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.

Can the Lockout and the Labour Conflicts at Port of Montreal be Resolved? - A Mediator's Perspective

By Ruth Sirman, CanMediate International

Longshoremen stopped working overtime as of July 9 and now they have been locked out from their Port of Montreal workplace by the Maritime Employers Association. As a mediator who specializes in complex and difficult group conflicts, the escalation of a labour dispute to where both sides start taking drastic action as a way of making their point is an indicator of a conflict with the potential escalate out of control.

Typically both sides believe that they are in the right and that they are perfectly justified in taking the action they've chosen... But the mindset that looks to figure out who's right and who's wrong is working to create a black and white reality in what is normally a very grey world. One of the things we as mediators have come to realize is that history, baggage and perception factor into the current reality in a big way. There will be multiple factors that are contributing to what is happening in the present - and if we ignore these factors it is unlikely that we will manage to resolve the situation.

Why do things escalate?
When there is a conflict, there are as many perspectives as there are people and groups involved. Each has a perspective on what is happening which is created by their historical experience of the situation, their relationship (or lack of it) with the others involved as well as the solutions that they feel would solve the problem. And the perspectives are often diametrically opposed to each other. As human beings conflict creates challenges for us. We find it difficult to see past our own perspective to be able to understand the perspectives of others involved. We typically see ourselves as the good guys and the others involved as the cause of the problem and the bad guys. While this is hardly startling information, there are dynamics linked to this reality that contributes greatly to the collective inability of those involved in escalating conflicts to be able to resolve them constructively. Rather each side perceives that the others involved are not listening, don’t understand the ‘real’ problems and are basically in the wrong.

It is difficult to help groups move beyond this mindset as traditional confrontational power based negotiation strategy believes that any acknowledgment that the other group might have any valid points would imply that my perspective is wrong and would involve losing face. As human beings we simply do not want to be seen as wrong so we hold tightly to our position – to the exclusion of any other perspectives.

In reality no group in a conflict has a monopoly on ‘rightness’. There are so many different factors that contribute to the evolution of the complex type of situation currently underway in Montreal.
• Do longshoremen have a right to the job security and payments mandated by the 2005 Collective Agreement?
• Do the employers have a need to manage expenses to keep their business profitable?
• What about the owners of the goods that are being held hostage as a result of the work to rule and the lockout?
• Are there better ways to resolve this type of situation?

Essentially lockouts and work to rules do not resolve conflicts – they are heavy handed strategies employed usually as desperation measures to pressure the others involved into giving in and acceding to demands. Can these situations be resolved more constructively – absolutely if the parties involved have the courage to sit down and negotiate seriously with a joint objective to find constructive and creative solutions to the issues involved.

What does it take to make this happen?
• A recognition that confrontation and power ploys escalate conflict and they are the easy way out
• Strong and credible leadership on both sides who are willing to recognize that everyone has some valid points and nobody has a monopoly on being right
• A willingness on the part of ALL sides to slog through the tough conversations and the challenges to learn about the needs of the other groups – if we don’t understand we can’t help to meet those needs
• A serious commitment to finding ways to resolve this – including sticking with it when the going gets tough.
• Help and support from someone who has credibility with both sides plus the skills, knowledge, experience and tenacity to work with those involved to find sustainable, practical and useful long term solutions.

Pressure tactics, power ploys and escalation strategies are grandstanding ploys that are often employed in an effort to force the other side to cave in first. It's also the easy way out!

In power based confrontational approaches to dealing with conflict the mindset is “I win best by making you lose”. This sets up the classic 'win-lose' dynamic we are all familiar with - and which many would argue is just the way things are. However it is not the way they have to be.

When there is a solid commitment to resolving a conflict in a way that creates sustainable long term solutions that meet the needs of everyone involved, there is great potential to actually deal with the problems and resolve them. This is not naivete or a Utopian 'pie in the sky' impossibility. Nor is it easy. This is the tough, determined refusal to give up and the recognition that the stakes are too high to take the easy way out where nobody wins. But this only works with a shift in mindset to one that recognizes that “I win best when you win too”. This allows both sides to meet their real fundamental, underlying needs, resolve the issues, bring closure to the situation and work together to create a successful organization – a winning situation for everyone. It's also realistic to recognize that in cases of serious conflict this type of conversation is unlikely to happen without help.

Will this happen in this case?
Given the level of courage, tenacity and strength this requires on the part of the leaders of all the groups involved, that remains to be seen.

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.

Bullying - A School or Workplace Problem?

In my experience as a mediator, the main difference between school yard bullying and workplace bullying is the height and age of the players. Other than that they are scarily similar and very familiar to many of us who have witnessed or lived one or both scenarios.

In a kid’s world:
It’s early September and you are starting a new grade in a new school. You are looking forward to making new friends, having fun, playing sports and maybe even learning something. You head off on the first day with your new clothes, new pencil case, new notebooks and a backpack full of dreams of how wonderful it will be. But somehow, it doesn’t work out that way. You find yourself standing alone on the playground with other kids taunting you about your appearance, your hair colour or the fact that you aren’t good at soccer. It gets worse until you are afraid to open your mouth in class because every time you do, you have to listen to nasty comments, laughter and teasing. The teacher doesn’t seem to notice… and you feel very alone.

In the adult world:
You made it through the interview process and you’ve just landed your dream job. You show up on the first day with a new outfit, a route map to get you there on time, some money in your pocket for lunch and great expectations that you will be able to make a solid contribution to the organization, the clients and your career. You smile at everyone, talk to people, offer suggestions and generally try to make yourself useful and build relationships. But somehow it just doesn’t seem to be working. You find yourself eating alone in the lunch room, when you say hello to people the greetings are not returned and your ideas and suggestions are ignored or put down. After a while you hesitate to open your mouth or offer any input to the group as it seems to just result in more negativity. The manager doesn’t seem to notice and you hesitate to bring it up as you’re not sure how they will react and the last thing you want to do is make things worse….and you feel very alone.

Two different scenarios that share a lot of similarities. Typically they both result in exclusion, isolation, hurt and a sense of hopelessness on the part of those living the experience. We have seen situations in both the child and the adult world where the long term implications can lead to drastic results. Sometimes the negativity goes internal and the mental anguish created results in depression, physical ailments or suicide. Other times the negativity caused by that internal mental anguish leads to an external loss of control and workplace violence against others such as the shootings at Columbine High School or OC Transpo. In either case the costs are enormous and need to be addressed long before it reaches that level of impact.

What are the costs of bullying? They are huge and varied. As an example there may be:
- Enormous levels of hurt and loss of self esteem
- Loss of the sense of personal safety which ranks as a primary concern on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
- Increased turnover rates as people choose to leave and hope to find another job where they feel safe.
- Loss of productivity as bullying creates a huge level of distraction for those involved that takes precedence over getting the job done.
- Increased costs to health care, mental health services, EAP programs and other resources
- Distraction from our ability to function effectively – as a parent, as a partner, as a community member, as a citizen.

How can we bully-proof our workplaces? There are many factors that contribute to workplace bullying and in our experience every situation is different, however there are some common actions that can reduce the likelihood of bullying being an issue:
- Setting standards of behaviour and ensuring they are followed
- Creating healthy organizational cultures where this type of behaviour is not condoned
- Leadership actively modeling positive working relationships and respect.
- Managers and leaders actively monitoring the workplace and being aware of situations where bullying may be happening particularly with new employees.
- Recognizing the warning signs of a ‘Culture of Condoning’ that may be silently supporting and rewarding inappropriate actions or behaviour
o Inappropriate jokes particularly at the expense of particular groups or individuals
o Apologies that seem insincere or that are offered repeatedly – “Sorry - I probably shouldn’t tell this joke” or “Oops – I need to watch out for the Harassment Police!” or similar off the cuff remarks
o People who seem overly nervous, quiet or reluctant to render an opinion or take a stand
o Comments such as “Oh that’s just the way ___ is – s/he doesn’t mean anything by it” or “You don’t want to bring that up – the last thing you want to do is get ___ gunning for you…”
- Taking constructive action to support the victims and hold the perpetrators to account.
- Recognizing the type of behaviour and actions that are rewarded in our workplaces – do they support healthy workplaces or are we inadvertently rewarding behaviour that is creating problems.
- Exercising solid leadership that includes professionalism and acceptance of differences.
- Creating an inclusive and positive working environment where issues are raised, discussed constructively and problems addressed.
- Having appropriate policies and recourse mechanisms in place that will ensure that people have effective ways to address problems when they do arise.
- Listening when someone says they need to talk and creating an environment where people feel it’s safe to talk without fear of repercussions.

This becomes even more challenging if the bully is also the boss or in some other senior position as they may present one face to their peers and superiors and a totally different face to their subordinates.

The key to prevention and addressing the situation is a recognition that this can and does happen – even in the best of situations. And when it does show signs of happening, it will not get better by ignoring, denying or minimizing it. It’s up to us to determine what our children learn about how to interact with others… otherwise the school yard bullies of today will be the workplace bullies of tomorrow.

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.

Bill 168 - Another Tool to Stop Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Violence

Bill 168 is coming into force on June 15, 2010 in Ontario. What difference will it make? How will it affect you if you are an employer in Ontario, Canada? What impact will it have if you are an employee?

Bill 168 is following a trend for workplaces in Canada. There is increasing recognition that conflict, harassment and workplace violence are bad for business. Unhappy, stressed, tense and fearful employees are not as productive as they could be as they are busy trying to cope with whatever is causing them problems.

As a mediator who has worked in the field of harassment, discrimination and conflict management since 1996 I have watched an interesting transition in priorities in Canadian workplaces. Employers are much more aware these days of the underlying costs of conflict, harassment and workplace violence in their workplaces. The dollar costs of conducting investigations into formal complaints can be staggering. In my experience employers can expect to pay anywhere from $50,000.00 to $300,000.00 and up to deal with harassment and workplace violence situations. These figures are prohibitive for any employer but particularly so for small businesses.

The 1980 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Bonnie Robichaud case in 1980 determined that employers in Canada had a legal liability to provide a workplace free of harassment for their employees irrespective of whether they were aware of the situation or not. The shock wave this caused in the employment world triggered the development of conflict management and harassment policies in many organizations to bring them into compliance with the new era. This recognition of the cost of harassment was focused primarily on sexual harassment. The field has evolved greatly since 1980 to where policies in 2010 typically cover a range of actions and behaviour that are considered inappropriate. Sexual and personal harassment as well as abuse of authority provisions provide employees with a much broader level of protection than what was offered in the 80’s.

Bill 168 offers protections to the employees of Ontario that have not been written into legislation in the past. This puts a responsibility on employers and managers to educate themselves not only on the provisions of the legislation but also on how to work within it on a day to day operational basis. How can you ensure that your workplace is compliant not only with the letter of the law but also with the spirit of the law? The letter of the law is clearly spelled out on the Ministry of Labour website (www.mol.on.ca). It is much more of a challenge to create an organizational culture based on safety, respect, tolerance and understanding particularly in our increasingly diverse workplaces.

It is critical that managers, supervisors and employees are offered support by their employers to ensure that they have both the substantive knowledge of the requirements and the skills in conflict management and leadership that will support them to work with the employer to create the healthy workplaces that Bill 168 is trying to create.

Toxic workplaces cost money. In our experience they are less productive, have higher turnover rates, higher frequencies of absenteeism, grievances, complaints and disengaged employees. This is a recipe for putting a business or organization into trouble. It’s like having an abscessed tooth – the discomfort and pain makes it tough to focus on anything else. If the disproportionate amounts of energy, time and focus expended on trying to survive a toxic environment were redirected to getting the job done, the productivity levels would be stunning.

Managers and supervisors have a critical leadership role to play in creating these healthy workplaces. What steps can help?
1. Clear expectations regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour,
2. Rewarding the desired behaviour and logical and reasonable consequences for transgressors,
3. Effective informal conflict management systems that help to prevent situations from escalating
4. Accountability from the employer and management with respect to learning the real nature of their workplaces (not what they ‘think’ is happening)
5. A willingness to talk about subjects that in the past have been considered less important than concrete task focused conversations – human interactions, organizational culture and workplace atmosphere
6. A solid commitment (with the teeth to back it up) that employees have the right to bring problems to the attention of management without fear of retribution either from peers or from management.

The fear of repercussions is one of the most critical issues that is raised time and time again in the organizations with which we work. When we come into an organization to do a Workplace Assessment as part of a Partnered Workplace Renewal Process™ employees are typically fearful and reluctant to engage and in some cases afraid even to talk to us. Why? Because they have no trust in management or their co-workers that their participation will not lead to some type of formal or informal payback and that what they tell us will somehow be found out by their employer or manager.

Until this is addressed in a credible and concrete fashion, very few will take the risk and those that do are typically those who see themselves on the way out the door anyhow – either due to retirement or because they have dusted off their c.v. and are exercising their right to vote with their feet and move on.

This fear of repercussions can also create a climate of silence. Not every employee who is subjected to harassment or workplace violence files a complaint – many are too afraid to do so. But much like children being bullied at schools the warning signs are there for those perceptive enough to see them. When this is an issue it is often impossible for the situation to be addressed by those inside the organization and outside help is needed. Employees need to have recourse to help they can trust and who is perceived to be at arms length from management and the employer.

Even then it can be difficult to build credibility with employees as the fear factor can be significant. On the other hand there is typically a strong desire to see things change that is warring with the fear of repercussions for getting involved in trying to make things better. The way to build credibility is different in every situation but there are some common steps that can help.
1. Be open and transparent about what you can do – and what you can’t do and live up to what you promise.
2. Don’t make promises you either can’t or won’t keep – broken promises are a fast ticket to cynicism and skepticism.
3. Make a business case to senior management for ensuring and protecting employees’ ability to participate without repercussions either from supervisors or managers or from co-workers.
4. Enlist a credible and very senior person within the organization to act as a recourse person should repercussions happen (or the employee feels that there are repercussions happening).
5. Take complaints seriously and take action to address concerns raised.
6. Ensure that supervisors and managers understand the ‘No repercussions’ policy and adhere to it.
7. Work with the group to discuss the changes that are needed to create a respectful and safe workplace. Engage participation by being open, transparent and accountable – particularly if you are at a senior level within the organization.
8. Create an accountability framework that is focused on constructive mechanisms to address issues rather than a blame focused punitive approach to problems.
9. Model the behaviour you want to see others use. Set expectations for respectful interactions and reward the behaviour you want to see.
10. Ensure that the operational reality and the articulated values of the organization are congruent, aligned and actually being implemented. In order for this to happen staff at all levels need to understand and buy into the organizational values being espoused by the employer and senior management groups.
11. Believe in the value of a healthy and safe working environment rather than complying with the legislation solely because it is the law.

Bill 168 is a piece of legislation that has the potential to help protect workers in Ontario. However it is also likely to be seen by some as an unnecessary burden that is just one more example of legislators trying to run people's lives. In our experience organizations that invest in creating healthy working environments as a core organizational value fundamental to the organizational culture are more productive, more able to adapt to changing economic environments and more successful overall. They make more money for shareholders and owners in the case of businesses. As a result, they tend to create more stable jobs for for their employees and naive as it sounds - everyone wins.

The Conflict Resolution Workout
We invite you to objectively assess the state of your organization or workplace:
1. On a 0-10 scale what rating would you give it if 0 = Toxic and 10 = Healthy?
2. Using that same 0-10 scale, how would you rate relationships between managers and employees? Between employees? Between the union(s) and management? Between other groups within your specific organization?
3. What level of resistance is there to making positive changes to the organizational culture? Where is that resistance coming from? What might be behind it?
4. What is one action that you could take tomorrow that would make your workplace a better place to work?

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.

The Transit Strike In Ottawa ON – A Mediator’s Perspective

The Transit Strike In Ottawa – A Mediator’s Perspective
By Ruth Sirman, Workplace Conflict Expert, CanMediate International

Ottawa is scrambling to find ways to deal with a transit strike this week that has now created stress and disruption for tens of thousands of people – riders, drivers, company employees, municipal government and those on strike too…plus all those who are impacted by the change in routine this is evoking in the city – employers, business owners, kids, schools, entertainment venues, retail stores / malls and pretty much anyone who has a positive response to the pulse and respiration checks that indicate they are alive and vertical.

As a mediator who specializes in helping groups resolve tough intractable issues I have watched the evolution of this conflict for the past several weeks and it has followed very predictable pattern – little consolation for those who are struggling to deal with the collateral damage from the loss of transit service and those who are actively involved in the conflict. As it progresses and tempers flare it has the potential to get nasty. But how do we as human beings get ourselves into the weeds like this when we have a conflict?

Who’s right? And Who’s to Blame?
Like every other conflict that has erupted between humans throughout history, each group in this one has their story about what is going on, what led to the strike and how it should be resolved - based on their perspective of the situation. And as human beings we are very talented story tellers (even if we have never authored a book!) and inevitably we draft our story with the focus on how others have wronged us.

There is rarely any accountability for the role we might have played in the situation included in our stories – and we rarely paint ourselves as ‘the bad guy’. No, instead when we feel that something is unfair or that we have been mistreated, we have a powerful tendency to paint ourselves as the righteously screwed victim who was only doing the best that we could to deal with the rotten situation that someone else created and which THEY should fix – because after all it is THEIR fault and they are totally unreasonable and wrong.

And the more often we repeat our story, either to ourselves or to others, the more firmly it becomes entrenched as ‘the one and only true story’ – at least in our own minds. And typically as it gets told and retold (even to ourselves) the more it grows and gets embellished as we add more detail and more history to the growing tale. Interestingly enough, everyone in a conflict will be busy drafting and continually refining their story, looking for additional ammunition to justify the position they have taken.

And if we are really honest with ourselves about what we want out of the situation it would be that the other side would listen to our story, understand our hurt, frustration and anger, agree with us, tell us that we’re right and apologize for the horrible wrongs that they have perpetrated upon us…and promise never to do it again…

And what does the other group want? You guessed it – exactly the same thing - which leads us to a total impasse as everyone strives to protect themselves from being the first one to give in, the one to lose face in front of others and the side that is labeled as ‘the loser’. So we dig in and proclaim our story even louder and longer… and so do they.

Think of it as each group standing on a bar stool – hanging on tightly to their position while they shout their story to the world - a classic loggerhead ‘in your face’ conflict that just gets more intense the longer it is permitted to continue. The down side to our incredible bar stool stories we have created is that they leave us with little room to move and maneuver and they can quickly become a trap from which there is no easy way out without risking the devastation of seeing ourselves as having “lost” the fight. This makes it tough to resolve the problem because as long as I am firmly convinced that my story is the one and only RIGHT story – why would I waste my time listening to you? And as long as you are convinced that you own the one and only RIGHT story – why would you waste your time listening to me? And if this goes on long enough, we can actually start to believe our own fiction and buy our own invented reality.

And so who wins? No one. And who loses? Everyone – including those who have no direct connection to the issues at all. There is an old African proverb that says “When 2 elephants fight – it’s the grass that suffers the most!” – which certainly is the case in this situation.

So how do we help people get down off their bar stools?

Well it can be very tempting to invoke a power play that pushes people down or topples the bar stools – injunctions / back to work legislation / threats and coercion have been used many times to force people to give up the fight. But typically what happens here is that the minute they have the chance both sides will scramble back on to the bar stool and hang on tighter than ever.

Or we can wait it out until one group or another loses the will to fight. Have you ever watched Dr. Seus’ video “The Zaks” where they refused to budge for so long that the new highway had to be built around them?

Or we can dangle carrots at one or both parties to entice them to get down on their own – but carrots bread skepticism about the agenda of those dangling the carrots… and often lead to stoic resistance on the part of the targets.

Or we can work to get people ready to take at least the first baby steps towards climbing down on their own. This is by far the hardest solution – but also the one with the most potential to actually resolve the issue and bring closure that allows people to move on. It needs someone who has a reasonable level of credibility with all the parties, who can get their attention and help them to start to look at the situation more objectively. What is their story based on – facts or assumptions elevated to the level of fact but without any objective verification? Is there information that they don’t have that the other party might know? Are there questions they need answers to? Who can give them those answers? What is the real issue that needs to be resolved? (It is rarely the one that the parties are talking about.. that is likely a symptom of the real issue - but is not the fundamental underlying cause of the problem). What if they choose to stay trapped in their story and not resolve the problem? What if someone else in authority (boss, government, arbitrator) steps in and makes the decision for everyone – what will that look like?

But let’s get real folks! Nobody is going to give up their story if it means that the perception is that they lose and the other side wins… Collective bargaining is traditionally a pushing and shoving process in which both sides attempt to win ‘big’ by making the other side lose as much as possible. And it is traditionally based on compromise – people knowing that they will have to give up some things in order to gain others resulting in both sides offering less than they are willing to give and demanding more than they know they will get in order to create room to negotiate. But compromise does not solve problems when it is used in situations where the stakes are high – it typically creates short-term settlements that are often superficial and unsatisfactory for all concerned but are accepted as ‘the best we could do’.

So the challenge is how can we get all the parties working on the same problem? Because everyone owns some part of the resolution of this and none of us is as smart as all of us! The drivers, dispatchers, mechanics and administrative staff of OC Transpo know the reality of providing transit service in the city better than anyone – they DO it every day! And the city staff and municipal government know the reality of the budgets and commitments it takes to operate a city the size of Ottawa – they work with it every day. So how can we get out of this hole that we’re in?
1. Stop digging the deeper the hole the harder it is to get out of it!
2. Look at the long term implications for both the city and the union. Recognize that strikes hurt everyone and there will be negative impacts on both sides that will increase the longer it goes on. What if all those riders find that their alternative solutions work well and they get used to functioning without the transit system? Will they come back when the strike is over? What impact could that have?
3. Stop demonizing the other side and acknowledge that everyone owns part of the creation of this situation and everyone owns part of solving it
4. Change the mindset (just a LITTLE bit) and get curious – what don’t you know about the other party’s reality?
5. Start listening to each other and learning from each other (this may require some help from an experienced mediator / facilitator)
6. Recognize that there are 3 sides to every story – yours, mine and what really happened… Work to let go of ‘We own the one and only whole truth and we’re totally RIGHT – and recognize that there everyone’s perspective is valid to them – even if you don’t agree from it.
7. Look at it as a joint problem that needs all parties involved to solve it well – focus on “How can we deliver efficient cost-effective transit services while supporting our transit employees to have a good quality of life and a healthy working environment?”
8. Recognize that fighting and striking is the easy way out while committing to finding a resolution that works can be tough and difficult work – but it is the only way that things get fixed. It takes courage and guts to change directions and acknowledge there are other choices… Do the union and city leadership / negotiation teams have the courage? That remains to be seen!

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.