Sometimes employers are so offended by a grievance or an EEOC complaint that they believe if they were to sit down and negotiate with the employee, they’d be selling their souls. Sometimes employees feel like entering into a negotiation with an employer who believes they have done nothing wrong would not only be futile but would increase their pain. And then there is that co-worker that has it in for you, why in the world would you sit down at a negotiating table with someone like that?

Principles drive many of us. When we’re sure we’re right about something, the very word “negotiation” seems like a dirty word. We might feel like the other side is only out to get us. If you’re an employer, you might think that the employee is just a gold digger, and is looking only to see how much money they can get. If you’re an employee you might feel that your employer is abusive and needs to be exposed in a public forum.

But what if you’re wrong? What if the employee has a genuine grievance that you’ve just failed to see? What if your boss finally understood what you were trying to say? What if there is a solution out there that neither of you had thought of previously?  In mediation, we call this “suspending judgment”.  It doesn’t mean that the judgment isn’t there, it means putting it aside for now and seeing if you attribute positive intent to the other side whether that might make a difference in the outcome.

Deciding that the other side is evil is sometimes our minds way of giving up. It might seem that there is no other explanation for the fact that our own unassisted efforts at negotiation have failed. But if two heads are better than one, three might be better yet. By involving a third party neutral, there is a chance not only for new creative solutions to arise, but a chance that a new third way of looking at the communication dynamics could come about.

If you are facing what seems like an intractable conflict in the workplace, give me a call. You might be surprised to find that its possible to replace those horns and tail with a workable solution and a better working relationship.

Is it realistic to expect an apology in a workplace dispute? Will either side ever be willing to admit wrong and would they dare to do so under the threat of a lawsuit or formal complaint? Realistic fears, but not an unrealistic possibility.

Few people will admit, without reservation, that the other person is one hundred percent right, but this still leaves room for a portion of your actions which you do regret. Any time there is a dispute that has resulted in each side retreating to their corners, unable to work it through, and headed for or resulting in, the filing of complaints or lawsuits, there has been a failure somewhere.  More likely than not there have been multiple failures along the line.  With the help of a mediator, each side can look at their own actions and when they do so sincerely, the possibility of an apology can emerge.

In a recent mediation, the attorney representing the employer opened his remarks with an apology to the employee.  After hearing what the employee had to say, he said that he was the attorney hired to protect the company, but that even so, he heard and understood the pain the company’s actions had caused this employee.  He apologized for it getting so far that the employee felt he had to file a lawsuit to get their attention and he apologized that the company had not worked with the complainant to find a resolution sooner.  (The employee had been rebuffed in his attempts to resolve the matter internally.) He told the complainant that the company was sincere in its desire to find resolution and encouraged the employee to tell him more about what had happened from his perspective.  Although the employee would have liked to have heard a complete apology for all of the company’s actions, the apology for the procedural frustrations the employee had experienced was appreciated, negotiations were commenced and the matter settled to the satisfaction of both sides.

Apologies from employees are powerful as well. “I realize now that I could have handled it differently” has been the turning point in more than one mediation in the workplace and resulted in resolutions both sides could accept.

An employer’s apology, or an employee’s, when not heartfelt, will go nowhere.  The power of an apology lies in its sincerity and in its motivation.  It cannot be given simply because it will “soften” the other side.  A false apology is easily revealed and will do more harm than good.  But a sincere apology given from the heart regarding actions that might have been different is what makes mediation different from litigation and is what opens doors to creative resolution that works for both sides.  A mediator can help find the opportunities for sincere apologies and help the parties hear and acknowledge each other.  By using the mediator as a sounding board and a coach, the opportunity for “sorry” need not go awry.

Conflicts are simply problems that are not yet solved and what better way to approach a problem than   with the creativity of a system known as the “Six Thinking Hats”.  The hats are the brainchild of Dr. Edward de Bono and they are the subject of his book by the same name.  The method is premised on the idea that the brain thinks in a number of distinct ways which can be analyzed and accessed purposely for effective problem solving.   Both groups and individuals can use the system.  The six hats are each associated with a color and a way of thinking about a problem.

The white hat is used to think about what facts, figures and other information are needed in order to gain understanding.   Questions asked by the white hat wearer might include :  “What facts do we need to know in order to make a decision?”

The red hat is worn by those who use their instincts to think about problems.  It includes an emotional reaction to the situation.  When wearing the red hat, the questions might include “What is my (our) gut feeling about this?”

The green hat is used to find creative new ideas.  With the green hat on, the questions include “What complete, new, innovative ideas can we think of?”  By going way outside our comfort zone, but not committing to any action, you can sometimes find that the “wild idea” can be tweaked into a reasonable one.

The yellow hat is used to look at the situation from the most positive aspect possible.  When the yellow hat is worn, the problem is seen as an opportunity and the questions asked might be “What would be the best possible outcome?”

The blue hat is used to think of the big picture.  It is the master hat that uses an overarching thinking process.  When the blue hat is worn, the question might be: “How can we best summarize where we’ve been, where we are and where we’re going?”

Finally, the black hat is used to discover the potential risks and downsides and is useful to determine solutions that are the most practical and likely to work.  The black hat wearer might ask: “What happens if that idea does not work?”

The visual imagery of putting on one color hat after another is fun and can lighten the problem solving for the heaviest, most entrenched problems we encounter.  The hats need not be worn in any particular order, just as long as each “gets its turn.” A trained mediator or facilitator from ACDRS can help guide you through the process and turn problems into solutions.  Give us a call to learn more!

Your job should have been mine!

Bob got the supervisor job that June applied for and she resents it.  She has way more years of experience and has even been working in the department longer than he.  But he’s the one they picked because of his fancy college degree and she figures she’ll just have to live with it.  That is, until he started criticizing her work and asking what she’s doing all day.  That is more than she can take.  He should know that she knows what she’s doing and that she doesn’t need someone to hold her hand.  When she made that clear to him, what did he do, but tell her—by email—that he expected written reports once a week on the status of her projects!  That’s when she decided to go to the Human Resources Department, there is still time to file that age and sex discrimination complaint she’d been thinking about.

He was excited to get the supervisor job.  He’d worked hard and knew he deserved it.  He fit all the qualifications to the letter, including the college degree requirement that they’d recently appended to these supervisor positions.  However, the workgroup is an unruly one to manage.  Especially one employee who he knows resents the fact that he was chosen over her.   She fights him at every turn.  She won’t give him a bit of information about what she’s doing and when he tries to ask, she’s rude and disrespectful.  His own boss thinks that this employee needs to be disciplined, especially since some of this behavior was there even before he obtained the supervisor position, and that giving her a performance improvement plan would be the first place to start.  He was hoping that just getting daily reports from her in writing would solve the problem.

Is there any hope for these two fictional characters?  Are they headed only for internal complaint processes, long drawn out administrative processes,  grievances and/or litigation?  Fortunately, this is exactly the kind of case that is perfect for mediation and is representative of one kind of mediation I do on a regular basis.  Similar cases to this one have resulted in each side gaining an appreciation of the other’s perspective.  Through mediation, parties such as these are able to clear up misunderstandings, understand different communication styles, identify what their real needs are and work out a plan so each can get their needs met.  In cases such as this one, it isn’t unusual to see one side eventually apologizing to the other.  Sometimes both find that they have something to apologize about.  Usually each side finds that once they’ve been able to tell a neutral third party who listens with empathy and acknowledges where they are coming from, that it’s easier to think more rationally about the situation, that they can be braver about talking to the other person and that their own wisdom about how to handle the situation begins to emerge where it had previously been blocked by strong emotions.

This is why mediation is catching on as an alternative way to handle situations that otherwise resulted in adversarial complaints and processes.  Mediation works to preserve relationships where other processes often destroy them.  Mediation allows for creative resolutions.  In the case above, the supervisor and employee might end up deciding on a time to meet face to face to talk about work assignments and progress, one side might take some steps towards trusting the other to do the right thing without so much supervision and the other might be more forthcoming with information on a voluntary basis.  Once the two sides are no longer facing each other in confrontation they might begin to sit side by side and collaborate on best working practices.  If you or someone you know is stuck in a dispute that seems intractable and headed for disaster, give mediation a try and join those who successfully found not only accord amongst them, but smoothed the way for true collaboration.

• Be centered even in the fire.
• Ground yourself and remember that fighting fire with fire only leaves ashes.
• Try to look at the situation objectively.  Imagine yourself stepping out of your body and just observing what is going on.  This little bit of distance might help you stay open and relaxed.
• Become curious.  Cultivate an attitude of discovery.
• Listen attentively, don’t interrupt except to acknowledge.
• Suspend judgment not only of yourself but of the other person.

As an example of following the fire and effectively managing the situation, Kristen Barker of the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center in Cincinnati, Ohio relates this experience at a Town Hall meeting about health care in her area:

“A few minutes into the town hall the heckling began. Our experiences were interesting. Originally, there were six people in the row behind me shouting such things as ‘Obamacare is going to kill you’ , ‘We have the best healthcare in the world’ , ‘Liars’, ‘Tort Reform’ , ‘I won’t pay for your healthcare’ and so on.

When the shouting became louder, more constant and distracting I made a decision that engaging them would probably be less distracting for the majority of people in the audience. I began turning around, periodically paraphrasing and periodically asking them questions such as ‘You sound really frightened about this healthcare reform possibility. What scares you . . .’

The woman immediately behind me said things like  ‘You are so naïve’, ‘you don’t have a brain cell in your head’, ‘We don’t even breathe the same air. I can’t talk to you.’  Others said angrily and insistently, ‘The show is in front. Turn around’.

I took a breath and kept at it. The mocking of me continued. Eventually, a man responded  to my question about what he wanted to see in terms of our health care. When I paraphrased his answer, he said ‘Exactly.’ His expression softened, he lowered his voice and stopped shouting.”

Learning  how to effectively manage the conflict in your life takes courage and practice.  If you’d like to work with an experienced conflict resolver on conflict that is particularly troubling  in your personal or work life, give me a call and ask about my services as a conflict coach.  I will teach you new skills and give you guidance as you practice.  Remember also that ACDRS has many training programs aimed at reducing and managing the level of conflict in the workplace.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Employee X was a little reluctant to mediate with Employee Y.  Their problems in the workplace dated back several months now and their employer really wanted them to come to a resolution.  However, one employee had a reputation for being less than truthful and the other was afraid of lies and manipulation.

How could the mediation be a success?  What do you do when you’re trying to solve a problem but you suspect the other side is lying to you?   Try using one or more of the tips below to stay the course and achieve a win-win solution to your issues.

1.     Be scrupulously honest yourself.  You can’t be deceptive and still expect honesty from the other side.  Are you shading anything?  Even a little?  Our society encourages lying, especially in negotiations. If you want honesty, cultivate your own reputation for honesty.

2.      Ask questions.  Whenever you suspect someone is lying, probe for more information in a non-judgmental way.  Perhaps you heard it wrong or misunderstood what they were trying to say.  Ask them to elaborate and tell you more.  Paraphrase what they said and ask if you got it right. Help the other person save face if in fact they were trying to mislead you. Say something like, “I’m wondering if there is something you don’t want to tell me, what can I say so that we feel comfortable being completely straight with each other”.

3.      Ask for documentation.  Don’t be afraid to ask for the figures.  “Is there anything you can show me to back up what you are saying?”

4.      Build in a back up plan. If you’re afraid that someone will fail to follow through with a commitment despite what they say, spell out what will happen should that occur.  ”If party x fails to pay by specified date, interest shall accrue at the rate of y%.”

5.      Control your emotions.  It’s easy to get angry when you think someone is lying to you or about you.  Take a deep breath, be firm and speak only the truth back.  Don’t lose your composure or your tongue.

6.      Let go of different viewpoints of the past.  Sometimes two people will have very different perspectives on what has occurred.  Just because someone sees it differently or perceived an event differently, doesn’t mean that they are lying or that they won’t follow through with their commitments.  Concentrate on the future, what needs to happen from here on out and how you can keep the problem from recurring.

7.       Use the power of neutrality.  Use your mediator and talk to them about your suspicions.  Because the mediator is neutral and has no stake in the dispute, he or she may have more success probing the other side without putting them on the defensive.  The mediator is also likely to have insight into what is happening and can ensure any agreements are durable and made in good faith.

©ACDRS 12/2009

“Putting harmony and productivity back into the workplace”

According to Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1972), there are 5 different conflict styles.  They are:  avoidance, competition, compromise, accommodation and collaboration.  Each of us has a primary style we prefer to use.  Savvy conflict resolvers know how to use all five and in what situations it will get the best results.

The avoiding style is when you choose to avoid the conflict as a way of dealing with it.  The goal may be to delay the conflict until it goes away.  It is appropriate when the subject matter is of low importance and either there is no relationship with the other side or it isn’t important to preserve it.  Sometimes avoiding a conflict and confronting it later is wise because tensions may reduce with time.   The danger of conflict avoidance and when it is inappropriate is that tensions could also build and escalate over time as the problem worsens and spreads.

The competing style is when you stress your position over other points of view.  It is also known as “hard bargaining”.  The goal is to win.  This style is appropriate when a quick decision needs to be made, when the issue is important or the stakes are high, and it won’t damage relationships or the issue is more important than the relationship.  People in authority sometimes find themselves needing to use this style.  The danger in the competing style is that it can lead to lack of feedback and it can increase tensions and resentment.

The compromising style is the classic “give a little, take a little” or split the difference.  It is most appropriate when the parties are equally powerful and equally committed to opposing views.  It is appropriate when the stakes are not so high that you can’t give up part of what you want.  The danger in the compromising style is that it can lead to a loss of long term goals and can create cynicism in the relationship if overused.

The accommodating style is when you forego your concerns in order to meet the concerns of others.  It is appropriate when the relationship concerns are primary and the stakes are not that high.  Sometimes it is used when it is necessary to obey an authority even though you disagree or when you want to defer to another’s judgment.  The danger in the accommodating style is that you don’t get what you need and resentment builds up over time.

The collaborating style is one of the most underused styles in our culture.  A person who prefers this style is looking for a win-win solution.  The goal is to combine insights to reach a richer understanding and a solution that is broad enough to satisfy both parties.  The danger of overusing the collaborating style is that it can lead to spending too much time on trivial matters and to cynicism and frustration when a “quick” solution is not found.  It is best used when the stakes are high and preserving the relationship is of high importance.

Knowing when to use what style is not easy and that is why most of us have a preferred style, and tend to stick with it even when it doesn’t yield the best results.  Having the help of a third party mediator or receiving training in the different styles and an opportunity to practice them are both ways you can increase your ability to be an “omni-style” conflict resolver.   ACDRS provides not only mediation but training customized to your workplace which includes administering assessments designed to help you discover your conflict style.  Call or email for more details.

Most in-house comprehensive programs involve some kind of multi-step process.  Usually the first step involves speaking directly to the person with whom they are in conflict and engaging in negotiation.  Some organizations provide training on how to more effectively engage in such a conversation, others just encourage the interaction or an “open-door” policy.    The next step involves mediation and using in-house mediators or hiring a private outside mediator.  The final step is usually binding arbitration.  Some companies also employ a peer review process which may consist of a combination of managers and employees.

The types of disputes that end up in mediation vary broadly.  Most organizations find that mediation of their EEO complaints is an effective first step which not only enhances the communication between the parties but avoids expensive litigation.  Other organizations have broadened their use of mediation to include union grievances, disputes between employees that are not necessarily discrimination related and disputes between managers.  Some even offer mediation when there is a dispute with their customers.

According to the Harvard Negotiation Law Review in an online article in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, “In-house ADR programs and policies, specifically mediation, enhance corporations’ business relationships, save valuable time, and offer significant cost savings in comparison to traditional litigation… In the past few years, companies have been recognizing this value and implementing programs to take advantage of it. Many companies have formed Conflict Management Programs or Corporate ADR Programs that make use of mediation; some exclusively incorporate mediation.”

Many organizations find they can start small, by instituting a program as a pilot in one division or function.  Others simply let their managers know they can hire outside mediators on an ad hoc basis as the need arises.  However large or small, it is never been a better time to try some type of early dispute resolution in order to realize the costs such programs can give.  If you are interested in starting such a program or you have a dispute that could be headed to litigation if not resolved, call ACDRS today to discuss your needs and learn how you too can save money, heartache and time.

When dealing with troublesome behavior in others, there are some obvious options: 1) get the person fired, 2) let it go, ignore them, or 3) quit or transfer someplace else. Each of these options carries its own set of troubles. It’s not easy to fire someone, nor is it easy to convince someone else to do so. If you try to ignore what’s going on, it may take an emotional toll on you as resentments build up. And in this economy, leaving a present position is usually not an option and even if it is, there are costs both monetary and emotional.

There is another way, but it involves courage and trust. That way is to hold a learning conversation with the person. It is called a learning conversation because the object is for both people to learn more about the other. You both walk away with new insights, perspectives, and oftentimes, new behaviors. The conversation can be conducted one on one, or with a neutral third person facilitator or mediator.

In a learning conversation, the issue is separated out from the relationship, but both are equally important. If there is an issue to be resolved, decide together how to define the issue. Is the report late? Is it defective in some way? Is there a persistent issue in the workplace that needs to be addressed and is not getting addressed? These are some of the issues that cause difficult behaviors between people. So where do you start?

Start with “I messages” such as “I saw, heard, or observed”. Then describe your feelings and make a request for a different behavior. Try to discover the other person’s interests and try to identify their needs. Use active listening including both feelings and facts. Put yourself in their shoes and be prepared to see it differently. Doing this will require energy and might mean that you have to keep your own emotions in check. Still, remember that to struggle to understand another person who is different than you, is natural and it has value. Try to be open, and curious. Remember that every negative personality trait has its positive and valuable sides.

In my practice as a mediator, I have, more often than not, mediated cases between workers where one person started out putting the other in a “difficult person” box. Through a learning conversation, each discovered the needs of the other. One person may have pressures they are not dealing with in a very productive way. The other may not feel acknowledged, valued or understood.

Recognize your own vulnerability to pressure and your own needs for acknowledgment. Ask questions and problem solve for how you can meet each other’s needs. Let the other person know you value them as a person. Break the self-fulfilling cycle of passivity, blaming, and powerlessness by insisting on a problem solving approach.

Dealing with difficult behaviors in other people (and even ourselves) requires courage, trust and patience. When this becomes difficult to do, engage a third person trained in facilitative mediation. The rewards will come as the tension decreases in the workplace.

How many Baby Boomers and yes, maybe even some of you older Gen Xer’s, grew up in a world where your worth was measured by the grades you got in school and by whether or not you were in the “in crowd”. It was hard to ever be “good enough”.

So, many of us, when we had our own kids, decided that what they really needed was to feel good about themselves and to be confident that they could take on the world and be anything they wanted to be. This was a laudable idea but it seemed to take on a life of its own. Self-esteem became the big buzz word. Everything anyone did for our children was with their fragile self-esteem in mind. Soccer teams for tots emphasized the specialness of every child. Everyone got a trophy at the end of the year, not just those who showed athletic promise. Children were taught that they should love themselves and that by doing so, they would learn to love others.

The backlash hit when many of these children translated the emphasis on self-esteem into a tendency to put themselves first even as they got older and entered the workforce. Although their strength may be their confidence and their ability to assert themselves, their weakness is sometimes overconfidence and a tendency to step on toes. In addition they want what they want and they want it now. Their values clash with the values of the older generation. This is not to say that all Gen Y’ers hold the same values just as all Baby Boomers don’t hold the same values. But it does highlight the differences in our upbringing and may help in our understanding of those differences when they cause conflict in the workplace.

When conflict occurs, a mediator can be the catalyst for helping the parties gain understanding and to learn to respect each others differences and make use of our differing strengths. It might not seem to make sense at first. Why would a Baby Boomer supervisor enter into mediation with his Gen Y subordinate? What is there to negotiate?

The answer is plenty. I have mediated lots of cases between supervisors and subordinates. The employee has incentive to understand what he or she needs to do and say to keep their job or to stop the constant oversight, also known as micro-management. The supervisor or employer, usually doesn’t want to start down a road of discipline. They simply want the employee to understand what their expectations are and to follow them.

By using a third party mediator, both sides can learn to understand and respect the needs of the other. Some times this is called a facilitated discussion to alleviate the expectation that the process will involve some sort of compromise. If you know someone who is not seeing eye to eye with their co-worker, boss or subordinate, tell them to try mediation.