Strategic planning, the case method and PATCO
13/Jan/2007 19:29
One of the
main reasons I was interested in attending the
Harvard Trade Union Program was to experience
first-hand the sessions on strategic choices and
planning for unions. These sessions are led by David
Weil, a professor of economics at Boston University’s
School of Management who has researched the strategic
planning tools commonly used by government, business
and the non-profit sector, and explored how they can
be adapted and used in a labour union
environment.
In his
book, Turning the Tide: Strategic Planning
for Labour unions, Weil "eschews
blanket remedies" for solving the enormous
challenges facing the labour movement. Instead he
"provides tools for evaluating the environmental
context of strategic decisions faced by labor
unions and for designing strategies for action.”
Weil identifies the major components of strategic planning as:
1. Analyzing the external and internal environment
2. Setting priorities
3. Assessing present resource allocation
4. Evaluating the ability of present union organizational structures to achieve new priorities
5. Analyzing the success of chosen strategies at achieving initial objectives.
Weil takes these components, all of which are commonly advanced by strategic planners, and explores how they can be adapted to take into account the unique democratic nature of unions. In Weil’s words: “Undertaking each of these steps in a labor union requires an approach specific to the objectives, orientation, and democratic nature of labor unions. Despite these unique aspects of strategic choice in labor organizations, techniques for systematically planning can be adapted from tools developed over time in private, public and non profit organizations.” But, Weil warns, "strategic choices that are not adequately attuned to environmental realities, or that fail to accomplish key objectives, will undermine the union in the long run."
(I will report further in a future posting on David Weil's strategic choices framework and how he distinguishes it from strategic planning.)
This past week in the Harvard program, David Weil introduced the topic of strategic planning (as he does in his book) with a study of the PATCO strike. For those who are too young (or getting too old) to remember, this was the 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization that was crushed by US President Ronald Reagan when he fired 12,000 controllers. The PATCO case is characterized often either as (1) a masterful anti-union strategy by the Reagan administration, (2) an example of a union blowing it by being too militant, or (3) a classic drama with an inevitable tragic conclusion: like a train headed towards a break in the line but nothing can be done to avoid the crash.
Our task as students in this class was not to debate where we stand with respect to these three interpretations. Rather, we were asked to think through the situation by putting ourselves in the shoes, first of the White House, then those of PATCO President Robert Poli. What were the circumstances that led to the contract dispute; why might the White House have done what it did; what was the thinking of the union; what objective and subjective conditions influenced the outcome; were there alternative courses of action that could have been taken; if so why might they have been rejected; and so forth. Through the case method, we were challenged to analyze the internal and external environment and relate it to the various strategies that came into play.
An interesting exercise. I’ll try to get permission to post the case notes on this blog—that way, you can do the exercise yourselves and use the blog's "comment" feature to share your thoughts.
Weil identifies the major components of strategic planning as:
1. Analyzing the external and internal environment
2. Setting priorities
3. Assessing present resource allocation
4. Evaluating the ability of present union organizational structures to achieve new priorities
5. Analyzing the success of chosen strategies at achieving initial objectives.
Weil takes these components, all of which are commonly advanced by strategic planners, and explores how they can be adapted to take into account the unique democratic nature of unions. In Weil’s words: “Undertaking each of these steps in a labor union requires an approach specific to the objectives, orientation, and democratic nature of labor unions. Despite these unique aspects of strategic choice in labor organizations, techniques for systematically planning can be adapted from tools developed over time in private, public and non profit organizations.” But, Weil warns, "strategic choices that are not adequately attuned to environmental realities, or that fail to accomplish key objectives, will undermine the union in the long run."
(I will report further in a future posting on David Weil's strategic choices framework and how he distinguishes it from strategic planning.)
This past week in the Harvard program, David Weil introduced the topic of strategic planning (as he does in his book) with a study of the PATCO strike. For those who are too young (or getting too old) to remember, this was the 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization that was crushed by US President Ronald Reagan when he fired 12,000 controllers. The PATCO case is characterized often either as (1) a masterful anti-union strategy by the Reagan administration, (2) an example of a union blowing it by being too militant, or (3) a classic drama with an inevitable tragic conclusion: like a train headed towards a break in the line but nothing can be done to avoid the crash.
Our task as students in this class was not to debate where we stand with respect to these three interpretations. Rather, we were asked to think through the situation by putting ourselves in the shoes, first of the White House, then those of PATCO President Robert Poli. What were the circumstances that led to the contract dispute; why might the White House have done what it did; what was the thinking of the union; what objective and subjective conditions influenced the outcome; were there alternative courses of action that could have been taken; if so why might they have been rejected; and so forth. Through the case method, we were challenged to analyze the internal and external environment and relate it to the various strategies that came into play.
An interesting exercise. I’ll try to get permission to post the case notes on this blog—that way, you can do the exercise yourselves and use the blog's "comment" feature to share your thoughts.
|