties dealt with each other as positions, not as individuals Other organizations were perceived to be the “enemy,” with hidden agendas Tension and mistrust between the “regulators” and the regulated agencies was seen as normal

12. Assumptions Underlying the “old way” “We do not have the same interests.” We versus They, i.e. “We” must protect our agency or our interests from “Them” “There is no Win/Win possibility.” “We cannot afford to lose, so we must Win.” “They screwed us before --- they’ll screw us again!”

13. Outcome of old way of doing business Strained communications and cumbersome procedures Slow document review with many drafts, reviewed by each agency in isolation---”throwing documents over the wall” Difficulties resolving problems---which led to increased conflict, even over minor issues

14. Outcome of old way of doing business Inability to take or manage inherent risks, need or requests for more and more data Little creativity or innovation in remedy selection Individuals acting on unclear, often conflicting assumptions and propensity to blame others Slow, inadequate, and very costly clean up

15. Outcome of old way of doing business Fines, court actions, and attorneys influencing environmental decisions Extremely inefficient meetings and poor decision making Low level of information sharing and lots of unwelcome, last minute, urgent “surprises”

16. Outcome of old way of doing business Low trust, high suspicion and cynicism between individuals and organizations More money was spent on the conflict than on the clean up Public frustration and loss of confidence in the Agencies

17. Partnering and Collaborative Work Processes What Are They and Why do They Work?

18. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation There must be a better way! There are tools to help teams make good decisions The goals of the organizations are really the same, including the contractors The teams need formal team building

20. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation The teams need to meet regularly face-to-face Teams need training in Partnering processes Regular, on-going training in non- technical, inter-personal skills benefits the teams

22. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation Trust must be built and maintained Understanding and respecting differing styles of thinking and communicating is extremely helpful in building an effective team

24. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation Conflict is inevitable; conflict management and resolution skills must be taught

27. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation Management involvement, preferably with a team structure, greatly enhances success Quick, informal communication between team members is essential The teams benefit greatly from regular, professional, neutral facilitation

28. Partnering Assumptions/ Foundation Team members need to know what is expected of them. Clear Roles and Responsibilities need to be established, team by team Team members need to be empowered to make binding decisions at the meeting, if at all possible

29. Partnering Lessons Learned When the team is built, it needs to be maintained, or gains will be lost More time and money will be spent on team development in the beginning---the pay off is in the acceleration of progress as they build momentum Team member turnover is a constant issue that contributes to holding a team back

30. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams Lower conflict through setting: Ground Rules Roles & Responsibilities Boundaries on unacceptable behavior Clear expectations Clear accountability Establishing conflict management training Establishing conflict resolution/management processes Establishing conflict escalation plan

31. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams Increase trust by: Increasing contact with each other: At meetings At trainings At team building events At social times Training and team building activities designed to foster trust Discovering similar histories or traits and interests Resolving problems together, making successful decisions together Taking a risk that turned out well

32. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams Develop Interpersonal skills, through training and coaching: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® (MBTI) to understand differences in thinking, communicating, dealing with data and making decisions Communication skills: listening, especially Active Listening, 3 part “I” Messages, rather than “You” messages Assertiveness, rather than Aggressiveness or Passiveness

33. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams Develop Meeting Management skills through training in how to: Develop Standard Agendas Develop workable Ground Rules Lead a meeting Manage group input Stay on topic Make decisions Resolve problems

35. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams The processes and the Facilitation ensure that the power differences in the group are more equalized, whether those are from position, organization, or personality. Collaboration and consensus decisions are very liberating

36. These Elements Work to move groups from conflict to High Performing Teams There is a comfort level achieved by working together with people who consider you neutral, at least, perhaps an ally----that one gets from these Collaborative Work processes.

37. Common Elements of Partnering Models Inter-agency team approach, with or without contractors Active team building, facilitation & active management support Include all agencies/organizations whose buy in was needed Exclude attorneys from regular meetings

38. Common Elements of Partnering Models Training: communication skills, work style differences, conflict management/ resolution skills, decision making, meeting management, problem solving Regular, frequent face-to-face meetings On-going support: training for new members, facilitation and team building for teams, whenever needed, management ombudsmen- like interventions on behalf of teams on policy issues.

39. Partnering Success Substantially Reduced: Document review time Violations and fines Need for formal dispute resolution Cleanup costs Length of time from site investigation to close out Increased: Cost savings and cost avoidance Positive Inter-agency relationships Level of trust Collaborative (and innovative) designs and decisions $ Ten-to-One Estimated Return on Investment

40. Keys to Success Management buy-in and active support, preferably a management level team Resolving interpersonal conflict early Dealing effectively with “Baggage” Understanding and respecting personality and style differences Individual team members able and willing to work within the new team paradigm

41. Keys to Success Training in stages of team development Interpersonal skills training Developing meeting processes (ground rules, communication skills, conflict resolution and conflict escalation plans) Facilitation by skilled, professional Team Builders / Facilitators who maintain a neutral, objective stance

42. Keys to Success On-going support: training for new members, facilitation and team building for teams, whenever needed. Including the management team providing ombudsmen-like interventions on behalf of teams and escalating issues, when necessary.

43. Summary: Inter-Agency Partnering has made significant, positive changes in relationships and early, informal communication between regulators and regulated Dept. of Defense installations, and contractors. These improvements in relationships and communication have produced far stronger, more supportable technical decisions.

44. Summary: These decisions have resulted in dramatic and quantifiable savings in costs and time required for clean up. The higher level of trust and low level of conflict resulting from the partnering team experience and training has increased creativity, innovation and job satisfaction.

45. For more information: Gayle Waldron The Management Edge Phone: 727.588.9481 www.themanagementedge.com gwaldron@mgtedge.com