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.

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 

How to Disagree Well

Listening to the radio on the way into work the other day I heard ‘Thought for the Day’ in which The Revered Ruth Scott, an Anglican vicar in Richmond spoke about managing conflict on a highly emotive issue – Women Bishops - that comes with centuries of beliefs, history and values attached. Ruth mentions that ‘Many of our decision-making processes require us to take sides, to win arguments, to beat the opposition and to gain power by defeating ‘the other’. It doesn’t have to be that way.’

Ruth also outlines core skills that she used such as listening attentively, ‘holding in sight the humanity of the other’ and ‘respecting the right of the other to share their story.’ This piece recognised the need to look at processes and skills when attempting to resolve age-old differences. The fact that this proactive, dialogue based approach is being applied to such a difficult conflict is encouraging.

I have spent most of my working life helping people at work to ‘disagree well’ - a concept which is threaded through our new ABC Guide to Workplace Conflict Resolution.  This series of whitepapers is full of ideas and practical steps to take. The ultimate goal is to create an environment at work in which conflict is no longer viewed as something that spreads fear, confusion and closed thinking. ‘Resolution ready’ organisations resolve conflict in a positive way, so that disagreement becomes a fertile, engaging experience in which ideas flourish, performance is restored and trust rebuilt.

I wish the Revered Ruth Scott all the best in her facilitation endeavours. The full text  Ruth’s short talk are published below:

“Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words.” So sang Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady. She reminds us that while it may be good to talk, communication isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be. Over the weekend I was helping to facilitate conversations at General Synod between members whose views about Women Bishops are very different.  

One reason why communication goes pear-shaped and conflict occurs is because fear prevents us having difficult conversations in the way we need to have them – by listening attentively, respecting the right of the other to share their story, taking responsibility for the consequences of the different choices we have, and always holding in sight the humanity of the other. The conversations at Synod were painful because members heard how damaging earlier debates had been, not only to themselves, but to those they opposed.

Acknowledging shared pain and working to reframe the dialogue was emotionally costly, but by the end of the day the message coming back from the groups was how much more of these facilitated conversations they wanted. This wasn’t because they worked like magic enabling everybody suddenly to agree with everyone else, but they offered another way of addressing difference. Many of our decision-making processes require us to take sides, to win arguments, to beat the opposition and to gain power by defeating ‘the other’. It doesn’t have to be that way. I was profoundly moved by members in my group holding diametrically opposed views who, after expressing their pain and anger, went on to work together to try and find ways forward that took seriously the perspectives of all of them. While agreement may be desirable, Chris, it may be more important to learn how to disagree well.’ ©BBC Radio 2

Read Part one of the ABC Guide- 'Conflict is Normal: Are you Resolution Ready?'  or email us at info@peopleresolutions.com to be the first to receive the series. 

Reducing Email stress at work through 'E-tiquette'

According to an up and coming study from Loughborough University reading and sending emails prompts tell-tale signs of stress including elevated blood pressure, heart rate and levels of the hormone cortisol.

The conflict risks of E-communication is one of the areas covered in our new White Paper coming up in July.

Prof Tom Jackson of Loughborough University, who led the study which has not yet been published, said: "The brain can only deal with eight to 12 tasks at any one time and if you can't shut those tasks down you start to become overloaded and fatigued.

"Multifunctional devices like Blackberrys and iPhones allow workers to be accessible 24-hours a day unlike ever before [but] because of this it is likely that there will be an increase in stress levels."

Researchers who followed a group of 30 government employees found that 83 per cent became more stressed while using email, rising to 92 per cent when speaking on the phone and using email at the same time.

Although receiving a single message was no more stressful than answering one phone call or talking to someone face-to-face, emails had a stronger effect overall because people received so many each day.

Emails which were irrelevant, which interrupted work or demanded an immediate response were particularly taxing, while those which arrived in response to completed work had a calming effect.

The study also found that people were unable to identify accurately when their body was showing signs of stress and often were unaware of their state, he added This would indicate that employees might find it difficult to self-regulate their use of communication media to ensure they do not become overwhelmed by stress."

Do you have any examples of e-mail stress and conflict?

We will be launching a useful whitepaper highlighting the issues of conflict- including Etiquette 

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   

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

Successful mediations start with the right HR mindset. When was the last time you checked yours?

When conflict boils over in the workplace, it is tempting to quickly bring the parties together and point them towards a resolution. You can see how they need to work it out, ‘It is just a matter of telling them, right?’

No, not really. A more sensitive approach, based on our current knowledge of interpersonal relationships, usually gets better results which are more relevant to the individuals, and longer lasting.

Time and again, we come across well-meaning, but perhaps ill-advised, colleagues confusing informal HR meetings with mediation in its most valuable and effective form.
 Perhaps it is time for HR professionals and line managers to gain a better understanding of what mediation is, what it can do, when it should be used, and whom is best placed to mediate competently and without bias. After all, the way mediation is introduced into your organisation will shape the way it is embraced and embedded in your culture.

Once the relevant line or HR manager has learned of a conflict situation at work, they will probably want to sit down with each party to gain a fuller picture of the situation. There is much to be gained from these conversations, and one possible outcome may be to propose a mediation.

Problems occur when the meeting turns into the beginnings of a mediation of sorts, before the parties have been duly prepared and have an understanding of what is involved. There is also a risk that, in this context, there is a lack of complete impartiality and that professional mediation practice models are not being followed. This poses a significant risk to the credibility of the process and the way the parties are being supported.

Here are some of what we believe to be the core objectives of an initial needs assessment:

- Gain overview of concerns

- Establish the history of the issue/s to date and the people involved

- Understand what the parties are looking to achieve 
All of the above can, with the consent of the parties, feed usefully into a mediator's background knowledge of the situation, if indeed mediation is the most appropriate next step. 

People Resolutions provides independent conflict resolution services, including workplace investigations and mediation. If you’d like to talk through any situation, please don’t hesitate to give us a call on 01908 488 828, at no obligation.

Can a workplace investigation be a positive thing?

The circumstances surrounding most workplace investigations are serious and negative for all involved. While everyone focuses on fulfilling their personal or company objectives, many organisations lose sight of the positive aspects of conducting an investigation, as a form of business best practice.

Try looking at investigations in a different light:

They are mobilising. First and foremost, an investigation is doing something about the situation. After a conflict situation escalates to formal stages, it may be difficult to know what to do, or who is right. An investigation is designed to clarify a muddy situation by unscrambling the allegations.

They listen. Investigation interviews allow each party to state their case. On a more emotional level, they feel that their concerns are fully heard and have been able to say their piece to an unbiased listening ear. When handled professionally and independently, this can significantly help to diffuse the cloud of tension surrounding most investigations.

They are enabling. Once outcomes are determined, the HR or line manager is then able to take appropriate action. A well-written investigation report should shine a light on how the parties can move forward, whether it be a warning, or some training, or a mediation.

They are fair. Our investigation reports are always written in such a manner that doesn’t blame, criticise or criminalise the parties but treats all equitably and with respect, leaving room for everybody to move forward afterwards.

They are constructive. In many investigation cases, the parties will be required to work together afterwards. This is where investigation report can be of additional value, by including practical recommendations as to how the relationship can be brought back on track.

They provide learning. While some parties will be unhappy with an investigation outcome, even Respondents whose allegations against them have been upheld can take something positive from the experience. Having had their behaviour under the spotlight, they will no doubt be clearer on boundaries of conduct in the workplace and their own style. Depending on the visibility of the outcomes, the case may also provide learning for other colleagues about what is expected in terms of respectful co-worker interaction. For Complainants, even if their allegation hasn’t been upheld, it can be reassuring to know they weren’t being discriminated against, for example.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that you don’t have to wait for a formal grievance to be raised in order to conduct an investigation. If concerns have been raised, a line manager can action an investigation to get to the bottom of an informal conflict situation. This could prevent further escalation i.e. an eruption, a grievance, a departure, etc.  

People Resolutions provides independent conflict resolution services, including workplace investigations and mediation. If you’d like to talk through any situation, please don’t hesitate to give us a call on 01908 488 828, at no obligation.

The ‘root’ to resolving workplace conflict - an insight into our process

The root to resolving workplace conflict

Every first phone call we receive from a client organisation paints an individual problem scenario of workplace conflict. And while there are unique aspects to each situation, many will share common themes that help guide us along the appropriate route to resolution and closure for all stakeholders.

A return to work clouded in anxieties, interpersonal clashes within a whole team, an under performing manager - all of these could be perceived as being ripe for mediation. But conflict has roots, often buried beneath the surface, which can make an immediately obvious solution hard to spot.

Mapping the conflict picture

The key is to try and map the ‘conflict picture’, complete with roots and branches, to indicate which interventions will work most effectively and in which order. We also look at risks (such as imminence of a grievance being raised or a person leaving) and what is the end goal we want to reach. This isn't to say that all workplace conflict can be ‘solved’ in a scientific manner - we’re dealing with people here - but it certainly helps gain a handle on the situation.

For example, if there is a fallout within a group of employees, it is worth examining whether there is a line management issue underneath, or perhaps a hotspot between two individuals that is causing others to take sides. Informal one-to-ones with each member of the team can go a long way to making everyone’s concerns feel heard and to pinpoint the conflict anchor.

By taking things a level deeper, it may become obvious that conducting a group mediation ‘cold’ might not be the best approach; it could be better to mediate between two people at the centre, and/or provide some coaching or training for the manager to take ownership of their team’s respectful co-worker behaviour. When all the pieces are in place, in the right order, the situation can be brought to a close for everyone to move forward.

In this way, mediation becomes one of many tools available to employ at the appropriate time. Training, either before or after a conflict situation, is very effective in moving towards a culture where tensions are addressed early (and therefore do not require costly time and resource to handle), and where mediations and investigations are carried out by competent internal individuals.

We have over 20 years expertise in helping organisations with workplace mediation, investigations and training, using our network of UK wide specialists. If you have any conflict questions, or a current case or would like to speak to us about, we’d be happy to hear from you. Contact us at information@peopleresolutions.com 

Why Most Conflict Training is Missing the Point

Most organisations spend a lot of time and money doing mediations, investigations and tribunals related to dispute resolution. They also invest heavily in training HR and management to resolve conflict at an informal stage, but the fact is, once a conflict situation has reached the point where it needs to be addressed, some damage has already been done. 

Equipping staff with mediation and investigation skills to bring such situations to a close is certainly a step in the right direction, but is this really anything more than a sticking-plaster approach? 

Conflict training, if it is to genuinely achieve prevention of conflict in the first place – and by this we mean avoiding and dissolving tensions before they fester and escalate – it should incorporate more than strategies to deal with established conflict. Training which broadens employees understanding of human behaviour.

If people at work are able to understand the different types of ‘social style’ that exist in relation to their own, it gives them the power to know how and when they should adapt their behaviours to encourage healthy working relationships. This can only help mitigate the risk of any friction developing and building, leading to fewer complaints and grievances to deal with and ultimately a more collaborative culture with better teamwork, cooperation, harmony and respect. 

Surely this kind of training is the better investment?