Now that the rockets and the bombs have stopped the hard part of this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is beginning. How to keep the peace in the short term? How to build peace in the longer term?
I believe that one of the greatest challenges we all face as human beings is to be able to look objectively and brutally honestly not only at what others have done to me / us but more importantly what I / we have done to them.
When we have been hurt, we want the people who have hurt us to take responsibility. We want them to fix the harm they have caused and we want them to apologize and make it right. We can choose to point fingers at others and says "It is your fault" - that's blaming and it can make us feel better because then they are responsible and they are the ones that need to change.
But accountability is all about recognizing where I (and my 'group') have made mistakes and being willing to own them. We all make bad choices - it is part of being human. However when those bad choices are denied, ignored or justified by "look what they did to us" we just make the situation worse. In this situation, everyone has been hurt. Everyone has done the hurting. And it is not a competition to see who has been hurt the most, who has suffered the most. Acknowledging the pain others carry does not diminish my pain - it allows us to share it - and that can help a lot.
Personal and group accountability demonstrates a level of courage, integrity, honesty and a willingness to trust that can open the door to the other individual or group being willing to be accountable too. It sets a constructive tone to the dialogue that says "It's ok to be honest. It's ok to admit failure. It's ok to acknowledge the mistakes you have made because I am willing to be honest, admit failure and acknowledge my mistakes too. Then we can move forward with integrity. Then we can begin to heal. Then we can acknowledge not only our own pain but the pain of others too.
Until we can be brutally honest with ourselves and see the impact of my / our choices on others we will be trapped in our victim story - and that does not help me, you or anyone else. Many people have been hurt, many have died in the past weeks, in the past months and over the years. I do not believe that we honour the memories of those who have died if we use their deaths to cause more hurt, if we do not learn from our mistakes and if we are not willing to repair the harm that has been done.
In the Christian tradition there is a verse in the Bible that says "Make sure you take the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from someone else's eye." It is a wise piece of advice.
It's easy to hurl things at each other. It's easy to bury our heads in the sand and pretend our actions were justified. It's easy to blame others. But that will only perpetuate the hate and the hurt.
The Conflict Resolution Workout for everyone involved is three simple but not easy questions:
1. No matter what side you are on and without any justifying, blaming or rationalizations - What did you and your side do to them?
2. How did you personally contribute to the war and to the hurt experienced by others?
3. If you could go back and start over, what would you do differently?
When we can each answer that question with brutal honesty and without trying to cover anything up, then we are ready to build peace. Until we get to that point, we will find it very difficult to create a peace that will last.
Peace be with you all...,שלום עם כל מה שאתה , السلام مع جميعكم
Ruth
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,
Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Friday, 4 May 2012
Unprepared for Snow in Arizona!!
I was surprised (even shocked) to come over the top of a hill in Arizona and find a foot of snow on the ground... After all, Arizona has a reputation for hot dry weather and desert - so I had packed clothes for hot, dry conditions! Now here I was driving into Flagstaff where the weather was 2C (35F) dressed in shorts and sandals. I felt a bit foolish getting out of the car dressed for summer in a place that was clearly having 'winter' and realizing that my research and planning had been based on the inaccurate assumption that what happens in Phoenix applies to all of Arizona. My intention was to go rafting through the Grand Canyon and have the opportunity to see one of the most spectacular desert environments in the world... and then I discovered that the water temperature in the Colorado River would be 4C (40F). I own a dry suit, neoprene and lots of cold water paddling gear - I kayak about 10 months of the year in Canada where cold water is normal... but none of it was with me in Arizona! I found myself scrambling to find what I needed and questioning whether I would be able to even take the trip. I don't know about you - but I don't like that feeling of being unprepared... of realizing that my planning was inadequate... or realizing that my mistakes could put me in an uncomfortable (even dangerous) situation.
I was fortunate to find 2 stores still open at 7pm in Flagstaff - one was a gear store that sold wool socks ($25) and merino wool shirts ($95) and one was a bargain store that just happened to have several pairs of micro-fibre tights for $5.00 - a reasonable addition to my shorts and wools socks to keep warm! So while it wasn't a perfect outcome, it was a reasonable solution - but it cost more $$, took most of the evening and left me feeling somewhat stressed and uncertain when I had planned for relaxation... In the end, the trip was spectacular, the scenery was amazing and I was adequately warm - and next time, I plan to research more carefully!
How often do we find ourselves basing our decisions on inaccurate or incomplete information? How are our results affected when we don't 'know' what we need to know? What level of additional stress is created when we have to deal with unexpected crises?
In our organizations, it is not possible to know everything that is going on and the information we are missing can have serious implications. Of course it's hard to identify how missing information may be impacting our decisions - after all we frequently don't know what we don't know, until we find ourselves faced with the results of not knowing. However there are numerous tools and strategies we can use to help reduce the risk... There are 2 upcoming sessions in Ottawa ON Canada that are outlined below that can help.
Organization Workshop with Barry Oshry on June 7-8 - a not to be missed opportunity to learn from a leading expert in this field.
To
Register Contact Dawn Kingsbury, ODNOO
T: 613-800-4725
E: info@odnoo.org
W: http://www.odnoo.org/Default.aspx?pageId=661055&eventId=475132&EventViewMode=EventDetails
T: 613-800-4725
E: info@odnoo.org
W: http://www.odnoo.org/Default.aspx?pageId=661055&eventId=475132&EventViewMode=EventDetails
Conflict in Organizations - October 1 - an opportunity to explore the link between conflict, success and profitability - and where the "leakage" may be costing you!
Date: Friday October 1, 2012
Time: 8:30 - 4:30pm
Location: Country Inn and Suites, 578 Terry Fox Dr, Kanata ON
Cost: $369.00 + HST (before 31 July, 2012) / $447.00 starting Aug 1, 2012
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Toxic Workplaces
Ask any employees or manager on their way to work if, given their choice, they would choose a toxic, nasty working environment over an enjoyable, supportive one and the response will be overwhelmingly ‘NO’. Yet according to statistics quoted by Dr. Steven Stein at the “Staying on Top of Your Game™” session put on by The Psychology Foundation of Canada in Ottawa this morning, more than 20% of people surveyed in 2009 indicated that they work in a ‘Negative work climate’, that ‘Work overload’ is a problem for 27% of people and 22% feel there is a ‘Lack of recognition’ in their workplace. He also shared that 41% of working Canadians indicated that they experience significant stress at work and 50% of people indicated they are less productive as a result of that stress.
Even without a rigorous statistical analysis framework, these numbers are attention grabbing and bear closer examination as they speak to the impact stress, negative working environments and overload can have on a society. If 1 in 5 employees works in a negative or toxic work environment and fully 4/10 people are under enough stress to affect their productivity at work – what is the $$ cost of this to the Canadian economy?
Toxic working environments are not fun – and they are not productive either. While some employees may be less personally affected, the impact is still there. A mindset that recognizes – ‘if it can happen to them, it could happen to me’ will be resonating in the background. For those who are directly impacted the stress can show up as headaches, ulcers, depression, irritability, inability to concentrate, burnout… the list goes on and on.
When people are caught up in the negativity created by conflict, bullying, intimidation and nastiness, the reaction is not to focus more effectively on the work that needs to be done; it is to focus on personal safety and survival on both a personal and professional level as the risk / benefit analysis we conduct continually leads us into self-protection. As human beings we have choices about how we react.
Some fight back in an attempt to draw a line in the sand and stop the abuse. Others try to become invisible – slipping in and out as unobtrusively as possible to avoid triggering an attack. Or people may withdraw into themselves and spend vast quantities of time mulling over the situation and trying to figure out “Why ME?” Alternatively people may quietly dust off their c.v. and exercise their right to vote with their feet and move on to another job where, hopefully, things will be better. Collectively though these reactions all spell one major problem – the focus is NOT on getting the work done and the impact on the bottom line of any organization will suffer. Productivity drops, social interactions diminish and input and creativity are stifled as risk management takes over.
Ultimately, toxicity costs $$ in terms of both the financial picture and the human toll it takes.
What can you do if you are caught up in this vicious cycle of toxicity? If you are an employee, the following suggestions may help:
1. The first thing to do is recognize what is happening and the impact it is having on you and your family.
2. Put some ‘self-care’ strategies into place to help manage the stress – spend time doing things you enjoy away from work (sports, exercise, friends, hobbies, entertainment). Please note – neither booze nor drugs show up on that list!
3. Document the specific situations that have happened as accurately and objectively as you can – a brief explanation of dates, times, locations, who was present, what was said… keep it short and keep it accurate!
4. Get some help and support -Have a confidential conversation with someone you trust who is familiar with your workplace (Ombuds office, union, your manager or another manager, HR, Labour Relations, mediator, informal conflict management program coordinator, counselor or psychologist, Employee Assistance Program, colleague, security etc.) about your concerns. Ask them for some objective feedback and suggestions in terms of what you can do. Is there any chance that you are over-reacting? Are there any other factors that may be contributing to the situation? Are others having the same experience? What has been done to try to change this in the past? How are others being affected? (Note: This is not an effort to minimize what you are experiencing, just a check to be sure your seeing the picture as clearly as possible).
5. Find the ‘people of influence’ (the go-to people who have credibility with the group preferably at all levels) in your organization and start working with them to constructively engage them in helping to create the change that is needed.
6. Become a leader in terms of modeling the type of behaviour you would like to see in your organization. Recognize and be accountable for anything you have done that has contributed to the situation.
7. Look for ways to constructively make your concerns known either to the individuals who are catalysts for the problems or the group if it is a group issue. You may need outside help to do this effectively.
8. Name it for what it is. But recognize that others may not be able or ready to acknowledge your concerns.
9. Find ways to help others succeed – how can creating the kind of workplace you (and others) want help those who are not on board yet, achieve their goals? Make a business case to them for change because as long as what they are doing is being rewarded, why would they change? And as human beings, we can only change ourselves so why would they try to change if they don’t see a good reason to do it? This is the WIIFM principle (What’s in it for me?) at work.
10. Keep smiling – Nobody can ruin your day without your permission. Rome wasn’t built in a day but it wasn’t built by doing nothing either!
If you are the manager or employer in a situation where there is toxicity, then in addition to the suggestions above, you could:
11. Call a staff meeting and engage people in discussing what type of workplace they want. (we can give you some simple but effective tools to facilitate that conversation - give us a call).
12. Model the type of behaviour you want to see. If you aren’t sure how to do it, take a course, get a mentor, ask for support… but recognize that you are the DJ of the dance in your team.
13. Consult with HR on how to counsel those whose behaviour does not meet your standards on their choices and support them to make changes by holding them accountable and if necessary imposing reasonable consequences.
14. Find ways of framing what you want to see happen in terms of helping them be more successful – if they are engaged in seeing the change as beneficial to them, it is more likely to happen (and to stick!).
15. Recognize those who are constructive contributors to a healthy workplace and stop rewarding in any way, the toxic behaviour.
16. Measure and monitor the change and when you have reached your goals – celebrate!
Even without a rigorous statistical analysis framework, these numbers are attention grabbing and bear closer examination as they speak to the impact stress, negative working environments and overload can have on a society. If 1 in 5 employees works in a negative or toxic work environment and fully 4/10 people are under enough stress to affect their productivity at work – what is the $$ cost of this to the Canadian economy?
Toxic working environments are not fun – and they are not productive either. While some employees may be less personally affected, the impact is still there. A mindset that recognizes – ‘if it can happen to them, it could happen to me’ will be resonating in the background. For those who are directly impacted the stress can show up as headaches, ulcers, depression, irritability, inability to concentrate, burnout… the list goes on and on.
When people are caught up in the negativity created by conflict, bullying, intimidation and nastiness, the reaction is not to focus more effectively on the work that needs to be done; it is to focus on personal safety and survival on both a personal and professional level as the risk / benefit analysis we conduct continually leads us into self-protection. As human beings we have choices about how we react.
Some fight back in an attempt to draw a line in the sand and stop the abuse. Others try to become invisible – slipping in and out as unobtrusively as possible to avoid triggering an attack. Or people may withdraw into themselves and spend vast quantities of time mulling over the situation and trying to figure out “Why ME?” Alternatively people may quietly dust off their c.v. and exercise their right to vote with their feet and move on to another job where, hopefully, things will be better. Collectively though these reactions all spell one major problem – the focus is NOT on getting the work done and the impact on the bottom line of any organization will suffer. Productivity drops, social interactions diminish and input and creativity are stifled as risk management takes over.
Ultimately, toxicity costs $$ in terms of both the financial picture and the human toll it takes.
What can you do if you are caught up in this vicious cycle of toxicity? If you are an employee, the following suggestions may help:
1. The first thing to do is recognize what is happening and the impact it is having on you and your family.
2. Put some ‘self-care’ strategies into place to help manage the stress – spend time doing things you enjoy away from work (sports, exercise, friends, hobbies, entertainment). Please note – neither booze nor drugs show up on that list!
3. Document the specific situations that have happened as accurately and objectively as you can – a brief explanation of dates, times, locations, who was present, what was said… keep it short and keep it accurate!
4. Get some help and support -Have a confidential conversation with someone you trust who is familiar with your workplace (Ombuds office, union, your manager or another manager, HR, Labour Relations, mediator, informal conflict management program coordinator, counselor or psychologist, Employee Assistance Program, colleague, security etc.) about your concerns. Ask them for some objective feedback and suggestions in terms of what you can do. Is there any chance that you are over-reacting? Are there any other factors that may be contributing to the situation? Are others having the same experience? What has been done to try to change this in the past? How are others being affected? (Note: This is not an effort to minimize what you are experiencing, just a check to be sure your seeing the picture as clearly as possible).
5. Find the ‘people of influence’ (the go-to people who have credibility with the group preferably at all levels) in your organization and start working with them to constructively engage them in helping to create the change that is needed.
6. Become a leader in terms of modeling the type of behaviour you would like to see in your organization. Recognize and be accountable for anything you have done that has contributed to the situation.
7. Look for ways to constructively make your concerns known either to the individuals who are catalysts for the problems or the group if it is a group issue. You may need outside help to do this effectively.
8. Name it for what it is. But recognize that others may not be able or ready to acknowledge your concerns.
9. Find ways to help others succeed – how can creating the kind of workplace you (and others) want help those who are not on board yet, achieve their goals? Make a business case to them for change because as long as what they are doing is being rewarded, why would they change? And as human beings, we can only change ourselves so why would they try to change if they don’t see a good reason to do it? This is the WIIFM principle (What’s in it for me?) at work.
10. Keep smiling – Nobody can ruin your day without your permission. Rome wasn’t built in a day but it wasn’t built by doing nothing either!
If you are the manager or employer in a situation where there is toxicity, then in addition to the suggestions above, you could:
11. Call a staff meeting and engage people in discussing what type of workplace they want. (we can give you some simple but effective tools to facilitate that conversation - give us a call).
12. Model the type of behaviour you want to see. If you aren’t sure how to do it, take a course, get a mentor, ask for support… but recognize that you are the DJ of the dance in your team.
13. Consult with HR on how to counsel those whose behaviour does not meet your standards on their choices and support them to make changes by holding them accountable and if necessary imposing reasonable consequences.
14. Find ways of framing what you want to see happen in terms of helping them be more successful – if they are engaged in seeing the change as beneficial to them, it is more likely to happen (and to stick!).
15. Recognize those who are constructive contributors to a healthy workplace and stop rewarding in any way, the toxic behaviour.
16. Measure and monitor the change and when you have reached your goals – celebrate!
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Wrongful Dismissal and Blame-storming – Its Impacts on Organizational Culture
By Ruth Sirman, CanMediate International
According to the CBC News today the PSLRB ruled today that Douglas Tipple’s employment with PWGSC was unfairly terminated by the federal government and that he did not deserve the slurs against his reputation, the loss of his position and the campaign to discredit him. While the impact for Mr. Tipple is significant as noted by the adjudicator Mr Quigley, it is also critical to look at the impact on this type of situation has on the organization as a whole.
People in organizations are rarely oblivious to the undercurrents present in their workplace. In other words, they know what’s going on and in the same way that children sense what is happening in families even when parents believe that they have managed to hide the tensions, employees are very adept at reading the energy and atmosphere in their workplaces. And they recognize toxicity, dysfunction and lack of credibility within organizations and their leadership.
Human beings have a very well developed sense of what is right and wrong, and while there may be times when they choose to ignore this, the type of situation that happened at PWGSC is typically one where that sense of fairness will be alive and well.
There is much talk these days about the need to create ‘healthy workplaces’. And certainly research supports the fact that employees are more productive when they are happy and feel safe.
However as human beings we seem to have an amazing capacity to create negative and dysfunctional working environments – and often leaders seem oblivious to the ripple effect and impact their choices have throughout their organizations.
In any organization whenever someone is ‘let go’ in a questionable way or where employees sense a level of cover-up or lack of fairness, it can trigger a chain reaction of feelings such as “if it could happen once (to them), then it could happen again - to me!” and “if this is going on what else is going on?” ultimately leaving employees with a sense that this is not a ‘safe’ place to work – and the guard goes up.
If I as an employee perceive that this is not a safe place to be and in particular not a safe place to make mistakes (or fail), then I will take steps to protect myself. Consequently a culture of wariness and risk aversion typically sets in and pervades the atmosphere of the workplace leading to people literally or at least figuratively looking over their shoulder and making choices that are perceived to be safer and less likely to bring me to the notice of the decision makers.
What does that mean for the organization?
When the organizational culture becomes wary, risk averse and self-protective, the impact on the organizations ability to thrive is huge. The most successful organizations out there who can thrive in continually changing economic and political climates are those which are flexible, robust and dynamic. They have organizational cultures that are built on creativity, accountability (NOT blame) and solid relationships that support the ability to adapt through solid, dynamic, creative responses to the challenges confronting them.
When the culture if perceived to be based on blame-storming (ie finger-pointing and scape-goating) the first things that get lost are openness and creativity. If I feel the need to protect myself, I will choose carefully what ideas I put out to the group, what decisions I make and what level of responsibility I am willing to assume. Protection becomes more important than contribution – and the organization suffers.
The Canadian Federal Public Service is currently struggling with many of these issues. There are a great many hard working, dedicated and top-notch employees in the Public Service who work long hours to provide great service to Canadians. And as Canadians we want our Public Service to be accountable for the way our tax dollars are spent. However the difference between accountability and blame seems to be generally misunderstood.
Blame is me telling you that you made a mistake. Accountability is when I step up and take responsibility for my actions and acknowledge that I made a mistake. There is a huge difference between the two. Both typically have consequences – in blame they are generally punitive in nature. In accountability they are more typically fair and reasonable.
However accountability will not happen without a perceived level of safety and fairness – and that must include any consequences that happen as a result of someone being accountable. As young children we learned that if we are ‘to blame’ for something the punishment that follows is likely going to hurt in some way. So typically we stopped owning up to what we did… and learned to lie, deflect, deny, and avoid whenever possible.
We have now created this same type of environment within much of our Public Service.
The reactionary, rules-based culture of blame-storming, deflection and denial that has been created as a response to the sponsorship Scandal and other similar nasty situations makes it almost impossible to get any work done. As former CDS Rick Hillier said in his book “A Soldier First” when he was describing the challenges in trying to fight a war under PWGSC procurement rules: “The process has become the product” – which to me means that there is a culture in PWGSC that is more concerned about what things look like than it is concerned about getting the job done.
And we will continue to see denial, deflection and finger-pointing so long as we tolerate a toxic and dysfunctional organizational culture within our Public Service that rewards this type of behaviour rather than one in which openness, transparency and fairness are the norm.
Can it be changed? Absolutely - but as Albert Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it". There would need to be a willingness on the part of leadership in the government and the public services to find a better way.
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
According to the CBC News today the PSLRB ruled today that Douglas Tipple’s employment with PWGSC was unfairly terminated by the federal government and that he did not deserve the slurs against his reputation, the loss of his position and the campaign to discredit him. While the impact for Mr. Tipple is significant as noted by the adjudicator Mr Quigley, it is also critical to look at the impact on this type of situation has on the organization as a whole.
People in organizations are rarely oblivious to the undercurrents present in their workplace. In other words, they know what’s going on and in the same way that children sense what is happening in families even when parents believe that they have managed to hide the tensions, employees are very adept at reading the energy and atmosphere in their workplaces. And they recognize toxicity, dysfunction and lack of credibility within organizations and their leadership.
Human beings have a very well developed sense of what is right and wrong, and while there may be times when they choose to ignore this, the type of situation that happened at PWGSC is typically one where that sense of fairness will be alive and well.
There is much talk these days about the need to create ‘healthy workplaces’. And certainly research supports the fact that employees are more productive when they are happy and feel safe.
However as human beings we seem to have an amazing capacity to create negative and dysfunctional working environments – and often leaders seem oblivious to the ripple effect and impact their choices have throughout their organizations.
In any organization whenever someone is ‘let go’ in a questionable way or where employees sense a level of cover-up or lack of fairness, it can trigger a chain reaction of feelings such as “if it could happen once (to them), then it could happen again - to me!” and “if this is going on what else is going on?” ultimately leaving employees with a sense that this is not a ‘safe’ place to work – and the guard goes up.
If I as an employee perceive that this is not a safe place to be and in particular not a safe place to make mistakes (or fail), then I will take steps to protect myself. Consequently a culture of wariness and risk aversion typically sets in and pervades the atmosphere of the workplace leading to people literally or at least figuratively looking over their shoulder and making choices that are perceived to be safer and less likely to bring me to the notice of the decision makers.
What does that mean for the organization?
When the organizational culture becomes wary, risk averse and self-protective, the impact on the organizations ability to thrive is huge. The most successful organizations out there who can thrive in continually changing economic and political climates are those which are flexible, robust and dynamic. They have organizational cultures that are built on creativity, accountability (NOT blame) and solid relationships that support the ability to adapt through solid, dynamic, creative responses to the challenges confronting them.
When the culture if perceived to be based on blame-storming (ie finger-pointing and scape-goating) the first things that get lost are openness and creativity. If I feel the need to protect myself, I will choose carefully what ideas I put out to the group, what decisions I make and what level of responsibility I am willing to assume. Protection becomes more important than contribution – and the organization suffers.
The Canadian Federal Public Service is currently struggling with many of these issues. There are a great many hard working, dedicated and top-notch employees in the Public Service who work long hours to provide great service to Canadians. And as Canadians we want our Public Service to be accountable for the way our tax dollars are spent. However the difference between accountability and blame seems to be generally misunderstood.
Blame is me telling you that you made a mistake. Accountability is when I step up and take responsibility for my actions and acknowledge that I made a mistake. There is a huge difference between the two. Both typically have consequences – in blame they are generally punitive in nature. In accountability they are more typically fair and reasonable.
However accountability will not happen without a perceived level of safety and fairness – and that must include any consequences that happen as a result of someone being accountable. As young children we learned that if we are ‘to blame’ for something the punishment that follows is likely going to hurt in some way. So typically we stopped owning up to what we did… and learned to lie, deflect, deny, and avoid whenever possible.
We have now created this same type of environment within much of our Public Service.
The reactionary, rules-based culture of blame-storming, deflection and denial that has been created as a response to the sponsorship Scandal and other similar nasty situations makes it almost impossible to get any work done. As former CDS Rick Hillier said in his book “A Soldier First” when he was describing the challenges in trying to fight a war under PWGSC procurement rules: “The process has become the product” – which to me means that there is a culture in PWGSC that is more concerned about what things look like than it is concerned about getting the job done.
And we will continue to see denial, deflection and finger-pointing so long as we tolerate a toxic and dysfunctional organizational culture within our Public Service that rewards this type of behaviour rather than one in which openness, transparency and fairness are the norm.
Can it be changed? Absolutely - but as Albert Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it". There would need to be a willingness on the part of leadership in the government and the public services to find a better way.
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Does Accountability Help Victims of Tragedy? AC Flight 621-The Impact and Reactions 40 Years Later
By Ruth Sirman, CanMediate International
As human beings, difficult and traumatic events have a way of lingering in our lives – whether it’s an accident, a conflict, a fight or a trauma. I watched the CBC documentary on the Memorial Service for the victims of the crash of AC Flight 621 in Brampton ON where 109 people died held on July 4, 2010. After 40 years this is still impacting on those affected by the crash back in 1970. This was evident by the number of family and friends who showed up for the memorial service and their apparent reactions to the 40th anniversary of the crash.
What do victims and complainants of conflict or tragedy want in this type of situation?
In my experience as a mediator, as the dust settles and people begin to cope they are looking for a genuine
1. acknowledgement of the hurt and impact of the situation on them;
2. assurance that changes are being made and steps are being taken to avoid this type of situation happening again;
3. sense that people are being honest and accountable;
4. feeling that they are being taken seriously.
These are common needs irrespective of whether the situation is one of conflict, tragedy, workplace harassment or criminal acts.
President John Kennedy understood the connection between accountability and credibility. After the Bay of Pigs, he went on national television and took responsibility for the mistakes that were made – genuinely and completely when he said something to the effect of “I made the mistake of acting on faulty intelligence and I take full responsibility.” His ratings went through the roof. We can contrast that with Richard Nixon’s half-hearted comment after Watergate when he said something like “Well it happened on my watch so I suppose it’s my responsibility”. And then there was the impeachment…
When people feel that there is a genuine effort on the part of those in authority to put these four points in place, frustration and irritation are typically replaced by respect. These actions build immense credibility, yet often there is great reluctance on the part of those in authority to even acknowledge the hurt that has been caused let alone to move to address the situation.
As for the actions taken to meet the needs of the families affected by AC621 there were significant differences in the reactions and level of involvement of some of the other players involved – notably Air Canada and those involved in the upcoming development of the crash site in Brampton.
It appeared that– the landowners, the consultants (Candevcon Consulting Limited) and the City of Brampton have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a plan to acknowledge what happened in this field so many years ago. Consultations with members of the victims’ families and discussions about appropriate ways of honouring and remembering victims created a sense in the documentary that they understood the importance of the situation and people’s need for acknowledgment and closure. It is my understanding that Air Canada was invited to participate and declined.
I wonder what discussions went on at Air Canada re whether or not representatives of the airline would attend the memorial service. Initially it appears the answer was ‘no’ followed by a reversal of position to ‘yes’ – but very last minute. So what’s wrong with that? Well I suppose there might be concerns that people would blame the airline for what happened and ask difficult questions - so isn’t it reasonable that they would be reluctant to participate? Why would they want to risk any unpleasantness? On the other hand what benefits might there be to their participation?
Often people fear any level of acknowledgment of people’s pain as an admission of responsibility or guilt. And so people are reluctant to put themselves in a position where things might get awkward and they might be expected to take responsibility. Our legal systems support being very cautious about what we say and who we talk to after an ‘incident’. And there is often a perception that if we just ignore the situation it will somehow just go away. Typically these can backfire and the opposite happens.
There is a link between acknowledgment and visibility. When I acknowledge your hurt or your pain, you know that I ‘see’ you. And I believe that when people feel there has been no acknowledgment of the impact they have experienced, they feel they are ‘invisible’ in the sense of feeling ignored, unnoticed and overlooked which may be interpreted as a sign of contempt and lack of caring. This often results in the victims feeling left out or lost. When these feelings take hold it leads to greater upset - even anger and often a commitment to work to make things right and to bring people to account. So in the long run the attempts to protect oneself or an organization can fail and create even bigger problems that just won’t go away – until that closure is achieved one way or another.
Where do we see this play out?
Whenever people have been hurt and others are going – “It’s not my/our fault”. Look at the credibility issues suffered by many political leaders… corporations… government programs such as Workmens' Safety and Insurance Board or Employment Insurance… employers… insurance companies… respondent in workplace harassment situations…family members… essentially anyone who is perceived to have caused a problem for someone else.
How can this be avoided?
1. Recognize the link between genuine acknowledgment and credibility.
2. Be willing (and take the risk) to talk to people and hear what they have to say.
3. Realize that you can’t fake ‘genuine’. People see through fake attempts at communication virtually instantly and they will not buy it and your credibility will suffer.
4. If necessary, decide in advance what you are comfortable sharing and how you will share it. Keep in mind that accurate, timely and appropriate levels of information will minimize the risks of speculation and rumours taking over.
5. If you have made a mistake or contributed to the situation, take responsibility and indicate what you are doing to fix things – your credibility will increase.
As my grandmother used to say “If you’re going to get run out of town anyhow, you might as well go to the head of the line and make it look like a parade.” She was talking about accountability and responsibility.
Which approach has the greater potential for resolving the problem?
The Conflict Resolution Workout!
Think of times when you may have been reluctant to address a situation constructively.
1. How was the situation addressed? How well did it work? (from your perspective... from the perspective of others...?)
2. Have people truly achieved closure and moved on?
3. What could you have done differently?
4. What could you do now to improve the situation?
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
As human beings, difficult and traumatic events have a way of lingering in our lives – whether it’s an accident, a conflict, a fight or a trauma. I watched the CBC documentary on the Memorial Service for the victims of the crash of AC Flight 621 in Brampton ON where 109 people died held on July 4, 2010. After 40 years this is still impacting on those affected by the crash back in 1970. This was evident by the number of family and friends who showed up for the memorial service and their apparent reactions to the 40th anniversary of the crash.
What do victims and complainants of conflict or tragedy want in this type of situation?
In my experience as a mediator, as the dust settles and people begin to cope they are looking for a genuine
1. acknowledgement of the hurt and impact of the situation on them;
2. assurance that changes are being made and steps are being taken to avoid this type of situation happening again;
3. sense that people are being honest and accountable;
4. feeling that they are being taken seriously.
These are common needs irrespective of whether the situation is one of conflict, tragedy, workplace harassment or criminal acts.
President John Kennedy understood the connection between accountability and credibility. After the Bay of Pigs, he went on national television and took responsibility for the mistakes that were made – genuinely and completely when he said something to the effect of “I made the mistake of acting on faulty intelligence and I take full responsibility.” His ratings went through the roof. We can contrast that with Richard Nixon’s half-hearted comment after Watergate when he said something like “Well it happened on my watch so I suppose it’s my responsibility”. And then there was the impeachment…
When people feel that there is a genuine effort on the part of those in authority to put these four points in place, frustration and irritation are typically replaced by respect. These actions build immense credibility, yet often there is great reluctance on the part of those in authority to even acknowledge the hurt that has been caused let alone to move to address the situation.
As for the actions taken to meet the needs of the families affected by AC621 there were significant differences in the reactions and level of involvement of some of the other players involved – notably Air Canada and those involved in the upcoming development of the crash site in Brampton.
It appeared that– the landowners, the consultants (Candevcon Consulting Limited) and the City of Brampton have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a plan to acknowledge what happened in this field so many years ago. Consultations with members of the victims’ families and discussions about appropriate ways of honouring and remembering victims created a sense in the documentary that they understood the importance of the situation and people’s need for acknowledgment and closure. It is my understanding that Air Canada was invited to participate and declined.
I wonder what discussions went on at Air Canada re whether or not representatives of the airline would attend the memorial service. Initially it appears the answer was ‘no’ followed by a reversal of position to ‘yes’ – but very last minute. So what’s wrong with that? Well I suppose there might be concerns that people would blame the airline for what happened and ask difficult questions - so isn’t it reasonable that they would be reluctant to participate? Why would they want to risk any unpleasantness? On the other hand what benefits might there be to their participation?
Often people fear any level of acknowledgment of people’s pain as an admission of responsibility or guilt. And so people are reluctant to put themselves in a position where things might get awkward and they might be expected to take responsibility. Our legal systems support being very cautious about what we say and who we talk to after an ‘incident’. And there is often a perception that if we just ignore the situation it will somehow just go away. Typically these can backfire and the opposite happens.
There is a link between acknowledgment and visibility. When I acknowledge your hurt or your pain, you know that I ‘see’ you. And I believe that when people feel there has been no acknowledgment of the impact they have experienced, they feel they are ‘invisible’ in the sense of feeling ignored, unnoticed and overlooked which may be interpreted as a sign of contempt and lack of caring. This often results in the victims feeling left out or lost. When these feelings take hold it leads to greater upset - even anger and often a commitment to work to make things right and to bring people to account. So in the long run the attempts to protect oneself or an organization can fail and create even bigger problems that just won’t go away – until that closure is achieved one way or another.
Where do we see this play out?
Whenever people have been hurt and others are going – “It’s not my/our fault”. Look at the credibility issues suffered by many political leaders… corporations… government programs such as Workmens' Safety and Insurance Board or Employment Insurance… employers… insurance companies… respondent in workplace harassment situations…family members… essentially anyone who is perceived to have caused a problem for someone else.
How can this be avoided?
1. Recognize the link between genuine acknowledgment and credibility.
2. Be willing (and take the risk) to talk to people and hear what they have to say.
3. Realize that you can’t fake ‘genuine’. People see through fake attempts at communication virtually instantly and they will not buy it and your credibility will suffer.
4. If necessary, decide in advance what you are comfortable sharing and how you will share it. Keep in mind that accurate, timely and appropriate levels of information will minimize the risks of speculation and rumours taking over.
5. If you have made a mistake or contributed to the situation, take responsibility and indicate what you are doing to fix things – your credibility will increase.
As my grandmother used to say “If you’re going to get run out of town anyhow, you might as well go to the head of the line and make it look like a parade.” She was talking about accountability and responsibility.
Which approach has the greater potential for resolving the problem?
The Conflict Resolution Workout!
Think of times when you may have been reluctant to address a situation constructively.
1. How was the situation addressed? How well did it work? (from your perspective... from the perspective of others...?)
2. Have people truly achieved closure and moved on?
3. What could you have done differently?
4. What could you do now to improve the situation?
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
Monday, 28 June 2010
Global Crises Require Creative Global Leadership... Who Do We Call?...The G8? G20? G40? Or the G10billion??
We human beings are pretty smart folks! We've sent people (and monkeys) to the moon, built a space station, invented ways to take pictures on Mars, built huge dams that change the course of major waterways, created technology that lets us communicate instantaneously virtually anywhere in the world and lots more... Yep - there's no doubt about it we've got the smarts to do just about anything...
So if we're so smart, then why are we in such a mess? Globally our environment is deteriorating around our ears, wars are being waged in more places than we can count, children die of starvation by the thousands and our ground water is too polluted to drink in much of the world and rapidly becoming polluted in much of the rest of the world. Much of this is not as easily visible in North America as it is in other parts of the globe or at least not so ‘in your face’ so we can still ignore the mess we are in on a day to day basis. We're pretty insulated over here from the harsh realities facing our brothers and sisters around the world.
What about our leaders?
Many of the world leaders gathered in Toronto and Huntsville ON Canada this past weekend to put their collective heads together and ostensibly find solutions to these (and other) problems. So far as I have heard there were no earth shattering creative answers found during the talks. So despite the close to $1 billion dollars spent, we are still facing these global issues. And they will continue to haunt us until we start to work collectively, one step at a time to change how we think of our world.
Part of the problem as I see it is that collectively as a human species we have several types of response.
1. Many are so overwhelmed by the magnitude and complexity of the problem(s) that they just don’t know where to start to fix it. And for many there is a justifiable fear that if we get it wrong we will make it worse so ultimately we end up doing very little of consequence and justifying by rationalizations such as “Well, I’m only one person, what could I possibly do to help”.
2. A growing number of people who are seriously concerned about the choices being made at the political level and who seek to voice their collective concern through peaceful protests, education and awareness campaigns and activism. This group was out in large numbers in Toronto this past weekend, however for those of us who were only able to view what was going on through the media, there was very little coverage of the efforts of these groups to make their concerns heard by the decision makers.
3. There are those who will grab any chance to create havoc and chaos either constructively or destructively. We saw this in Toronto this weekend as a band of black clad masked ‘protesters’ left any pretense of constructive protesting behind in favour of vandalism, damage and destruction. Is this a legitimate form of protest? – not to this writer…
4. There are an increasing number of individuals and organizations who recognize the need to take action to decrease the overall human ‘footprint’ on the planet and who are beginning to make strides in changing the operational paradigms that drive choices and priorities. Check out Peter Senge’s book “The Necessary Revolution” for examples and analysis.
5. There is the political leadership at a global level which is beginning to see the necessity of making changes but who still seemed to be suffering from a series of afflictions that make it difficult to make any significant progress in creating significant constructive sustainable change at the global level.
a. ‘Analysis Paralysis’ – the perceived need to study everything to death. While there is a solid need for understanding the situation, analysis and studies can also be a way of procrastinating making choices and changes…
b. ‘It’s their problem… not ours… so they need to fix it.. not us’… - the tried and true strategy of deflection and digressing from the main issues by pointing the finger at others in an effort to avoid having the finger pointed at me. While there may be some individuals, countries, regions or ideologies that bear a greater responsibility than others, ultimately it’s like having a hole in the boat in which we are all riding.. If the boat sinks it doesn’t much matter which end of the boat had the hole because everyone’s going to be swimming irrespective of whose fault it was.
c. ‘Solid solutions to the long term global crisis are not congruent with my personal or national political agenda’ – While this is something that no political leader would ever articulate I’m sure, it would appear that the global crisis has not yet reached the Pain Point threshold that puts it as a more pressing concern than personal or national agendas. Consequently the global good is still being subjugated to those personal and national priorities – and will continue to be until such time as the crisis becomes a greater threat to individuals and nations than their own wants and needs.
Lets face it, the western world is the greatest user of global resources on a per capita basis and consequently this is also the group with the resources to make a difference. However collectively we tend to avoid the problem. It's just easier that way. After all, if I were to admit my role in creating it, then I would be accountable to do something about it. And many people are now starting to recognize the magnitude of the problems we have created - and the implications those problems can have. Typically when something goes wrong our first instinct as human beings is to look around to see whose fault it is. After all - someone must be to blame! And there can be great relief in figuring out who is responsible... providing it's not us! Because whoever is at fault needs to fix things and make them right again. So we spend countless hours searching for someone we can pin the problem on.
The problem is that blame is a waste of time and energy! Blame always looks backwards and it can drain enormous amounts of energy that could be better employed solving the crises. It is always an education to listen to the various political leaders who have the "blame-storming" game down to a science. Just once I would like to hear someone stand up and quietly say "My government has failed to take the required action to prevent this situation from becoming a crisis - and as of today our priorities have changed. As of today, our focus will not be on getting re-elected, but rather on looking beyond our own agendas to analyze the crises we face and see how we can collaborate with other leaders to solve the problems". What a refreshing change that would be!
So what prevents this from happening? Well, when I am wrapped up in my own problems, it is hard for me to appreciate yours. So if our leaders are focused primarily on getting elected and then re-elected, how can we expect them to work constructively on major problems that may require hugely unpopular changes to resolve them? And if their terms are only 2-5 years long - will they have the incentive to take action with long term vision (beyond their own terms)? It is unlikely.
So how do we solve this dilemma? There are no quick fixes to this one but there is one irrefutable fact. When human beings face a major crisis and perceive their lives to be under threat we tend to set our own agendas aside and work together to deal with the greater problem. This happens all the time in terms of natural disasters - fires, floods, ice/snow/rain storms, earthquakes, tsunamis etc... What will it take to help us begin to work together in advance of the crisis?
I don't know - but I hope we can apply the massive collective intelligence we have to find a solution. After all the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and again and expect different results! I hope we're smarter than that!
My grandmother used to say that 'Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal..." - wise words that have the potential to help us change our world. If we are focused on making the changes we are able to make, then we are at least moving in the right direction. Baby steps are better than no steps!
Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Take a few minutes and think about:
1. What situations are happening in our world that you don't know enough about?
2. How can you get accurate information about what is happening?
3. Who else has a stake in this problem?
4. What action could you take to invite these individuals or groups to start working together the problem(s)?
5. What obstacles might get in your way, in terms of getting things moving?
6. What steps can you take to overcome these challenges?
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
So if we're so smart, then why are we in such a mess? Globally our environment is deteriorating around our ears, wars are being waged in more places than we can count, children die of starvation by the thousands and our ground water is too polluted to drink in much of the world and rapidly becoming polluted in much of the rest of the world. Much of this is not as easily visible in North America as it is in other parts of the globe or at least not so ‘in your face’ so we can still ignore the mess we are in on a day to day basis. We're pretty insulated over here from the harsh realities facing our brothers and sisters around the world.
What about our leaders?
Many of the world leaders gathered in Toronto and Huntsville ON Canada this past weekend to put their collective heads together and ostensibly find solutions to these (and other) problems. So far as I have heard there were no earth shattering creative answers found during the talks. So despite the close to $1 billion dollars spent, we are still facing these global issues. And they will continue to haunt us until we start to work collectively, one step at a time to change how we think of our world.
Part of the problem as I see it is that collectively as a human species we have several types of response.
1. Many are so overwhelmed by the magnitude and complexity of the problem(s) that they just don’t know where to start to fix it. And for many there is a justifiable fear that if we get it wrong we will make it worse so ultimately we end up doing very little of consequence and justifying by rationalizations such as “Well, I’m only one person, what could I possibly do to help”.
2. A growing number of people who are seriously concerned about the choices being made at the political level and who seek to voice their collective concern through peaceful protests, education and awareness campaigns and activism. This group was out in large numbers in Toronto this past weekend, however for those of us who were only able to view what was going on through the media, there was very little coverage of the efforts of these groups to make their concerns heard by the decision makers.
3. There are those who will grab any chance to create havoc and chaos either constructively or destructively. We saw this in Toronto this weekend as a band of black clad masked ‘protesters’ left any pretense of constructive protesting behind in favour of vandalism, damage and destruction. Is this a legitimate form of protest? – not to this writer…
4. There are an increasing number of individuals and organizations who recognize the need to take action to decrease the overall human ‘footprint’ on the planet and who are beginning to make strides in changing the operational paradigms that drive choices and priorities. Check out Peter Senge’s book “The Necessary Revolution” for examples and analysis.
5. There is the political leadership at a global level which is beginning to see the necessity of making changes but who still seemed to be suffering from a series of afflictions that make it difficult to make any significant progress in creating significant constructive sustainable change at the global level.
a. ‘Analysis Paralysis’ – the perceived need to study everything to death. While there is a solid need for understanding the situation, analysis and studies can also be a way of procrastinating making choices and changes…
b. ‘It’s their problem… not ours… so they need to fix it.. not us’… - the tried and true strategy of deflection and digressing from the main issues by pointing the finger at others in an effort to avoid having the finger pointed at me. While there may be some individuals, countries, regions or ideologies that bear a greater responsibility than others, ultimately it’s like having a hole in the boat in which we are all riding.. If the boat sinks it doesn’t much matter which end of the boat had the hole because everyone’s going to be swimming irrespective of whose fault it was.
c. ‘Solid solutions to the long term global crisis are not congruent with my personal or national political agenda’ – While this is something that no political leader would ever articulate I’m sure, it would appear that the global crisis has not yet reached the Pain Point threshold that puts it as a more pressing concern than personal or national agendas. Consequently the global good is still being subjugated to those personal and national priorities – and will continue to be until such time as the crisis becomes a greater threat to individuals and nations than their own wants and needs.
Lets face it, the western world is the greatest user of global resources on a per capita basis and consequently this is also the group with the resources to make a difference. However collectively we tend to avoid the problem. It's just easier that way. After all, if I were to admit my role in creating it, then I would be accountable to do something about it. And many people are now starting to recognize the magnitude of the problems we have created - and the implications those problems can have. Typically when something goes wrong our first instinct as human beings is to look around to see whose fault it is. After all - someone must be to blame! And there can be great relief in figuring out who is responsible... providing it's not us! Because whoever is at fault needs to fix things and make them right again. So we spend countless hours searching for someone we can pin the problem on.
The problem is that blame is a waste of time and energy! Blame always looks backwards and it can drain enormous amounts of energy that could be better employed solving the crises. It is always an education to listen to the various political leaders who have the "blame-storming" game down to a science. Just once I would like to hear someone stand up and quietly say "My government has failed to take the required action to prevent this situation from becoming a crisis - and as of today our priorities have changed. As of today, our focus will not be on getting re-elected, but rather on looking beyond our own agendas to analyze the crises we face and see how we can collaborate with other leaders to solve the problems". What a refreshing change that would be!
So what prevents this from happening? Well, when I am wrapped up in my own problems, it is hard for me to appreciate yours. So if our leaders are focused primarily on getting elected and then re-elected, how can we expect them to work constructively on major problems that may require hugely unpopular changes to resolve them? And if their terms are only 2-5 years long - will they have the incentive to take action with long term vision (beyond their own terms)? It is unlikely.
So how do we solve this dilemma? There are no quick fixes to this one but there is one irrefutable fact. When human beings face a major crisis and perceive their lives to be under threat we tend to set our own agendas aside and work together to deal with the greater problem. This happens all the time in terms of natural disasters - fires, floods, ice/snow/rain storms, earthquakes, tsunamis etc... What will it take to help us begin to work together in advance of the crisis?
I don't know - but I hope we can apply the massive collective intelligence we have to find a solution. After all the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and again and expect different results! I hope we're smarter than that!
My grandmother used to say that 'Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal..." - wise words that have the potential to help us change our world. If we are focused on making the changes we are able to make, then we are at least moving in the right direction. Baby steps are better than no steps!
Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Take a few minutes and think about:
1. What situations are happening in our world that you don't know enough about?
2. How can you get accurate information about what is happening?
3. Who else has a stake in this problem?
4. What action could you take to invite these individuals or groups to start working together the problem(s)?
5. What obstacles might get in your way, in terms of getting things moving?
6. What steps can you take to overcome these challenges?
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, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
