The Washington Post
Managing Organizations, Prof. Frances J. Milliken
New York University EMBA, J05
April 26, 2003
Eyal Hillman
David Wertheimer
Yin Yeap

The Washington Post
The conflict between the Washington Post’s management and the pressmen exposed the challenges, issues and difficulties associated with adapting to changes in internal and external environments. Business needs were about to cause significant changes to the existing power structure between the Post’s management and the newspaper’s production department.
Publisher Katherine Graham’s course of action needed to reflect a clear understanding of the historical, current and future power relationships between management and labor. She had to balance the need for improving organizational effectiveness with the subsequent risks of changing the current power status quo.
Developing Power and Conflict
The pressmen conflict stemmed from management’s attempt to realign the organization with current business and operational requirements. Following years of union victories that preserved growth trends for the Washington Post, new production methods and financial conditions forced management to reevaluate its position toward the union’s latest demands.
The Post’s organizational effectiveness was decreasing due to a steady rise in the cost base of the production department, whose culture revolved around a poor work ethic and nearblackmail negotiations rather then operational excellence. The pressmen's resistant nature ignored external changes, such as the availability of new production technology and a looming recession, that would otherwise cause change and growth in the union. The conflict reflected the underlying issues inherent to the Post’s organizational power structure. A high degree of differentiation existed between the professional management group and the pressmen, especially newer hires, who were far more militant than the Post’s long-term employees. This difference in orientation, background and skills amplified the incompatibility of the two groups’ goals. Management was trying to restructure production costs and quality while the pressmen were trying to hold onto a highly favorable labor contract.
2

The Washington Post
The apparent cultural differences highlighted the lack of managerial control over the production department. Facing diminishing economic results, management aimed to deploy a prospector strategy in order to improve results; however, the lack of control makes it impossible for management to implement even a reactor strategy without getting into a power battle.
Due to their control of the production process, craft unions historically possessed a tremendous amount of power in their relationships with management. Production was a critical task for the newspaper that required highly skilled labor and represented the largest portion of the Washington Post's operating costs. The time-sensitive nature of a daily newspaper reinforced the need to publish continually. The craft unions’ activities were long perceived as non-substitutable, which led to the pressmen’s strong bargaining position.
Management routinely accommodated the unions’ demands to keep the newspaper running.
In time, management lost its authority in the vertical hierarchy, as it lacked the power to negotiate or manage the labor base. The newspaper had no means to promote efficiency and stability.
The choice of leadership within both groups underscored each group’s conflicting goals and priorities. The appointment of John Prescott and Lawrence Wallace reflected management’s emphasis on labor relations and the need to improve their power situation. Both men, and subsequently Mark Meagher, took an aggressive approach to labor contract negotiations.
The rise of James Dugan to “dominant union leader” demonstrated how militant and aggressive the unions would become in order to maintain their power base. Dugan’s focus on defending the pressmen’s rights was a major factor of the final standoff, as his investment in the status quo did not lend itself to a peaceful transition to any new structure.
Impact Within and Between Groups
The shaky power relationship between management and the unions was unsustainable. As the newspaper became unable to grow revenues to keep pace with rising production costs and the increased pressures of public ownership, management began maneuvering to shift the
3

The Washington Post power balance into its favor. The introduction of cold-type technology and Project X gave management “the capacity to print a newspaper without craft union labor.” Labor issues from 1973 prompted management’s attempts to leverage this capacity and to break the dependency on the unions. When the 1975 strike set in, management’s ability to produce a daily paper for nine weeks demonstrated its ability to satisfy its consumer requirements through strategic contingencies, all while reducing its union dependency. The Pressman’s advocacy of a closed system, coupled with their resistance to negotiations, led to a management victory in the power struggle when the Newspaper Guild voted against honoring the picket lines.
The conflict increased each group’s resolve. The management group and nonunion employees—including the crucial Newspaper Guild—demonstrated great “espirit de corps” that was further fueled by the pressmen’s acts of vandalism. The involvement and commitment in continuing to publish the paper with only a fourth of staff—many of whom slept in the office, working double jobs—demonstrated a tremendous clan culture. The remaining staff went to extraordinary lengths to support the Post, and their activities demonstrated how the conflict created an emphasis on performance and an enhanced sense of urgency. The labor action, meanwhile, typified group cohesiveness within the unionized group, as a strike would have been most effective if all employees refused to cross the picket line.
Conversely, the conflict led to a hardened “we-they” attitude between the two groups, notably among the pressmen. The two were unable to make any progress through several rounds of negotiations, as neither side was willing to make any concessions. The ensuing violence against the foreman and the damage done to the pressroom demonstrated how the pressmen already perceived management as “the enemy.” Communication between the two groups was limited to formal negotiations, rather than open dialogue between groups with common interests.
4

The Washington Post
What Now?
Katherine Graham and her management group should try to buy time by hiring temporary help (Option 2). However, the Post should set clear time limits on its delivery of a final offer and how long the dispute could continue. Graham had indicated several times that she preferred to negotiate a settlement than “bust the pressmen’s union.” This option extends management’s ability to leverage its best bargaining chip: the ability to produce the paper at near-capacity without union labor. Extending the time frame will allow the pressmen and other unions to realize that their power base has eroded, and that they are no longer negotiating from the superior position. Given that the printers’ union and the Newspaper
Guild have been able to find a solution and work with management, pressure on the pressmen from the other unionized labor groups to find a compromise will increase. Setting a clear time limit will demonstrate that management is not going to capitulate to the pressmen’s terms. The Washington Post is ready to break from historical practices to better align their organization with the current strategic contingencies, and it should resist the strong-armed tactics of the pressmen’s union. Given that other papers have become non-unionized companies, the Post has a credible threat to hold over the pressmen.
5