Q. You spoke yesterday at the Middlesex Chamber of Commerce about managing difficult conversations. What are some examples of difficult conversations in the workplace that need managing?
A. Human resource professionals, my audience yesterday, deliver company policy and decisions on a daily basis. What makes these communications difficult is concern, even fear, about the consequences of what they say and how they say it. “You didn’t get the promotion” could lead to an outburst, loss of commitment to the company, eventual loss of a good employee, even formal EEOC complaints. “You don’t get days off for your stepfather’s funeral, because he’s not your father” may be corporate policy, but can engender resentment nonetheless. And it’s the frustration with company policy, and resentment of ‘unfair treatment’ that escalate to retaliation and even workplace violence.
Â
Q. Can difficult conversations in the workplace ever be mediated between the two parties or are they best handled by mediators like yourself?
A. Any two people who disagree can handle it amicably themselves if they take a collaborative approach. Simply put, that means choosing to see each other as partners in solving a problem, instead seeing each other as the problem. It sounds simple, and you’d think that’s how things would run in a workplace.
The reality is that ‘stuff’ gets in the way: job stress, miscommunication, politics, distrust, style differences, hidden agenda. That’s where mediators come in. We’re neutral, unbiased third parties who are trained to help parties get over those hurdles, so that they can come up with, and therefore buy-in to, their own resolution.
Can managers and HR professionals do the same? It depends – on whether they can maintain the rigor of neutrality, and not impose their opinion. Also, parties must truly believe that neutrality, or they may never buy-in to the process or, worse yet, fear repercussions.
The current Best Practice for organizations is to support a collaborative approach to difficult conversations on all three fronts by supporting 1) programs for employees on how to resolve issues one on one, on their own, 2) HR and management training on how to facilitate difficult conversations, and 3) mediation when appropriate.Â
Â
Q. You’ve consulted all over the country for clients such as Coca Cola. Are there regional differences when it comes to difficult conversations? Are their (there?) regional solutions?Â
A. Yes, I have worked all over this country, as well as Europe and Asia, and with Wall St. executives, academics and regular people like us. What I’ve found is that people are people and conflict is conflict, whether you’re an investment banker in New York City or a Coke bottler in Missouri. The sources of disagreement and conflict are essentially the same: miscommunication, disrespect, sense of unfairness, being harmed without apology, not being heard. The solutions are just as universal: mutual respect, hearing each other out, agreeing to resolve rather than fight.
There are, however, cultural and regional differences in what respect means, and how best to deliver my message. I did a good deal of work in what a New Englander like myself considers the Bible Belt and the Old South, and found that these subtleties mattered greatly. When I followed standard training format by suggesting to a workshop group that I was Jane and not Ma’am, they told me that Ma’am was a term of respect drilled into them from youngest days, and that calling me Jane was just not right. Â We all had a good laugh when I confessed to them that where I come from, Ma’am was a code phrase for being an old lady. Ma’am and Miss Jane were comforting endearments from then on.
The other example is my comparison of mutual respect and hearing each other out, to the Christian way of doing things. In most arenas, this flies in the face of all diversity principles. But for a specific audience, I was making a connection between a corporate concept and their own personal ethics and moral code. Their response? “You really surprised us. We didn’t think someone from the Northeast understood us. Thank you for what you said.”
Â
Q. You say the principles of conflict management are similar to those of best practices: “teamwork, collaboration, diversity, coaching, engagement, win-win, mutual gain resolutions, etc.” Does that mean conflict resolution leads to a better functioning workplace that is more productive?
A. Conflict management has three levels: prevention, practice and resolution. Companies that address all three are not just more productive, they also have a competitive edge.
Conflict resolution is at the expensive, crisis management end of the scale. Poor morale, work slowdowns, team break-downs, silos, formal complaints, workplace disruptions and even violence signal situations that have now escalated and require damage-control.
Prevention includes all the best practices I listed and the supporting HR policies. Â Access to EAP programs, an Ombuds and/or whistle-blower policy, and mediation would help round out the prevention component.
Practice is where the rubber meets the road. That is, prevention initiatives are a waste of resources they’re not supported, reinforced, and actually lived by the organization. Employees can tell the difference between lip service and real commitment.
Practice also means accepting conflict as part of a healthy work environment. Without new ideas, companies stagnate. Old policies won’t engage the Millenial workforce. And just think where our economy would be if failed institutions actually listened to the warnings of their risk managers.
Â
Q. This question must have been posed to you before. What’s the most difficult conversation you have ever had?
A. The same one every manager dreads: firing someone. The HR director caught my staff person falsifying her time card. Immediate dismissal was company policy, and the decision seemed clear, since this was just one of many indiscretions. What nagged at me was that I thought she needed another chance. She was nineteen or so at the time, leading a tumultuous and dangerous life, and this job was probably her last chance to go straight. But I was twenty-three myself at the time, and when instructed to follow company policy and fire her, I did so. She barely reacted, and never looked at me when I told her. “That’s it,” she said and walked away. So many things unsaid, so many possibilities for making things better were lost – for her and me, too.
