What Is the Level of Toxicity In Your Organization or Workplace?

Where Are You On The Conflict Curve?

If you have a pond and on Day 1 in the pond there is 1 lily pad in the pond.
Every day the number of lily pads in the pond doubles.
On Day 30 the pond is completely full of lily pads.
When is the pond half full?

When it comes to conflict, workplaces, groups and organizations react much like ponds and lily pads. In the early stages it seems that everything is going well and things are fine. The impact of conflicts rarely shows up as a linear progression  - it more closely approximates an exponential Time Delay curve. The impact of this is that in the early stages it is difficult to see what is happening as the changes will be subtle and imperceptible. By the time things deteriorate to where the problems become visible, the organization is often on the brink of crisis and the working environment has become toxic. High turnover rates, complaints, grievances, disgruntled employees and reduced productivity are typical. At this point remediation of the situation is often difficult, costly (in both human and $$ terms) and time consuming. It can be tough to get employees engaged in making changes as fear of repercussions, cynicism and skepticism are normal. 

In answer to the question above -Because the number of lily pads in the pond doubles every day, the pond is half full on Day 29… Recognition and acknowledgment of the severity problems often happens between Day 25 and Day 29 as it gets harder to deny and avoid the problems at this stage. However, by this point the organization is in serious crisis. So it is important to know where your organization is at on the curve.The earlier the problems are recognized the easier (and cheaper) it is to deal with them.

Timing is as important as strategy in addressing conflict situations. It is critical to choose the strategy that will best fit the situation at this point in time. A good strategy used at the wrong time can actually make the situation worse.

So ultimately, the ideal is to employ strategies that will help an organization get to and maintain a position on the Time Curve somewhere between Days 1-15 over the long term. But it is not enough to just get to that stage; the critical factor here is the willingness to recognize that conflict is not bad and should not be ignored – after all nothing ever changes without conflict in some form and the willingness to invest in resolutions that have the capacity to address things thoroughly. Ultimately an organization that is willing to invest in achieving this goal and is able to maintain that position will be in good shape to weather the storms of conflict when they hit and will have the flexibility and robustness to survive in the world of business


The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Think of an organization or group to which you belong and objectively assess the situation (or at least as objectively as you can) by asking yourself:

1. Where ‘Day’ are we on the Time Delay Curve?
2. If I asked others in the organization what ‘Day’ they see us at – what would they say?
3. What factors are contributing to the discrepancy (if there is one) between where I believe we are at and where they believe we are at?
4. What strategies have we used to address the situation so far?
5. How did it work?
6. Do we need help?

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organizational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com

Is it Bullying? Is it Harassment? Or Is It Effective Management Designed To Get A Difficult Job Done?

Typically the response to these questions will be totally dependent on who you ask, their perspective and personal experience of the situation. Certainly in the situation that is currently on the CBC news about the RCMP leadership conflicts there are very different stories circulating about what is going on and who’s responsible for creating the problem(s).

So has Mr. Elliott created or contributed to a negative and toxic atmosphere in the RCMP?
That is not a simple question that can be answered Yes or No – there are too many other factors that come into play that must not be ignored if the objective is to create sustainable and long-term improvements in how the organization functions.

Or is he getting the job he was hired to do done?
- And in the process rattling a few chains by stirring up hornets nest in the Old Boy’s Club that is the establishment status quo? Again, not a question with a simple answer. Jumping to either conclusion too quickly and without serious research and analysis to determine objectively what is happening risks reaching erroneous conclusions based on assumptions and not facts. The potential to escalate the situation and make it even worse than it is now cannot be overstated.

As mediators who specialize in conducting Workplace Assessments and group interventions in large complex conflicts in dysfunctional situations, we recognize the challenges in trying to sort out what is rhetoric, what is rumour and what is the actual reality of what happens on a day to day operational basis.

Any credible and effective Workplace Assessment and Renewal Process needs to explore the infrastructure of the organization (policies, procedures, decision making structures and accountability, design and structure etc), its organizational culture and the individual and group dynamics that characterize the day to day operational reality. The patterns that show up are good indicators of areas that need further analysis and research. In other words – see a pattern? Dig there…

While the patterns related to the infrastructure of the organization are important, an even greater emphasis needs to be places on the human patterns that exist. How do people get along? What types of interactions does the organization reward? What is the leadership style? How do people describe the situation and their role in it? Are they able to see their role in the situation or do they see themselves as the misused and abused victim? Are there personal or hidden agendas that are influencing what people are saying or doing – and that may not be readily obvious?

Part of the challenge is that each of us has a vision of ourselves and who we are. We may see ourselves as competent, intelligent, honest, a capable communicator, someone who gets tough jobs done, a person with integrity or whatever our vision of ourselves may be. The problem is that others don’t necessarily share the same view. Others may see us in a very different light. For example:
- I see myself as helpful and supportive. You see me as pushy and in your face.
- I see myself as quiet and reserved. You see me as cold and withdrawn.
- I see myself as efficient and effective. You see me as uncaring and abusive.
- I see myself as friendly and outgoing. You see me as rude and obnoxious.

If I go through life believing that the rest of the world shares my vision of myself there will likely be problems. And as I make choices about how to deal with situations, I need to be aware of the how those choices may be seen by others.

Typically leaders are ‘take charge’ people. That’s how they end up in leadership positions. They tend to be dominant personalities who are solution focused and in many cases seem almost ‘driven’ to get the job done. In challenging situations, crises or tight time lines the situation is often intensified by the pressure to achieve despite the odds and so our leader will stride in, take control and in many cases bulldoze right over those around them.

When the need to get the job done predominates and takes over, the value in engaging others, building relationships or creating a team environment can get totally lost. Essentially it drops off the radar screen altogether as it is often perceived to be a waste of time and energy when there are more important things to get done – namely fixing the problem.

When asked, those in leadership positions will justify the choices they have made by the end results they were trying to achieve – ‘the end justifies the means’ rationale. And they are often totally oblivious to the collateral damage left in their wake. It is typically a case of ‘the axe forgets and the log remembers”.

This can create huge credibility issues for a leader as people disengage, withdraw their support and transfer their loyalty and allegiance to others they believe to be better suited to a leadership role. Or they may go into protective mode where the primary focus is self-protection, risk avoidance and trying to stay out of the line of fire.

In organizations when these dynamics are at play, the wariness, fear of repercussions, disillusionment and sense of needing to protect oneself can create a culture of passive-aggression leading to covert sabotage and resistance or when it hits the pain point where the situation is no longer tolerable, it may lead to mutiny.

How can anything positive come from a nasty situation such as this?

It is actually easier to deal with things at this level than when people are apathetic and indifferent. When the pain point is reached there is a great deal of motivation to deal with the situation and that motivation can be leveraged to create the necessary changes to improve the situation. Mutiny gets attention at all levels and that attention at the level of senior management or employers generally results in a decision that action is needed to address the situation. Resources are allocated, people are motivated to do something and providing a constructive and credible process for change is offered, the potential for a positive outcome is good.

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organizational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.