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.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
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.
Monday, 19 July 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
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.
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.
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.
Disgruntled and Chronic Complainers and Their Long List of Complaints
Have you ever met a chronic complainer?
Most of us have met someone who seems to get a perverse pleasure from constantly and continually complaining. While sometimes it seems that the complainers in our lives will complain about anything they are typically set off by a specific set of triggers and the complaints are focused on particular topics.
One characteristic of complaints is the sweeping generalizations and absolutes that sound like “It’s all wrong”, “Nobody ever listens to me / us” or “They never give us what we need to do the job” or “The whole project is a complete washout” or “Nobody cares”. Unfortunately specific information that could be useful and relevant is conspicuous by its absence.
So why do people complain?
It’s a habit. For some, their standard form of communication has evolved into the adult equivalent of a whining child. Often the habitual complainer is unaware of what they sound like to others. They may have a negative outlook on life with expectations that can border on ‘unrealistic’. This can lead to an overall sense of
It’s worked for them in the past. Human beings are very prone to re-using strategies that have worked for them in other situations. After all, if it works why change it?
They want to be heard. Often chronic complainers are very detail focused individuals and they may actually have valuable information to share. However their choice of strategies typically minimizes the potential that their information will be heard as others tend to tune them out which prompts them to complain even more, setting up a vicious cycle.
They feel they have been subjected to some form of injustice. In some cases there may have been an injustice or series of injustices that have happened to them. In these circumstances most of us will complain and it can be therapeutic and cathartic. However chronic complainers get stuck and have trouble moving on. They may carry the past injustices around as baggage made up of their grudge list until it colours their worldview and becomes a habitual way of perceiving the world.
They feel that their world is beyond their control and in many cases are unsure of how to fix it. The sense of helplessness that this creates leaves the chronic complainer with a sense of futility that fuels the long tale(s) of woe.
So what can you do when you have to deal with a chronic complainer?
1. Avoid agreeing or disagreeing – just listen
2. Avoid trying to solve their problem for them – help them come up with possible solutions. If you solve the problem and it doesn’t work then there is just more to complain about.
3. Assess what you are hearing to determine if the information buried in the complaining may be relevant, valid and useful.
4. Ask questions that demonstrate you’re listening. Stay objective and impartial - Let them run down.
5. Help them get specific- even if you have to interrupt. Ask questions of clarification designed to get specifics rather than the sweeping generalizations. Once you have some specifics (and it may be a challenge) ask them how they would solve that specific problem (shift to a problem solving mode)
6. If their complaint(s) have substance, keep them in the loop re the progress in resolving the issues.
7. If necessary you may need to set some parameters in place to manage the amount of complaining to which you are subjected. Things like “If you have issues that need to be addressed, then bring me specifics and possible solutions.” Or “I’m happy to listen if what you want to talk about is how you plan to address the problem(s) but if this is just about complaining, then I would rather not be part of it.”
Chronic complaining has the potential to create a negative energy in a relationship, a family or a workplace. The person doing the complaining may have valid points to make however their style of communicating tends to cause others to shut down, thereby minimizing the successful impact of their message. There are ways to manage this if you are willing to invest the time and energy in supporting them to change the pattern.
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.
Most of us have met someone who seems to get a perverse pleasure from constantly and continually complaining. While sometimes it seems that the complainers in our lives will complain about anything they are typically set off by a specific set of triggers and the complaints are focused on particular topics.
One characteristic of complaints is the sweeping generalizations and absolutes that sound like “It’s all wrong”, “Nobody ever listens to me / us” or “They never give us what we need to do the job” or “The whole project is a complete washout” or “Nobody cares”. Unfortunately specific information that could be useful and relevant is conspicuous by its absence.
So why do people complain?
It’s a habit. For some, their standard form of communication has evolved into the adult equivalent of a whining child. Often the habitual complainer is unaware of what they sound like to others. They may have a negative outlook on life with expectations that can border on ‘unrealistic’. This can lead to an overall sense of
It’s worked for them in the past. Human beings are very prone to re-using strategies that have worked for them in other situations. After all, if it works why change it?
They want to be heard. Often chronic complainers are very detail focused individuals and they may actually have valuable information to share. However their choice of strategies typically minimizes the potential that their information will be heard as others tend to tune them out which prompts them to complain even more, setting up a vicious cycle.
They feel they have been subjected to some form of injustice. In some cases there may have been an injustice or series of injustices that have happened to them. In these circumstances most of us will complain and it can be therapeutic and cathartic. However chronic complainers get stuck and have trouble moving on. They may carry the past injustices around as baggage made up of their grudge list until it colours their worldview and becomes a habitual way of perceiving the world.
They feel that their world is beyond their control and in many cases are unsure of how to fix it. The sense of helplessness that this creates leaves the chronic complainer with a sense of futility that fuels the long tale(s) of woe.
So what can you do when you have to deal with a chronic complainer?
1. Avoid agreeing or disagreeing – just listen
2. Avoid trying to solve their problem for them – help them come up with possible solutions. If you solve the problem and it doesn’t work then there is just more to complain about.
3. Assess what you are hearing to determine if the information buried in the complaining may be relevant, valid and useful.
4. Ask questions that demonstrate you’re listening. Stay objective and impartial - Let them run down.
5. Help them get specific- even if you have to interrupt. Ask questions of clarification designed to get specifics rather than the sweeping generalizations. Once you have some specifics (and it may be a challenge) ask them how they would solve that specific problem (shift to a problem solving mode)
6. If their complaint(s) have substance, keep them in the loop re the progress in resolving the issues.
7. If necessary you may need to set some parameters in place to manage the amount of complaining to which you are subjected. Things like “If you have issues that need to be addressed, then bring me specifics and possible solutions.” Or “I’m happy to listen if what you want to talk about is how you plan to address the problem(s) but if this is just about complaining, then I would rather not be part of it.”
Chronic complaining has the potential to create a negative energy in a relationship, a family or a workplace. The person doing the complaining may have valid points to make however their style of communicating tends to cause others to shut down, thereby minimizing the successful impact of their message. There are ways to manage this if you are willing to invest the time and energy in supporting them to change the pattern.
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)
