20 May 2009

This article was written by the CIPD’s Employee Relations Adviser, Mike Emmott and appeared in the May 2009 edition of CIPD Impact. Mike Emmott also endorsed the widely-acclaimed ‘The definitive guide to workplace mediation and managing conflict at work’ written by Globis Founder and MD, Clive Lewis and published in January 2009. 

Those seeking to build the business case for mediation in the workplace should not overlook its role in supporting performance.

The business case for mediation is generally framed in terms of reducing costs – either the cost of conflict, or the cost of alternative methods of conflict resolution. Conflict is a reality in most workplaces, reflected for example in the number of days lost through stress and other sickness absence, and cases of bullying and harassment. Research shows that managers spend many days a year handling discipline and grievance issues, and still more responding to subsequent tribunal claims.

But the real impact of mediation is best seen in terms, not of costs, but of importance. Conflict is damaging to performance since it undermines employee relations and individual motivation. The need to manage conflict also distracts managers from focussing on the business of keeping customers happy. People who are thinking of leaving the organisation, perhaps as a result of issues that have not been recognised or effectively tackled, are unlikely to be advocates for their organisation, or go the extra mile.

Conflict management has traditionally been seens as establishing procedures to help avoid and settle disagreements. The assumption is that employer and employee interests will differ, and procedures are needed to reconcile them when relations break down. But mediation goes beyond that in seeking to rebuild broken relationships and create a firmer basis for working together. it assumes that open and honest communication is capable of correcting mistaken perceptions about the behaviour motives of others and establishing a solid foundation for the future.

Mediation is about looking for solutions. It’s about problem solving. it’s about working towards a more constructive future. Mediation offers an alternative mindset to one based on ‘compliance’ with regulation. If we believe that workplace relations are based essentially on the psychological contract or unspoken deal between employer and employee, mediation is a way in which that contract can be restored after suffering conflict-induced damage.

Employee engagement depends to a great extent on effective communications, in both an upward and downward direction but, in the absence of trust, communication breaks down and is replaced by scepticism, disbelief or denial. Mediation focuses on repairing broken relationships between individuals, and helping to restore a sense of trust and fairness that is fundamental to achieving performance.

Employee engagement is also influenced by the degree of respect that people feel they encounter in their dealings with the organisation – by the extent to which people believe that they are being treated as individuals and that their opinions count. Mediation is a voluntary process in which individuals are invited to share their feelings about what they have experienced and the way they have treated or been treated by others. It is not about guilt and innocence but about opening up people’s minds to other perspectives.

Mediation is generally used to tackle problems between individuals: it’s about personal relationships. But there is also a parallel with the way the different departments do or don’t get on within the same organisation. The familiar ‘silo’ effect is produced when people in one department don’t talk to those in another, seeing them as incompetent, misguided and possibly malicious. These judgements are often based on misperceptions that can only be cleared up by a team-building process aimed at opening up communications.

Mediation can be undertaken either in-house, by a person or people trained for the job, or by an independent external mediator. Either can be effective, but the performance effect of in-house mediation can be reinforced by its wider impact on the organisation’s culture. Adopting a policyof sorting out problems by a process of in-house mediation makes a statement that the organisation is committed to maintaining positive relationships with its workforce and is willing to invest in acquiring the skills to make that happen. There is a parallel here with coaching, which can give a message about the kind of line management skills the organisation wants to foster.

But if we accept the argument that mediation is a performance issue, how do we know it works?  A CIPD survey in 2008 found that employers saw mediation as a highly effective method of resolving conflict, second only to informal discussion between those affected. Major organisations, including NHS trusts and BT, have recently moved to set up their own in-house mediation services and have no doubts about their value and effectiveness. Success rates of up to 100% are reported in disposing of issues remitted to mediation.

Looking at the impact of mediation on well-being, nearly three-quarters of respondents to the CIPD survey saw mediation as reducing or eliminating the stress involved in using more formal procedures. Two in three saw it as a means of retaining valuable employees. Over one half said they used mediation to develop an organisational culture that focused on managing and developing people. It’s time mediation was taken out of its box and seen, not as a technical intervention for dealing with a small minority of workplace issues, but as a tool for transforming cultures and building high-performing organisations. Why wouldn’t HR professionals want to take ownership of a process that seeks solutions based on trust, fairness and respect?

The survey report Workplace mediation: how employers do it is free to download from www.cipd.co.uk/surveys

20 May 2009

This article was written by Cynthia Wagner and originally appeared in The Futurist in December 2008. Globis believes that bridging the age divide and emracing age Equality and Diversity is one of the biggest issues facing organisations today.

Baby boomers and millennials must learn to teach each other

Old-timer Victor remembers that bad run-in your company once had a certain supplier; he warns you to check all references before signing a crucial contract. New-comer Sasha seems to keep to herself, but she turns out to be one of the best salespeople on your staff. She shows the rest of the team how she found six new client leads just by using Facebook contacts.

When most organisations think about “knowledge transfer”, they think in terms of veterans of the organisation mentoring the new hires, younger people with little experience. But increasingly, younger workers are bringing in new skills that are valuable to an organisation, the Conference Board points out in a new report.

“As baby-boom generation of corporate leaders and experts approaches retirement, business in the US, Canada, and many European nations face the loss of experience and knowledge on an unprecedented scale,” says Diane Piktialis, co-author with Kent Greenes of the report, “Bridging the Gaps: How To Transfer Knowledge In Today’s Multigenerational Workplace.” Piktialis notes, “Younger workers can’t be counted on to fill the void, as they lack the experience that builds deep expertise. They also tend to change jobs frequently, taking their technological savvy and any knowledge they’ve gained with them.”

With potential brain drains from both retiring baby boomers and job hopping Gen Xers and millennials, managers are challenged to keep institutional knowledge intact and organisational learning and innovation expanding.

The Conference Board report urges managers to understand the different learning styles of the generations and to ensure that receivers of “knowledge transfer” understand that it’s a two way street. The report identifies four generations working side-by-side in many of today’s workplaces, each with distinctly different learning styles.

Matures or veterans (born 1925-1945) and baby boomers (1946-1964) prefer to learn via formal classroom instruction and printed texts; they tend to be more verbal than visually orientated communicators.

Gen Xers (1965 – 1979) prefer informal learning but are adept at formal classroom learning as well. They strongly prefer action-orientated leaning that focuses on solving real problems. As the first generation to grow up alongside the development of computers, their learning style is more visual than verbal, the report notes.

Gen Yers or millennials (1980 – 1995) were born into the computer age, where leaning is a team process and occurs through a network and connections. They prefer to do things their own way rather than be told how.

With this mix of learning styles, and with mentors and mentees trading roles frequently throughout the process, knowledge transfer has never been more complex. And the rapid acceleration of advances in computers and other technologies has widened the generational knowledge gap, the report notes. For instance, younger workers may prefer to receive IMs (instant messages) rather than attend a company-mandated workshop, and to share their own insights via blogs, wikis, or podcasts rather than talking to others through a procedure they’ve developed.

The methods of knowledge transfer need to be as diverse as the workforce itself, including formal education and training, apprenticeships, simulations and games, storytelling and conferences, blogs and papers.

The report stresses that there is a strong business case for improving both ends of the knowledge transfer process – providing veteran workers with new skills and orientating new workers with institutional history. The benefits include increased productivity, innovation, and organisational stability.

Source: People Management magazine
Date: 10 August 2006

Employers’ liability for harassment in the workplace has just been increased, thanks to an anti-stalking law 

Stephen Ravenscroft and Alana Lowe-Petraske 

The recent House of Lords decision in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust (2006 UKHL 34) has caused a stir among employers, because it has confirmed an employer will be liable for employees’ acts of harassment if they take place in the course of their employment. 

Majrowski was employed by the trust as a clinical auditor. He complained of being harassed by his manager, saying she had used abusive behaviour, fuelled by homophobia. The trust investigated his complaint and found harassment had occurred. Majrowski was later dismissed for an unrelated reason. 

Four years later he began county court proceedings under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, legislation intended to deal with stalkers. He claimed damages for distress, anxiety and consequential losses caused by the harassment. The claim was made against the trust rather than his manager on the grounds that it was vicariously liable as her employer. 

The claim was struck out on the grounds the act could not create another level of liability in employment law. Majrowski appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal and the trust appealed to the House of Lords. 

The House of Lords decided against the employer. The court accepted that the common law principle of vicarious liability should apply to harassment under the act, partly because the section applicable in Scotland appeared to provide for it. But the Lords confirmed employers’ liability would only arise where harassment occurred during employment and the employee’s actions were closely connected to the employment itself. So, employers can be held liable for their employees’ acts of harassment committed in the course of their employment, whether the victim is a co-worker or a third party. 

“Harassment” has no statutory definition under the act, but would appear to cover any unwanted behaviour that is oppressive and unacceptable. It must be a “course of conduct”, happening on at least two occasions. Victims can claim any time within six years of the conduct happening. 

Unlike harassment under anti-discrimination legislation, there is no defence available under the act for employers who have taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring, and no requirement for the employee to raise a grievance in the first instance. 

There may be legal arguments that an employer can use once a claim is brought under the act. If the employee has already claimed for harassment under the discrimination legislation, or for personal injury resulting from harassment under the law of negligence, normally the law will prevent them from taking a “second bite at the cherry”. Employers may also be able to argue the alleged perpetrator has not engaged in a “course of conduct” or that it was not “in the course of employment”. 

Employers may be faced with a multiplicity of unfounded, speculative claims from employees as a result of this decision. 

Blame and claim 

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, victims have the right to claim damages from the employer for the anxiety caused by the harassment, among other things, even though this outcome may not have been foreseeable and the employer has taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring. Unlike a personal injury claim, there is no need for victims to produce medical evidence. 

How to avoid a tribunal 

The steps employers can take to avoid claims are broadly the same as those it should be taking to prevent harassment at work as part of an anti-discrimination strategy. These include:

• giving managers anti-harassment training to help them spot workplace bullying and, perhaps, modify the behaviour of potential bullies;
• providing clear guidance to employees about what behaviour is unacceptable;
• monitoring rates of employee turnover that might indicate bullying is taking place;
• taking any bullying complaints seriously and dealing with them without delay;
• ensuring the waiver of claims by employees as part of a compromise agreement is carefully worded to include possible claims under the act.

19 January 2009

Mediation at Work: A Case Study

Written by: Leatham Green – Assistant Director of Personnel & Training – East Sussex County Council

East Sussex County Council is a large, complex and dynamic organisation. It employs around 16,000 people, in over 500 locations, with in excess of 350 different job types and an annual budget of around £1 billion. Like any modern business, the Council is constantly seeking ways to improve the way it delivers services in the most cost effective way possible. This changing environment inevitably has an impact on its employees and despite the professional industrial relations climate that exists locally, the Council does experience a degree of workplace conflict that is costly both in terms of resources and human impact.

Over the past couple of years discussions have taken place with recognised Trade Unions and managers to establish what, if anything, could be done to reduce conflict at work, and where it does exist, improve our practices and procedures in such a way that any dispute is resolved quickly. The Council has taken the opportunity to strengthen the training and support that is offered to all managers to ensure they are better skilled and more confident in dealing with difficult situations and conversations, as well as providing coaching and mentoring as and when required. In addition to this, the Council also strengthened the level, quality and accessibility of the HR advice, providing a professional service that adds value to the business with an emphasis on finding pragmatic solutions rather than getting bogged down in process and bureaucracy.

The next step was to agree improvements to strategy and processes and the consensus from both managers and Trade Unions was to move away from a process that was reactive to one that was proactive with an emphasis on outcomes, shifting resources to support early intervention and resolution. Mediation was identified as the most effective solution.

A proposal to introduce mediation into the workplace was developed and presented to the Council’s Chief Officer (Directors) Management Team and was positively endorsed. The proposal was supported by a clear business case setting out the high level cost of the existing approach to tackling workplace conflict, the cost of introducing mediation, and the potential short and long-term benefits. It was agreed that the formal introduction of mediation would be made in line with the changes in employment legislation from April 2009.

Preparations for the proposed changes commenced in January 2008. We worked with Globis to train a pool of in-house mediators selected from different professional groups at a senior level across the Council. This also included the involvement of senior Trade Union officials. The mediation training was first class. We now have 12 accredited mediators including two from the recognised Trade Unions. Wherever possible, the Council will engage one of its in-house mediators to undertake a mediation, however it reserves the right to engage external mediators as and when agreed by both parties.

The following actions were also undertaken:

• Revised “Dignity at Work” and Grievance Policies to establish mediation as the first stage in resolving the conflict/dispute.
• Agreed the clause to be inserted into the contract of employment, for employees recruited from April 2009, which establishes mediation as the Council’s preferred method to resolve workplace conflict and dispute.
• Offered mediation on a voluntary basis to any employees with outstanding disputes.
• Raised the profile of mediation as an effective tool in conflict resolution with managers and employees across the organisation.
• Achieved formal endorsement from the Cabinet of the Council to changes in policy and procedure.

The foundations for the positive introduction of workplace mediation have now been achieved.

Throughout our planning phase we have successfully mediated on a dozen cases and all have achieved an effective outcome for the parties concerned. A number of cases involved employees who had been absent from work due to the workplace conflict and they have now returned to work and are making a valuable contribution to the Council. There is still much work to be done and no doubt the cultural shift away from an adversarial standpoint to one of a speedy and satisfactory resolution may take time. However, the success we have had so far bodes well for a brighter future.

March 08  

Work in the 21st Century is turning out to be very different to what we experienced in the late 20th century. The only thing that is constant in most organisations is change. This change ranges from altering organisational structures to introducing new and tighter admin processes for claiming expenses. Change has always been with us but the challenges and complexities organisations face today, are of a different order of magnitude.Employees are facing increasing pressures in trying to be both effective at work and maintain a quality home life. Modern business demands high quality performance, short response times, long working hours and heavy workloads. At home, people face money pressures, family demands, education concerns, high lifestyle expectations, and limited time with loved ones.Recently we have witnessed a series of financial and economic shocks that have reverberated across the world. Since the 1970’s we entered a new age. This age is often referred to as the information age. This is the age in which technology begun to play an increasingly important role in our lives. The information age has ushered in a new set of issues. New technologies – especially computers and telecommunications have become both a blessing and a curse. In one sense the speed with which we can now communicate with a colleague represents a momentous benefit to the workplace. It also represents a platform for tension and stress as results are expected faster and whereabouts can be constantly tracked. Technology advancements have also created increased competition for jobs. Change has been constant throughout life, but the new element that the information age has brought is the remorseless, unrelenting, increasing pace of change. If you are thinking that one day it will slow down and go back to how it was before I have news for you. It won’t! It will continue to accelerate. Work is wearing many people down. It’s intense and the line between home and work is blurring. The concept of work-life balance is, for many, just that – a concept. Work is of course such an important part of our lives, and not simply because of the money. Work gives life meaning, purpose and contributes to our sense of worth1. We are programmed to want to work. I recall listening to the story of a wealthy businessman from Wales. He had built up a large meat business and the opportunity came along for him to sell it. After selling the business and becoming incredibly wealthy, he attempted to spend some time at home doing nothing. It didn’t take him long to realise that he couldn’t survive without working. His wife also couldn’t get used to the idea of him being at home.The corollary to this story is that because of the value we place on work the imperative should be to squeeze as much satisfaction from our time at work as possible. So what are some of the things we can do to cope with change and still enjoy our work?

1. Accept that change is here to stay. Leaving one organisation for another might only bring a short term reprieve if you are trying to escape change. Change is happening everywhere.
2. Find out more about the organisation you work for. Speak to senior management. Read organisational information. Ask questions about the future plans for the Company. It will help you prepare for any eventual changes.
3. Increase your knowledge of what is happening at other organisations. This will give you a better understanding of the issues affecting your sector and help you to spot trends. You can also use your new knowledge to suggest new ideas for your organisation.
4. Think about the things you are good at. Is your job allowing you to exhibit your skills regularly? If not find a way to work in a role that matches your skill set.
5. Build better relationships with your colleagues. Working life is always better when there is a nucleus of colleagues with which you get on with. This will mean that you find it easier to get things done when you have to rely on others for help.
6. Work on your personal development. Focusing on and addressing areas of self improvement often builds confidence. It can also make us less concerned when change comes because we may feel better prepared to cope with it.   

Accepting the inevitability of change will mean that we are less likely to be caught off guard when it comes along. Embracing some or all of the tips above may also mean that we can begin to welcome change as an opportunity.Clive LewisManaging Director

Feb 08
Are you dreading that tricky conversation ?  Have you been trying to convince yourself that it will resolve itself eventually and maybe you could make it worse by tackling it ? 

If so, you are not alone !  Difficult conversations are part of life and most of us struggle with them.  Despite this, less than 1 in 10 organisations are training managers to handle difficult conversations, according to a recent survey.  However the impact of avoiding these conversations or handling them badly is devastating: 36% of respondents felt that inaction in this key area undermines confidence in management, and 42% believe it erodes the morale of their best people.

So what can you do to improve your chances of tackling a difficult conversation successfully ?

Be curious
Hold the intent to learn, be curious and explore.  The tighter you hold to a specific result, the less likely you will be to achieve your overall goal. 
For example, consider what happens when you think: “I will make them stop doing that”.  The inference is: “Firstly they are wrong.  Secondly I will point out to them that they are wrong.  Thirdly when they realise how wrong they are they will immediately want to stop.  They will wonder why they have been doing it all this time and be really grateful to me.  I am right”.  

Ok, I exaggerate for amusement.  But no matter how you phrase it, if your unspoken intent is that they are wrong and you are right, it will leak out in your words, tone and body language and the other person will automatically become defensive.  They will want to prove they are not wrong and be tempted to counter attack.

Tell the third story 
You both believe your stories are the single truth and in order to make progress one person has to shift.  Preferably them.  You both become more entrenched in your position.  However there is another way to get movement.  When you make the other person wrong, you also make assumptions about them, their intentions and thinking.  Instead, tell their story in a way which allows them to recognise it as true, like a neutral bystander might.  This means convey what you know to be true, with no inferences or assumptions. 

For example, “I find the impact of you doing this unacceptable (true).  I don’t know if you are aware of the impact your behaviour has on me (true).  I want to share this with you (true) and find out about your thoughts (if it’s not true initially, you can develop this through an intention of curiosity). I want to see if we can jointly find an option which will meet both our needs (true). 

This is the key to taking the sting out of the conversation.  The inference here is “I don’t own the whole truth to this situation.  I have a story, they have a story.  There is clearly a difference in how we are interpreting what’s happening.  Both our stories have some truth from where we stand. Let’s work together to find a way forward which I may not even have envisaged”.

Framing
How you begin the conversation is important; you may want to use this sentence to frame it.  “I’d really like to talk to you about something which is bothering me.  My sense is that you and I are seeing the situation differently.  I’d like to share how I’m seeing it and learn more about how you’re seeing it”.  This puts the difference on the table clearly yet safely.  It’s also essential the other person feels heard and acknowledged, otherwise no solution will be forthcoming.  It may sound trite, but saying “it sounds like you find that very frustrating”, or “I can see that makes complete sense now given what you’ve told me”, or even “I understand how that must be annoying” can allow the other person to relax and encourage them to focus on collaborative problem solving. There is no magic solution for handling those tricky conversations but try going equipped with a curious intention, telling the third story and framing it by making the difference explicit and acknowledging them.  Even thinking it through in this way allows you to shift your position before the conversation happens.  You may surprise yourself! 
Julia Cusack Head of Coaching & Learning

Feb 08
As a coach and facilitator, when I ask people for one word which describes how they manage time, there are knowing smiles and guffaws of laughter.  Time, it seems, is the universal currency which we all think we don’t spend as wisely as we might.
I often hear people describing their time management skills as if they are innate and immutable qualities: “that’s just me, I’m rubbish with deadlines” or “I have to be in plenty of time, that’s who I am”.  Sometimes there are genuine personality preferences which have an impact, for example those differences illustrated by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).  

It’s in my genes
The MBTI describes two distinct types: one with a preference for Perceiving (or ‘Ps’ as they are commonly described for short), and the other with a preference for Judging.  For ‘Ps’ time just happens, it flows, and managing it doesn’t feel right at all.  Whereas ‘Js’ like to control and organise, indeed the very phrase ‘time management’ sounds like something a ‘J’ could have coined. The starting point for ‘Js’ is that free time is what’s left over after planned activities, while for ‘Ps’, the premise is that all time is free apart from what’s planned. 

These differences can be seen in clashes in the workplace, schools, not to mention homes all over the country.   ‘Ps’ often feel their approach is wrong “You always leave it until the last minute”.  Some of the rules advocated in standard time management courses are heavily ‘J’ flavoured: “Finish one task before starting another”.  However, this is not about what’s right and wrong, but more about managing yourself in a way which suits your strengths and doesn’t put others out.  In other words personality difference doesn’t give you an excuse to not develop your skills. 

But I procrastinate…
… Procrastination is often used in connection with time management, but it’s little more than a disempowering label.  Research shows it affects most of us; people of all types put off doing, and particularly starting, tasks.  The behaviour is actually a symptom which may have a number of root causes.  Some of the main reasons are:
Over-stimulation – too many ideas and possibilities�
Perfectionism or avoiding tasks which stimulate feelings of incompetence�
Task doesn’t ‘grab’ you

So they key is to notice what you are telling yourself when you are not starting or doing the task.  Consider these:

“Hmmm, not sure where to start, what am I doing ? Oh yes, project X. Maybe I’ll do it like this, or project Z is linked, hang on, here’s an idea…”
“I can’t do it, it might not be good enough, so I can’t even start it”
“I really must do that job.  But I’d really rather be doing the other one due next week.  Wish I didn’t have to do it, oh well”.
You get the idea.  Often these messages are out of our awareness, scripts that we have been running around our heads for many years.  But even catching these comments can really help overcome the blockage.  Identify what you say to yourself and see if one of these strategies helps get you started.

Make use of checklists
Make a checklist which breaks down the component parts of a task.  Once you have jotted down the items involved, you have a visual image of your workload.  This means, firstly, the job looks more manageable – small single step tasks you can face, and secondly, you will spot any gaps (e.g. before I do that I need to establish who’s available).  Thirdly, and most importantly, you won’t have to keep mentally revising what stage you’ve reached and what’s next.  This can be liberating indeed and great for sustaining momentum. 

Set a time limit 
Very few jobs need to be done perfectly at first go (brain surgeons can ignore this advice!)  It can feel daunting to try and find a level that is ‘good enough’ in completing a task, rather than perfect.  A simple, yet effective, way of doing this is to time yourself and do just 15 or 20 minutes – it can be revitalizing knowing you have to stop when the alarm goes, rather than struggling to get it all done.  It’s surprising then how often people then find the energy to continue with the task.

Reward yourself
A much underused yet powerful technique is to give yourself an incentive.  If it sounds far too simple, try it.  Choose something really enjoyable to do on completion of the task – not too far ahead or it won’t be sufficiently enticing.

Good luck, as they say: ‘no time like the present!’

Julia Cusack Head of Coaching & Learning

Saturday 26th January 2008

We’re gripped by health issues, but we don’t often associate health with conflict at work. The fact is, lower stress, less fatigue and a better work-life balance all help us take care of ourselves.

Employees face huge pressure trying to be effective at work and maintain a quality home life. Business demands high quality performance, short response times and heavy workloads. At home, there are money pressures, family demands, education concerns and limited time with loved ones.

As a result, workplace relationships become strained. It is commonly known that poor relationships at work have a knock-on effect. For example, organisations are likely to see an increase in sickness absence and stress when there is friction or poorly-managed change at work.

Recently I was asked by an organisation to help resolve a dispute between two individuals. As a result of the fallout, one of the parties was experiencing a deteriorating skin condition. Her skin was flaking. 

When I saw her about two weeks after the problem was resolved there was an amazing improvement. She (and her doctor) linked the skin condition to the conflict situation with her colleague.

Sickness absence costs UK businesses in excess of £13bn per year, according to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Work related stress accounts for over a third of all new incidents of ill health. 12 million days are lost each year to stress, depression and anxiety. Some of these will be unauthorised absence in connection with strained relationships in the workplace. Why is this?

Check out the typical responses to conflict below. A passive way of avoiding personal contact might mean phoning in sick. This might not be the right thing to do but you might persuade yourself that it buys some reprieve from having to deal with a difficult situation. 

It makes sense therefore, for an organisation to keep positive and productive workplace relationships at the top of its agenda. 

I regularly mediate disputes at County Courts across the country. I recall mediating an employment case between a GP and a Primary Care Trust a few years ago. I was struck by some of the notes I received about the case. To give an idea of how profound the health effects of conflict can be, here is an extract:

‘Furthermore, my client has incurred legal expenses, accountants fees, costs for employing lawyers, time spent meeting with lawyers, time spent researching, writing letters, photocopying documents, sleepless nights, precious time lost, stress worry, psychosomatic symptoms such as headache, migraine, depression, suicidal thoughts, weight loss due to loss of appetite, strained relationship with family, sleep depravation, loss of earnings, total waste of precious time and energy. The defendant has also been unable to open her mail box without trepidation since receiving a letter from X’. 

The intensity of these words hit me. During our discussions, the GP had to make frequent trips to the lavatory – one of the effects of the dispute. That it was a GP suffering made it somehow more poignant, though of course conflict impacts us all, irrespective of our occupation or seniority.

In your pursuit of better well-being, you would do well to think about how your relationships at work can contribute towards better health. Here are a few questions to help you think about how to maintain good relationships at work.

• How can you best respond rather than react to a situation?
• Generally, how important is this issue on a scale of 1-10 (10 being life and death)?
• Are there any learning points for you from previous interactions with your colleagues?
• Will this issue be important in a year?
• What can you do to turn the issue into something positive?
• Pursue solutions to these questions, and you are much more likely to not only have better relationships at work, but have better health too!

Clive is founder and Managing Director of Globis
You can also view this article on-line at Opportunities Magazine 
http://opportunities.modezero.net/default.asp?title=It’smakingussick%2CsaysCliveLewis&page=article.display&article.id=181 

By: Clive Lewis Managing Director Globis 
Date: December 2007 

Being bullied is a harrowing experience. The recent increased national focus on banishing bullying from the workplace means that incidents of bullying at work are declining – Aren’t they? 

A former colleague once told me the story of how she had resorted to switching her mobile phone off and keeping the answering machine on at home, even when she was there. Why? Her boss kept calling her for work-related information even when she was away from work. The duration of the calls were lengthy and she felt that she had no choice but to be constantly available for her boss. 

On one hand, I thought, it must be great to be in such demand and be the person with all the answers. It may even provide a sense of security knowing that you have information that is difficult to be retrieved elsewhere in the organisation. On the other hand when the lines of separation between home and work become blurred levels of stress and dissatisfaction are likely to increase. In my colleague’s case, it wasn’t the fact that she was being asked that gave her the problem. It was the way in which the caller asked for the information in addition to the frequency with which these calls were coming. 

Fortunately, my colleague was able to find an HR colleague, in whom she trusted, to talk to about her predicament. This helped bring about a solution. This included arranging a mediation session between the two parties, which was successful. But solutions aren’t always this easy. We have seen in the most extreme cases of bullying that a former employee of an investment bank won £800,000 in damages from her former employer for psychological injury. Recent research shows that only 33% of line managers feel trained to cope with relationship difficulties at work. 

Most bullies don’t intend to be nasty. Very few people go out of their way to make others’ lives a misery. Most people don’t realise how hurtful they are being until confronted. In one case I dealt with recently, the line manager began to cry when she realised the impact she was having on the life of one of the members of her team. 

One piece of advice to anyone being bullied is to keep records of incidents. Relationships can be rebuilt after allegations of bullying if handled properly. Having detailed notes that allow a discussion based on fact to take place will help a great deal. Respondents to a recent Amicus Survey said they thought that 80% of bullying was down to miscommunication that escalated into real interpersonal problems. 

Organisations can also help the bully by offering training and development programmes that include topics such as managing difficult conversations, influencing and making an impact. The business case for improving relationships at work is well proven. Poor relationships at work lead to issues such as higher rates of sickness absence, increased levels of stress, increased levels of employee turnover, lower productivity and poor customer service. 

The best way to deal with any breakdown in relationships is to act quickly before the problem gets worse. 

To help you, here are some tips for your organisation: 

• Define the problem – what is and isn’t acceptable
• Provide managers with appropriate training courses – such as managing difficult conversations, influencing and making an impact 
• Provide individual support – through HR teams and other departments
• Support the bully and the bullied – both parties can benefit from on-going interventions such as coaching

This article is also published in the Opportunities Magazine

Written by: Clive Lewis Founder and Managing Director, Globis
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The recent news that years of wrangling and legal actions over the new Wembley Stadium have come to an end is great news for advocates of conflict resolution processes. After a debacle that has impacted the lives of many thousands of football fans the way was finally cleared for completion and a showpiece FA Cup Final in May 2007. It is estimated that the project, initially budgeted at £458 million will, some 8 years on, close with little change from £800 million.

Lord Carter of Coles has played a role that encouraged the main parties to come together to discuss differences and a workable solution that will result in achieving one main aim of opening the brand new 90,000 seat stadium. Before he was brought in, executives at WSNL and Multiplex were barely on speaking terms, with their lawyers the only conduit for discussion, each threatening to sue the other. One imagines the FA and government will be breathing a huge sigh of relief that the seemingly endless round of arguments that would have benefited no one but the lawyers is over.

What this public, high profile case demonstrates is the real value organisations can derive from engaging with conflict resolution tools such as mediation in a commercial setting. Whilst it is unlikely that the sheer size of this project is replicated as an everyday occurrence, organisations up and down the country will recognise many of the themes that have emerged from the Wembley case. It is all too easy to stand at a distance and criticise the Wembley project when in reality similar scenarios on a smaller scale happen regularly due to a failure of individuals to strike up open meaningful dialogue when issues arise.

When mediation – third party assisted negotiation – was introduced to the UK in the early 1990s, there was much resistance to the concept with clients and lawyers protesting that it would not work in the UK and that it was not relevant to the English or European legal systems.

The last few years, however, have seen developments within the government and judicial system that are leading to the beginnings of an acceptance for mediation within the UK.

The new English law Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were introduced in April 1999. The overriding objective of the new rules was to enable the courts to “deal with cases justly” through active case management. Active case management was partly defined as“encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure…” and this, the courts were able to do with or without the agreement of the parties. Thus mediation was firmly placed as a central feature of the new landscape of civil litigation.

Two case judgments, Dunnett v Railtrack in February and Hurst v Leeming have even greater implications for anyone bringing cases to court. Dunnett broke new ground as the first example of a successful litigant winning at trial, but losing the subsequent costs award because of an unreasonable refusal to follow the court’s earlier suggestion to mediate the dispute. In Hurst v Leeming the claimant withdrew his claim, but argued that costs should be borne by the defendant because he had refused offers to mediate both before and after proceedings had been issued. In this judgment, Mr Justice Lightman explained why he viewed the refusal to mediate as reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case but warned that refusal is a “high risk course to take”.

It is now widely expected that these two decisions will have a significant impact on the numbers of parties considering mediation before English court proceedings.

However, it should become increasingly less necessary to use legal cases to justify why organisations should attempt to use mediation prior to going to court or taking other rights based action.

For example, with the Wembley case we have seen costs spiral out of control due to an inability or unwillingness for parties to get together and talk things through leading to, amongst other things, wasted down time. Recently, research indicated that the cost of conflict to the UK is £33bn. This ranges from Customer disputes through to board room tensions that may result in a senior executive leaving the company.

Practitioners in the field of conflict resolution generally agree that there are only three ways in which disputes can be resolved – through power, rights or interests. Power based conflict resolution techniques such as coercion, and one way communication from someone in higher authority, generate a great deal of damage because they create winners and losers, destroy important relationships and only lead to potential further disputes.

Rights based methods such as legislation, litigation, rules and procedures were introduced to allow disputes to be resolved and encourage individuals to interact more peacefully. The exercise of rights is often perceived by those in power as diluting their authority. Rights-based processes similarly create winners and losers. While power-based relationships focus on preserving hierarchy and obedience, rights-based processes focus on enforcing contractual language and rarely lead to closure. Both power and rights based methods focus on suppressing or settling conflict and issues of difference rather than resolving and preventing them.

Interest based processes such as mediation in a commercial setting on the other hand, focuses on finding common ground and seeking to understand why people came into conflict in the first place. Interest based approaches focus therefore not just on what people want, but why they want it. As a result people are encouraged to learn from each other and work more collaboratively towards objectives.

Mediation also offers the advantage that it can be undertaken in tandem with any legal or statutory that may have begun, as it is without prejudice. If mediation doesn’t work (and it does in more than 80% of cases) then any legal process can continue its trajectory. It is only through interest based processes that everyone’s ability to learn from and prevent further conflict is increased.

Mediation differs from litigation in that the mediator is not a judge or arbitrator who decides the issues for the parties. It is a process that invites the participants to be creative, collaborative and be responsible for solutions. It is future-oriented and less concerned with deciding who is right or wrong than with solving problems so they do not occur again.

There are many reasons that can explain why mediation is now becoming an increasingly used method of conflict resolution for commercial cases. These include the high increase in the number of company court cases – a 3 fold year on year increase in 2005 – the higher levels of compensation and, for many, the realisation that the formal litigious process can in some circumstances be so adversarial and stressful to all concerned that any possibility of people working together again is minimal. The alternative in the Wembley case was a battle in the High Court that would have lasted years and cost tens of millions.

There is also the issue when the litigious route is taken that any work initially identified still needs to be carried out, so organisations may need to go through the tortuous tendering process from scratch again, adding even more costs to the process. Government too is also beginning to utilise mediation with the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s announcement in 2001 that all government departments would seek to avoid litigation by using mediation and other neutral-assisted dispute resolution procedures wherever possible.

Globis is beginning to see a steady increase in the number of commercial cases that are being referred for mediation. The business case for commercial mediation is clear. It can save organisations thousands of pounds. Mediation is quick, economic, private, confidential and flexible and can allow the commercial relationship between the parties to be preserved. Mediation can also be arranged within days or weeks rather than the months or years which are typical of litigation.

In a time of increasing shareholder and customer scrutiny, the commercial benefits of mediation can only be good news.