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