It’s election time again and as usual we are being treated to an ongoing level of drama and theatrics that is on par with a good Broadway play. However, the ongoing acrimony between some of the mayoralty candidates in the race for Ottawa mayor is a distraction from the serious issues facing Ottawa citizens and the city. And it’s frustrating for citizens who are looking for solid and credible leadership and clarity on what is planned by each candidate.
But isn’t this just what citizens should expect when there is a volatile political race underway? After all – politics is all about making points where you can and minimizing the hits someone else can take against you… isn’t it?
It may be the historical tradition but is it an effective strategy during an election campaign? Is it an acceptable strategy for politicians in general? And what is the cost??
What is voter reaction to this as a strategy?
When politicians and candidates are busy taking pot-shots at each other, it sets a tone of unprofessionalism and nastiness that quite frankly does not endear them to voters and does little to build confidence and trust in our leaders. I assume that the idea is based on the misguided premise that voters are OK with it. Many years ago as a child l learned from my grandmother that “we don’t make ourselves look bigger by making someone else look smaller”. It would appear to be a lesson lost on many politicians and candidates.
In my experience, much of the cynicism and skepticism that pervades our society with respect to our political system is linked to a lack of credibility and trust in our politicians. It would seem to me that if politicians are serious about wanting to increase the number of people who take our democratic political system seriously enough to show up on Election Day and cast their vote, there is a need for this credibility issue to be tackled head on.
If we look at the great leaders of history, they are characterized by a level of personal integrity and professionalism that precludes succumbing to the temptation to slip into personal attacks, partial truths, unsubstantiated accusations and misinformation. It is hard to imagine Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Ed Broadbent, Winston Churchill or JF Kennedy stooping to personal attacks, unsubstantiated attacks and innuendo to make their point.
What are the long term implications?
There is an old African proverb that says “When 2 elephants fight it’s the grass that suffers the most”. The greatest casualty of a dirty political campaign is serious discussion of serious issues requiring serious solutions. There is a need for frank and candid discussions regarding the major decisions required to take the city and the country forward into the next decades. When those discussions get mired in nastiness and the focus of the discussions is lost, we all lose.
When we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, we are entrusting them with the future of this country, its citizens and our contribution to the solution of global problems. We have no shortage of major problems requiring serious and credible solutions. Canadians have a right to expect leadership, integrity and credibility from their politicians – it is what we elect them to provide as they make critical decisions. Where is the professionalism in personal attacks and mud-slinging?
So as voters choose which candidate they will support in this or any election, that choice is dictated at least in part by how candidates conduct themselves during the election campaign but also between elections. After all, how you do anything is how you do everything. And s/he who slings dirt, loses ground – at least for many voters!
The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Give some thought to times when you have been in a 'competition' with someone else with whom you disagreed.
1. What were you thinking at the time?
2. What did you you tell yourself about them?
3. How did you react? How did they react?
4. What could you have done that would have been more constructive?
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
Friday, 24 September 2010
Thursday, 23 September 2010
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
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
Monday, 16 August 2010
Organizational Conflict Knows No Boundaries - CMI's Ruth Sirman at OD World Summit in Budapest, Hungary
CanMediate International president Ruth Sirman will be presenting at the Organization Development World Summit (ODWS), a forum that brings together OD practitioners from around the world, August 22-26, 2010 in Budapest, Hungary.
Sirman will be conducting a workshop for participants on Surviving Resolution Resistant Super-Conflicts in Organizations, August 24, 2010 at the ODWS. “The goal of this session is to provide a forum where participants at the conference can discuss the realities of tough conflicts that exist in organizations from their experience and where we can share our knowledge and experience in working within this field,” Sirman explains.
As organizations develop and grow, conflict is an inevitable factor that has the potential to be a positive inspiration for dialogue and constructive change or the negative force that tears the organization apart. Most organizations find themselves somewhere in between these two extremes. Whether the organization relies on paid employees, volunteer labour or members to get the job done and make it successful, internal conflict can create major negative impacts on people’s lives irrespective of where it occurs.
The atmosphere and culture within an organization is a powerful force that contributes to the experience of all who encounter it. It also impacts on recruitment, retention, productivity, morale, burnout and stress levels. Consequently, there is both a financial cost to conflict as well as the toll it takes on the people involved. How an organization deals with conflict is part of that culture and an integral part of individuals and groups experience of the organization.
Learning to recognize the warning signs, understand what is going on behind the scenes and having strategies available to help resolve the conflicts effectively can make the difference between a successful and powerful organization and one whose focus is on the internal drama within the organization rather than meeting the mandate and getting the job done. Organizational Development practitioners are uniquely positioned to support organizations to find the right expertise and take the necessary steps to get their conflicts resolved effectively and get everyone back to work.
The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Give some thought to the reality of the organizations you belong to:
1. How much time is diverted from getting the job done to dealing with conflicts?
2. What triggers these conflicts and causes them to escalate?
3. To what degree have they been addressed?
4. What level of residual tension is still there?
5. How is the situation impacting on you? on clients? on the bottom line?
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.
Sirman will be conducting a workshop for participants on Surviving Resolution Resistant Super-Conflicts in Organizations, August 24, 2010 at the ODWS. “The goal of this session is to provide a forum where participants at the conference can discuss the realities of tough conflicts that exist in organizations from their experience and where we can share our knowledge and experience in working within this field,” Sirman explains.
As organizations develop and grow, conflict is an inevitable factor that has the potential to be a positive inspiration for dialogue and constructive change or the negative force that tears the organization apart. Most organizations find themselves somewhere in between these two extremes. Whether the organization relies on paid employees, volunteer labour or members to get the job done and make it successful, internal conflict can create major negative impacts on people’s lives irrespective of where it occurs.
The atmosphere and culture within an organization is a powerful force that contributes to the experience of all who encounter it. It also impacts on recruitment, retention, productivity, morale, burnout and stress levels. Consequently, there is both a financial cost to conflict as well as the toll it takes on the people involved. How an organization deals with conflict is part of that culture and an integral part of individuals and groups experience of the organization.
Learning to recognize the warning signs, understand what is going on behind the scenes and having strategies available to help resolve the conflicts effectively can make the difference between a successful and powerful organization and one whose focus is on the internal drama within the organization rather than meeting the mandate and getting the job done. Organizational Development practitioners are uniquely positioned to support organizations to find the right expertise and take the necessary steps to get their conflicts resolved effectively and get everyone back to work.
The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Give some thought to the reality of the organizations you belong to:
1. How much time is diverted from getting the job done to dealing with conflicts?
2. What triggers these conflicts and causes them to escalate?
3. To what degree have they been addressed?
4. What level of residual tension is still there?
5. How is the situation impacting on you? on clients? on the bottom line?
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
