All female conflicts at work perceived as more negative – implications for workplace mediators and investigators

If you are about to mediate or investigate an all-female conflict at work, watch out for a tendency to view it harshly. New research from the University of British Columbia's business school suggests men and women perceive conflict between two women co-workers as being more harmful and doing more irreparable damage than conflicts between men. (1)

Participants were asked to make judgements on a scale of one to seven on the likelihood that the two managers would be able to repair their relationship going forward, and the extent to which the conflict would affect their job satisfaction and commitment to the company.

Participants rated those involved in all-female conflicts as also being more likely to let the argument negatively influence job satisfaction than male-female or male-male quarrellers.

The study also found that female experiment participants were just as likely as males to see the all-female conflict as more negative.

"I think people perceive female conflict negatively because it violates the way they think women should be," researcher Leah Sheppard told CBC News in an interview. "We want them to be always nurturing and kind and supportive."

It's an assumption that people don't impose whenever men deal with each other, even in a hostile way, she says.

"We are hard-pressed to think of a term comparable to 'catfight' that is regularly used to label conflict and competition between two men," she notes. "This term is troubling because it dehumanizes women and suggests that competition and conflict between women is akin to a disease when, in reality, moderate amounts of same-sex hostility are natural and expected across [men and women.]"

We all have our hooks which make it difficult for us to see things as they are and remain impartial. What do you think? What implications does this have for training workplace mediators and investigators? Do we concentrate too much on the technical side and not enough on the pitfalls of human bias?

We would love to hear your view. Get in touch. 

John Crawley

(1)http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/02/25/business-sauder-female-conflict.html   

‘A manager reluctant to investigate a disciplinary issue’ – I'm not surprised!

‘Can we compel a reluctant manager to investigate’ asked a Federation of Small Businesses member to the legal team in the FSB magazine ‘First Voice.’ In a recent edition of the FSB magazine Contact the People Resolutions Team for more on improving investigation capacity. The reluctant manager apparently felt he had not been trained for this role.

The FSB legal team suggested that this could be a disciplinary matter as the manager may be seen to be refusing to do ‘any additional duties that are suitable and appropriate for his role.’ Sensibly though the FSB legal team recognised that it was much more important to ensure that the investigation is conducted correctly and not by someone who could later be alleged to be incompetent or biased.

In many small or large businesses investigations continue to challenge even the most skilful and experienced manager. It is one of those responsibilities that people acquire and it comes with great expectations is hugely challenging. Just imagine if you suddenly put in the position of investigating whether or not a college who you had been working with years was a ‘bully’ or not? A team member alleges that they are. You need to interview witnesses, write up notes, put a report together, maintain confidentiality.

We all possess investigative skills to some degree and could not survive if we could not gather verbal information from the people around us, collect documentary evidence, draw conclusions, feed back our information and recommendations to others (say about an area we are thinking of moving to).

In the workplace though people’s livelihood and well being can depend on the skills of an investigator if someone raises a grievance, or makes an allegation of wrongdoing against them. I can see why a manager might be reluctant but I would not then want to compel them to do it, rather support them and their colleagues in ensuring that they did it fairly, rigorously and well.

Contact the People Resolutions Workplace Investigation team about investigation training, outsourcing the most complex, senior investigations, investigator mentoring. If you are a small business contact John Crawley about ‘Investigation Pooling’.

When is a Mediation not a Mediation? When it’s ‘Conflict Coaching’

Recently we have handled a number of cases where a manager is ‘in dispute’ with a team, or vice versa and we have developed an interesting hybrid approach which offers much to mediation but also to coaching.

Mediation’s strength is its ability to encourage people to move towards common ground, rebuild communication and resolve issues. In these team versus manager situations there are often power issues (e.g. 5 team members v one manager) and blocking behaviours (e.g. lack of of self awareness and destructive, habitual negative management habits) which inhibit the success of mediation.

As many of our consultants have a wide range of assessment, coaching, facilitation and mediation skills they have been successfully creating a tailored process which involves three main ingredients:

o   ‘Conflict coaching’ with individuals (often the manager) where necessary to encourage behavioural change and build self-awareness

o   Mini-mediations to build resolution and rebuild trust

o   A team mediation to reset working relationships, reset future working and restore performance.

This approach is particularly useful we find when a manager or particular team member has had a series of difficult situations. All coaching services explicitly aim for supportive and appropriate behaviour change. Coaches don’t just listen, observe and encourage they must challenge too. Coaching is about improvement and change. ‘Conflict coaching’ utilises a number of tried and tested facilitation and ‘breakthrough’ techniques developed from our years of successful work with challenging situations at work. All our practitioners are committed to a non-blaming and constructive approach.

This hybrid of coaching and mediation is proving successful with a range of customers and can unstick some very blocked situations. We can, of course, also train people in conflict-coaching skills and watch out for some new training courses in this area.

Contact John Crawley for more information.

Does justice always have to mean ‘punishment’?

Home Secretary Yvette Taylor recently expressed horror (1) when hearing that community resolution was applied in 10,160 incidents of "serious violence" - about 12 times the figure for five years ago. She described the figures as ‘very serious’ and that this it is ‘letting people off.’ She added "That's bad for justice, bad for victims and goes against all the evidence."

Community Resolution is a well established victim-led resolution technique, in many cases including a mediation-style ‘restorative’ dialogue.  Yvette Taylor’s comments are understandable but fill me with dismay as they focus on the potentially negative aspects of a mediation-style resolution process which generally has well-evidenced success.

Association of Chief Police Officer's representative Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan speaks positively about how community resolution “will be victim-led and above all reflect their views and wishes." Closure for many victims is an important part of justice. Just like mediation, people who may be responsible for bad behavior also get the chance to move on.

ACC Shewan continues "Going through a restorative justice meeting has also been proven to have more impact on an offender than a prison sentence or a court punishment alone, as they see the consequences of their actions and so want to make changes in their future behaviour."

Mediation in the workplace is also uniquely win/win. It challenges conventional views of justice and often generates strong negative reactions. On other hand those who try mediation very soon see its benefits.

There is good learning here for organisations that are thinking of using a workplace mediator or setting up an in-house mediation service.

1.   Do not push people into mediation – it must be their choice

2.   Mount a campaign to promote the many benefits of mediation alongside the risks.

3.   Do not use mediation in cases where it would send out the wrong message and where a more formal, disciplinary approach might be more suitable.

4.   Make sure you are really thorough in measuring the cost of conflict and the subsequent cost benefits of mediation when used appropriately.

5.   Be persistent and resilient as mediation is always put under much more scrutiny than other more legalistic, formal approaches.

So what have you done in your organisation to overcome negative views of mediation?

John Crawley

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971