Sometimes employers are so offended by a grievance or an EEOC complaint that they believe if they were to sit down and negotiate with the employee, they'd be selling their souls. Sometimes employees feel like entering into a negotiation with an employer who believes they have done nothing wrong would not only be futile but would increase their pain. And then there is that co-worker that has it in for you, why in the world would you sit down at a negotiating table with someone like that?
Principles drive many of us. When we're sure we're right about something, the very word "negotiation" seems like a dirty word. We might feel like the other side is only out to get us. If you're an employer, you might think that the employee is just a gold digger, and is looking only to see how much money they can get. If you're an employee you might feel that your employer is abusive and needs to be exposed in a public forum. But what if you're wrong? What if the employee has a genuine grievance that you've just failed to see? What if your boss finally understood what you were trying to say? What if there is a solution out there that neither of you had thought of previously? In mediation, we call this "suspending judgment". It doesn't mean that the judgment isn't there, it means putting it aside for now and seeing if you attribute positive intent to the other side whether that might make a difference in the outcome. Deciding that the other side is evil is sometimes our minds way of giving up. It might seem that there is no other explanation for the fact that our own unassisted efforts at negotiation have failed. But if two heads are better than one, three might be better yet. By involving a third party neutral, there is a chance not only for new creative solutions to arise, but a chance that a new third way of looking at the communication dynamics could come about. If you are facing what seems like an intractable conflict in the workplace, give me a call. You might be surprised to find that its possible to replace those horns and tail with a workable solution and a better working relationship. “Well sure, I’ll apologize. I’m sorry you’re such a jerk.” Whoops, that kind of apology won't help matters. But a real sincere one, given freely with a commitment to change has provided the turning point in many a dispute.
Is it realistic to expect an apology in a workplace dispute? Will either side ever be willing to admit wrong and would they dare to do so under the threat of a lawsuit or formal complaint? Realistic fears, but not an unrealistic possibility. Few people will admit, without reservation, that the other person is one hundred percent right, but this still leaves room for a portion of your actions which you do regret. Any time there is a dispute that has resulted in each side retreating to their corners, unable to work it through, and headed for or resulting in, the filing of complaints or lawsuits, there has been a failure somewhere. More likely than not there have been multiple failures along the line. With the help of a mediator, each side can look at their own actions and when they do so sincerely, the possibility of an apology can emerge. In a recent mediation, the attorney representing the employer opened his remarks with an apology to the employee. After hearing what the employee had to say, he said that he was the attorney hired to protect the company, but that even so, he heard and understood the pain the company’s actions had caused this employee. He apologized for it getting so far that the employee felt he had to file a lawsuit to get their attention and he apologized that the company had not worked with the complainant to find a resolution sooner (the employee had been rebuffed in his attempts to resolve the matter internally). He told the complainant that the company was sincere in its desire to find resolution and encouraged the employee to tell him more about what had happened from his perspective. Although the employee would have liked to have heard a complete apology for all of the company's actions, the apology for the procedural frustrations the employee had experienced was appreciated, negotiations were commenced and the matter settled to the satisfaction of both sides. Apologies from employees are powerful as well. “I realize now that I could have handled it differently” has been the turning point in more than one mediation in the workplace and resulted in resolutions both sides could accept. An employer’s apology, or an employee’s, when not heartfelt, will go nowhere. The power of an apology lies in its sincerity and in its motivation. It cannot be given simply because it will “soften” the other side. A false apology is easily revealed and will do more harm than good. But a sincere apology given from the heart regarding actions that might have been different is what makes mediation different from litigation and is what opens doors to creative resolution that works for both sides. A mediator can help find the opportunities for sincere apologies and help the parties hear and acknowledge each other. By using the mediator as a sounding board and a coach, the opportunity for “sorry” need not go awry. Conflicts are simply problems that are not yet solved and what better way to approach a problem than with the creativity of a system known as the “Six Thinking Hats”. The hats are the brainchild of Dr. Edward de Bono and they are the subject of his book by the same name. The method is premised on the idea that the brain thinks in a number of distinct ways which can be analyzed and accessed purposely for effective problem solving. Both groups and individuals can use the system. The six hats are each associated with a color and a way of thinking about a problem.
The white hat is used to think about what facts, figures and other information are needed in order to gain understanding. Questions asked by the white hat wearer might include: “What facts do we need to know in order to make a decision?” The red hat is worn by those who use their instincts to think about problems. It includes an emotional reaction to the situation. When wearing the red hat, the questions might include “What is my (our) gut feeling about this?” The green hat is used to find creative new ideas. With the green hat on, the questions include “What complete, new, innovative ideas can we think of?” By going way outside our comfort zone, but not committing to any action, you can sometimes find that the “wild idea” can be tweaked into a reasonable one. The yellow hat is used to look at the situation from the most positive aspect possible. When the yellow hat is worn, the problem is seen as an opportunity and the questions asked might be “What would be the best possible outcome?” The blue hat is used to think of the big picture. It is the master hat that uses an overarching thinking process. When the blue hat is worn, the question might be: “How can we best summarize where we’ve been, where we are and where we’re going?” Finally, the black hat is used to discover the potential risks and downsides and is useful to determine solutions that are the most practical and likely to work. The black hat wearer might ask: “What happens if that idea does not work?” The visual imagery of putting on one color hat after another is fun and can lighten the problem solving for the heaviest, most entrenched problems we encounter. The hats need not be worn in any particular order, just as long as each “gets its turn.” A trained mediator or facilitator from ACDRS can help guide you through the process and turn problems into solutions. Give us a call to learn more! |