Exchanging memories and meaning in the resolution process

After a weekend of 50^th anniversary’s (President Kennedy’s assassination and the first episode of Dr Who) I recall in detail my own experience of 22 November 1963. My mum and dad had gone out to the cinema and left me and my twin brother and my older sister to get ourselves to bed as they would be late.  My sister was 17 and was very organised getting me and my brother in our pyjamas good and early. When we saw the announcement about President Kennedys’ assassination on our grainy black and white TV we didn’t know what to say or do. Eventually we wrote a brief note for mum and dad ‘Kennedy Assassinated’ on a scrap of paper and got on with watching what I believe was a comedy tv programme – Harry Worth ( He did a weird reflection routine in a shop window in the titles). Laughing just seemed wrong. It seemed we had lost a relative not just a politician.

We went up to bed a little late and I was startled and apparently very tearful and dozey when mum and dad came in from the cinema and woke us all up when they saw the note. They had not yet heard the news! That could not happen today with mobiles and the internet!

This story reminds me how important exchanging memories and meaning are in resolution processes. Memories often do cluster around significant events but can remain dormant until the event is recalled. It is these memories that give the event meaning. For mediators it is all about exploring narrative and exchanging meaning. Mediators will encounter at least two different versions of the same events. They do not need to decide which is true but unlock each narrative and get the parties to exchange meaning. What has happened in the conflict scenario becomes less important as what it means grows in significance.

With shared / common events a listener can get distracted by internally comparing his / her version with the speaker. This is where clean sheet listening comes in handy with each party to mediation in separate party sessions - putting aside your own experience, suspending judgement and using open questions to build narrative and understand what is important to the speaker.

With the parties together you may need a prolonged period of structured sharing and open exploration of what each party believes has happened and what it means. Resist and challenge requests to validate one version above the other. Eventually people may need to agree to differ about what significance the events have. The mediator’s role here is to move beyond the past and create a new understanding between the parties which will create a new future without disrespecting the events of the past.

By the way, although the moment may have passed please let us know what you were doing on the 21 or 22 November 1965? Sharing memories is great.

  

John Crawley

Premier League Managers’ tips on difficult conversations

Some good learning for all managers around difficult conversations has recently emerged from an unlikely source – football – better known for causing conflict than resolving it.

A new book ‘The manager - Inside the Minds of Football’s Leaders[1]’ has a section on ‘how to have tough conversations’ which has some useful material. Glen Hoddle an ex England manager knew that a tough conversation with the most famous England player – Paul Gascoigne was coming but he was determined to tackle the core issue and not avoid it.

‘I had to sit him down in the hotel one-to-one and I spoke to him with the facts. “Listen Paul, for a year I’ve been telling you if we get to the World Cup it could be magnificent for you. You’re at your peak – but you haven’t listened and now I have to make this decision.” It was a tough tough decision.’ Hoddle had signposted his intentions, kept in touch over a period of time and was crystal clear about the reasons for his decision.

David Moyes (now Manchester United manager) ‘takes the decision rationally then prepares emotionally’: ‘I remember the tough conversation when I changed the captain. I looked for the best way to do it, tried to be fair and did what I believed was right. It was a long thought process – I don’t make these decisions lightly. Then I worked out how to give him the message a way that would keep him completely engaged and playing well.”

Carlo Ancelotti (Real Madrid manager) emphasises the value and the difficulty of empathy:

‘I think you have to show the player your character, because in a group it is normal to have a better relationship with one and a different relationship with another. By showing your character you build trust – and in this way I was able to keep friendships even whn making tough and unpopular decisions.’

Clearly at the top of the current football tree management skills have advanced massively since Ron Atkinson – football pundit and ex manager of Manchester United:

‘They’ve picked their heads up of the off the ground and now they have a lot to carry on their shoulders.’

John Crawley (PRL general manager)

Commissioned recently by the ‘Manager’ (The Magazine for the League Managers Association) to write an article on having challenging conversations as it was requested by a number of managers.

---

[1] Carson, Mike, The manager. Inside the minds of football’s leaders. Bloomsbury 2013.

Effective conflict resolution essential to manage the risk of failure in strategic partnerships

Recent research - Organising HR for partnering success -–from the CIPD indicates that ‘the number of strategic partnerships (including joint ventures, outsourcing, strategic alliances, and public-private sector commissioning models) is increasing, yet the failure rate of these arrangements is between 60% and 70%¹.  Unsuccessful partnerships waste time and damage relationships, and ultimately therefore do not serve customers.’ 

 Dr. Jill Miller, CIPD research adviser and co-author of the research, said: "In partnering arrangements, HR finds itself not only responsible for the design and delivery of the people agenda in their own organisation, but also across the partnering network.’
"Managers' roles also become more intricate in partnering arrangements, often managing teams which include those who report directly to them as well as people employed by a partner organisation.’ 

Professor Paul Sparrow, the Director of the Centre for Performance-led HR and Professor of International Human Resource Management at Lancaster University Management School, acknowledges the risks of strategic partnership and emphasises the need for effective conflict resolution:
"The risks can be planned for much better - we have to think about the best ways to ensure co-ordination, communication, control, and capability across all the partners - and that means dealing with conflict and cultural problems."

We recommend that HR takes the lead in this vital role designing and implementing a conflict resolution strategy across all the partnership. Conflict in strategic partnerships is normal as complexity, diversity and cultural differences can put pressure on working relationships, communication and ultimately performance.

PRL’s ABC model of workplace conflict resolution (Designing Resolution Architecture and putting in place Resolution Building Blocks to encourage a conflict Resolution Climate) helps HR think and act in a structured way about conflict across strategic partnerships. Here are some steps to consider:

1) Think about the types of conversation and working relationships you need across the partnership and design in Resolution Architecture (policies, guidance and strategies emphasizing commitment to early, effective, efficient conflict resolution):
2) Vision and consolidate common ground and build commitment to collaborative, creative, constructive conflict resolution across diverse organizations and stakeholders
3) Consider what Resolution Building Blocks are already in place across the partnership (conflict resolution trained managers; mediation capacity; access to independent conflict facilitators / coaches; an effective and efficient approach for the investigation and adjudication of formal grievances). Identify gaps, pooling opportunities, increase resolution capacity, introduce resolution efficiency measures and audit and reduce the cost of conflict.
4) Aim to reduce risk and maximise the benefits of diversity by moving away from reactive or avoidance-based approaches to conflict across strategic partnerships. Build and maintain commitment to developing a conflict Resolution Climate which has a number of benefits to strategic partnerships:

·         Appropriately managed conflict produces win/win solutions, builds confidence and trust and enables issues to be raised and solved

·         Time is saved through early effective resolution and people can get back to work rather than being distracted / stressed by conflict

·         Understanding across cultural differences is encouraged and will strengthen working relationships

·         Fewer strategic partnerships will fail as an effective conflict resolution strategy will contribute assist significantly to the management of people risk.

For more on working with conflict across strategic partnerships contact John Crawley at john.crawley@peopleresolutions.com. Download the ABC guide here. 

John Crawley 

The good, bad and the UGLY - Resolving E-conflict

Communication in humans covers an amazing range from affirmation to aggression. We use words, gestures and conversations to build people up and tear them down. Technologically assisted communication can also be deployed across the whole human spectrum. It provides a new, novel arena and platform for conflict.

People Resolution’s investigation, mediation and coaching casework contains growing evidence of E-conflict - miscommunication, inappropriate behaviour, bullying and harassment conducted via email, social media, phone, internet forums, texts. There is also the latent, smouldering conflict cased by a lack of certainty and disagreements about some behavioural conventions regarding the use of technology, devices and on-line communication – a lack of agreed E-tiquette - for example:

·         Managers have told us that they find it distracting and disrespectful if other participants monitor or even answer their phones / emails during a meeting

·         People are asking to record a conversation on their phone for ‘future reference’ and there is no policy / guidance for this

·         Some people broadcast / copy others into emails for no apparent reason or bombard others with emails at times of day well outside normal working hours

This is a difficult are as I mentioned in a recent white paper - Part 2 of the ABC Guide to Conflict Resolution – Resolution Architecture.

·         E-tiquette is not sufficiently well developed or universal to enable easy agreement about what is OK for some people and not others

·         Many online modes of communication are all about speed of delivery and reply and therefore meaning may get lost or confused in the speed

·         Generational/cultural differences may cause significant disagreements about what is appropriate and what is not.

I have not found a lot of effective practice in this area. Most conflict resolution and mediation training and provision do not even cover this area. People Resolutions is currently researching the extent and nature of E-Conflict and what organisations are doing to update their conflict resolution practice in this area. Could you let us know?

What is your experience of E-conflict – what types of situations and challenges have you come across?

What measures have you put in place to encourage user friendly and socially constructive use of technology assisted communication – do you have guidance on E-tiquette?

What specific measures have you adopted for effect E-conflict Resolution e.g?

•        Use of on-line mediation, facilitation

•        Effective collection of electronic evidence for formal investigations

•        Manager training on preventing and managing e-conflict.

I have started this as a discussion in a number of Linked-In groups, or you can comment on this blog or email to set up a conversation with me on john.crawley@peopleresolutions.com

Climate change on a very local basis

I have been working recently on the concept of moving from a conflict reactive to a conflict proactive Resolution Climate[1]. The picture above illustrates that concept from storms to sun.

I have been applying it at an organisational level, but realised that is has significance and impact at micro level. Done well mediation can change the conflict climate between two individuals.

A couple of months ago I walked into a small room in central London followed by two people who walked with hesitant steps, avoiding eye contact and greyed with the signs of worry. They had signed up for a joint mediation session after some weeks of being unsure. One agreed because ‘he could not stand not looking their manager in the eye anymore.’ The manager came along because she thought it was her last chance to get her point of view across.

I had met them each four weeks ago and the mediation planned for the same day was paused. Each was relieved to have spoken and been listened too but were doubtful of their ability to go to the next step, lacking confidence about their colleagues intentions. A cloud of disappointment hung over the manager and a storm of triggered frustration sat just below the member of staff’s edgy surface.

The parties were brave to eventually agree to meet one another in a joint mediationsession. For them the risk was worth it.

The manager was patronisingly phlegmatic early on which caused simmering resentment and initially I had to pause the parties a lot, acknowledge, clarify and defuse the tension. As me moved into sustained direct dialogue each started opening up about context – their own lives, the things they kissed about the work environment and the pressure in what used to be a ‘soft’ job. They also started to get where the other one was coming from. A lot of gesturing, shrugging and some spicy language but now accompanies by engaging, more open body language and less personalised tone.

I could feel it and so could they. Their differences were present but less significant. They had found a way through the no-eye-contact fog and their real feelings and needs were coming out.

Two and a half hours after we entered the room we emerged with an agreement on all issues pertaining to work duties and communication issues. They were more upright, less hesitant and continued to talk as they headed off along the corridor. The shadowy ghosts who had arrived had been re-inhabited by real people – animated, solid and more together than they had been for some time. Just imagine the climate change when they arrived back with their team!

John Crawley

---

[1] See Resolution Climate – Part 4 ABC Guide to Workplace Conflict Resolution at http://www.peopleresolutions.com/resource/abc-guide-to-conflict

Conflict climate change and the global warming debate

Research purporting to confirm categorically that global warming is happening and is caused by humans has been released and fiercely debated in the UK on this warm Autumn weekend in 2013. To my inexpert eye the evidence is extremely persuasive and I would like my country to recognise that if we caused climate change then we have a responsibility to do something about it. I, like thousands of others, take a number of practical, ‘green’ measures – recycling, energy conservation, family carbon footprint reduction. I do not believe that this alone will have a global impact unless governments and commerce become more proactively and collaboratively focused on a solution. On a national and international scale the lack of political consensus around this debate has led to a rather reactive rather than pro-active approach.

This is mirrored to some degree when we look at workplace conflict climate. There is some evidence of ‘warming’ as the ER landscape has shifted away from collective to more individually based workplace disputes. Latent conflict (which simmers and causes stress, sickness and ultimately poor performance) also seems to have risen. The use of mediation on such situations has gone up by 14 per cent since 2008[1].

Successful mediation projects basically increase mediation capacity, then encourage individuals to make better resolution choices e.g. mediation before grievance where possible / appropriate. The indications are that this increases resolution rates and saves money, time and stress. Admirable, but just as with global warming individual acts will not achieve lasting change without some leadership and investment – is this enough. Many mediation services are fragile, underused and still battling against a reactive conflict avoidance or ‘battle it out’ culture. They only really wheel into action when a ‘case’ appears.

I am confident that there is more to come from mediation in many organisations. There are benefits in aspiring to a conflict climate change relevant to your organisation and people. I am currently exploring this area in Part 4 of the ABC Guide to Workplace Conflict Resolution – Resolution Climate[2].

I am taking an overview of:  

• What some of the features and benefits are of a conflict resolution climate
• How to identify and benchmark factors which enable existing or new mediation projects to achieve more lasting proactive changes towards a conflict resolution culture
• How different types of organisations may need more tailored / customised approaches in order to achieve conflict climate change.

I welcome and examples / case studies from anyone out there who has a project they believe contributes to conflict climate change in their organisation. Contact me at john.crawley@peopleresolutions.com.

John Crawley

---

[1] ACAS Workplace Snippets Mediation can help more organisations improve their workplace culture Sept 2013

[2] See http://www.peopleresolutions.com/resource/abc-guide-to-conflict

The fragility of mediation

Last week I ran a workshop for some senior, capable HR people from UHR (University Human Resources). The theme was ‘How to make the most of mediation in your workplace.’ We had discussed some really creative ideas about managing resistant parties and managing difficult behaviour – reframing, proportionate conflict facilitation, staying in the impartial mediator role under pressure. As ever, though an underlying theme of pessimism and frustration seeped in as people recounted examples of parties ‘who were just going through the motions’ or ‘wanted revenge or an apology and nothing less’ or ‘didn’t think anything was to do with them so went into denial.’

Of course these situations can be difficult to mediate, and may end up with an incomplete, ineffective or no resolution. These doubts may even prevent the parties going beyond separate meetings. But why does this seem to undermine user confidence in mediation disproportionately? Paul Latreille described this as the ‘fragility’ of mediation:

‘Attitudes towards mediation are in many instances only as positive as the last experience.’

Yes a mediation that does not work out a planned is difficult, but why do we focus on the ‘failures’, the difficult moments and unresolved conflicts. Most of my mediations and those of several hundred colleagues result in success in over 75% of cases (monitored and based on party and client feedback) – issues resolved, communication restored, working relationship improved.

I hope I was positive at my workshop, acknowledging that difficult situations leave their mark and damage confidence, but also encouraging bold, honest and accurate reflection of the many positives that mediation produces. Let’s get the success stories out there. Build confidence by recruiting, training and developing mediators to a high standard.

John Crawley is running our market leading Workplace Mediator 5 day course in London on Public Programme on 13, 14 and 15 November and 20, 21^st November.

John Crawley

The FAIRER workplace investigation process– preventing the rogues

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the Home Office is to introduce a new system of regulation for private investigators to protect the public from unscrupulous activity. The idea is to prevent rogue investigators unlawfully infringing on the privacy of individuals.

Workplace investigations are luckily not dogged by such rogue individuals but it does sometimes feel as though organisations do not put a high priority on supporting and quality assuring their investigators in what is a complex, risky role.

I’ve recently distilled People Resolutions’ vast experience of workplace investigation into the FAIRER model and I hope this will help those of you who are assigned to investigating workplace grievances, disciplinaries, bullying and harassment allegations and other matters.

This is how it works. First the FAIRER acronym captures the spirit of the central value of effective workplace investigation. Investigators need to be demonstrably fair – recognised as fair by a range of stakeholders, parties and their representatives in their management and recording of the process, in their verbal exchanges, treatment and respect of the parties, and in any written material they process or produce.

Fairness isn’t just in the head or heart. It involves preparation, following designated structures and principles and rigorous attention to detail. Policies give some guidance on process and many organisations do have maps, templates and model documents to help investigators act consistently across a range of situations with a range of stressed, demanding parties often with polarised perceptions.

The structure of thinking and working provided by the FAIRER model supplements and dovetails well with workplace policies and procedures.  

F- Find out – what is to be investigated and agree the terms of reference (investigation plan), what are the issues and allegations, what is the evidence, what happened and what can help understand and assess what happened

A– Analyse – apply objective, impartial, rational consideration to reflect and begin to structure what you have and begin to weigh it up against the allegations

I – bring Insight – consider the weight, type of evidence, levels of proof required, utilise external guidance, definitions, seek more information and clarification if required

R- Report – pull together evidence, conclusions, findings* in a detailed, structured report according to policy requirements and the terms of reference

E – Evaluate - explain and get feedback on the report and findings / recommendations with key parties, check in with commissioning person for feedback as appropriate

R - Reflect on learning emerging from the investigation and disseminate as appropriate.

John Crawley

*If Required 

Conflict weariness – that very human trait

Like doctors mediators can be forgiven for developing an overly negative view of life and of people. The overwhelming majority of patients are unwell. Doctors do very little work with the healthy. Life’s infections and afflictions dominate their perspective. Most doctors are extremely busy. The unwell are ever-present. Mediators too see people who are in a painful place in their life or work. This is not a reducing phenomenon. Although resolution provides a soothing palliative for the mediator and the parties, I am frequently shocked by the ease with which people disagree and fight and the range of issues which provoke them.

Time and time again unresolved conflicts are concealed, suppressed or ignored. Disputants in the meantime download frustration, manipulation, aggression and oppression on anyone who happens to be around. Some relish conflict, others are defeated by it. Conflict bleeds outwards and has catastrophic effects on capability and performance. Most UK managers feel ill equipped to manage conflict. Workers in the UK are certainly more willing and able to raise issues and assert their rights often across boundaries of hierarchy and status. Significant amounts of time are consumed as managers are confronted with ‘people problems’ – grievances, disputes and negative behaviour.

Human conflict remains a continuing challenge for many of us. It can weigh us down. Like pheasants in the country or pigeons in town evolution does not seem to have improved our reaction to dangerous and risky situations. Pigeons or pheasants run at cars or freeze. Humans panic in the face of conflict, react aggressively or become completely immobilized by it. Dysfunctional behaviour is normal when conflict happens. If you feel incapable of saying what you need during a dispute you are not weak or unwell. People say or do unexpected things when affected by the emotion and disequilibrium of conflict.

I have recently been writing about conflict resolution again and at least that has forced me to remember resolution as well as conflict. I have reconfigured my conflict weariness into something more constructive - resolution readiness. If conflict is normal then resolution must figure at least as often as protracted disagreement. We humans are so good at selectively remembering the bad stuff even when surrounded by positive, healthy memories. Read all about resolution readiness for organisations in the ABC Guide to Conflict Resolution and re-energise your approach to conflict.

John Crawley

 

Conversations that improve everybody’s lives

It is a shame that mediators across different sectors do not often meet and exchange tips very often because there is a lot we can learn from one another. I recently ran a three day mediation training course with Good Relations Oldham who came into being after the Oldham Riots. On their web site they state that their aim is ‘To help build good relations between people, communities and organisations. Independence and impartiality are our guiding principles.’ GRO ‘offers conflict resolution and mediation services and training’ and claims that ‘we can help you develop insight that will change the way you look at conflict forever.’

A team of dedicated, diverse volunteers have trained over 200 people in mediation and conflict resolution skills and also resolved some difficult community issues. When I met and worked with the team, I was really impressed by how each person had a distinctive voice and had chosen to put considerable personal resources into relationship building for a range of personal, cultural and social reasons. This was not a career trip or qualification hunt but an act of conviction.

The GRO practitioners also had a range of stories, anecdotes and snapshots about their work, the people they have trained and the people they work with. Samples of this appear on a recent video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmlvss4_trE.

GRO has created a powerful resource achieving much more than just an improvement of case resolution rates. When workplace mediators finish their training they are often equally inspired by what they have learned about themselves, and the positive nature of mediation. Hopefully they retain and develop their optimism as they work through their cases. Many organisations leave it there and do not make the most of what they have created.

What I learned from GRO is that it is possible to go beyond casework and offer much more than just an alternative to more formal, legal approaches to conflict resolution. This dedicated group has developed beyond mediation casework to also provide training, conflict coaching, community building and group facilitation. This is a model that I believe could suit many workplaces. Just imagine the spreading the skills and self-awareness that build good relations and encourage challenging ‘conversations that improve everybody’s lives.’

See more about ‘going beyond casework in the up and coming ABC Guide to WorkplaceConflict Resolution – Part 2 Resolution Architecture.

John Crawley