Workplace Assessments: Find out what's really going on in your organization

Got morale issues, or brewing conflict?  It may be hard to know where it's coming from and why.

Better than a survey, far better than informal methods like gossip, workplace assessments (sometimes termed ‘environment assessments/audits’ or ‘conflict assessments’) provide the best analysis of what’s going on in a workplace.  Typically, an outside assessor interviews all staff, compiles a report preserving anonymity, and offers recommendations to address problems.  Then Management knows where to focus its energies, and has the legitimacy based to take overdue action.  However, assessments need to be done ethically or they will violate some important ethical principles.

Having done many assessments, I can say that the circumstances can dictate variations in method and focus.   An assessment is appropriate when the issues are more widespread and general, often unknown.  The anonymity offered in assessments, and the fact that the assessor is external to the work unit and usually to the organization, invites people to share their true concerns.  Assessments are aimed at healing, rather than just fault-finding (like investigations).

What’s wrong with anonymous surveys?  They are fine, but only a human interviewer can elicit deeper information and follow up on leads.   People often complete surveys in a hurry, and their answers are often unclear.

Here's an excerpt from the chapter of my e-book, Dispute Resolution 101:

"For multiparty conflicts, with many different issues, competing perspectives and histories, and subgroup dynamics, the assessment will be more lengthy and require more of the third party’s perceptiveness and strategic thinking. The assessment will want to explore the questions above, and more:
• How has this conflict changed over time, and what does that tell us about the factors affecting it?
• How does the mission, structure, culture and politics of the organization and group affect the situation?
• How (well) has Management managed the situation?  
• Who, aside from the parties, might be a useful resource to influence change?  
...
Where are the ethical guidelines for conducting such assessments?  The assessor learns sensitive information and passes considerable amounts on (in writing or verbally) to those in authority, along with recommendations that could impact lives.  None of the mediation associations I know have codes of conduct for this, nor do any texts cover them.  Here are the ones I abide by:
• Impartiality:  I don’t shape the assessment with my bias, or my client’s.
• Anonymity:  I don’t divulge my source (except with permission), and I warn the source where I think his/her identity can be guessed.  In the rare cases where all is ‘on the record’ by the employer’s insistence (e.g., a safety concern), I ensure all know that up front.
• Rarely Name Names:  I don’t mention an employee that others have named as a problem unless I feel it is necessary.
• Voluntariness:  I don’t require participation, and even if employers do, individuals do not have to share information.
• Focus on Organization’s Best Interests:  The organization, not the specific person who hires me, is the entity that above all should benefit from my report.  The team I am assessing is a close second.
• Diplomatic Sharing:  When sharing the information with the group, I use discretion to protect the client and individuals.
• Transparency:  I explain the process upfront.  After, I share an honest summary with staff, though I use discretion, and allow the client some influence in what is shared or not.
• Procedural Purity:  While I would generally be willing to carry out an interest-based process following my assessment (providing the parties were comfortable with that), I would not conduct an investigation or rights-based process for I would be tainted.  I will also need to justify my recommendations against a concern that I am creating work for myself."

Visit me at www.common-ground.ca.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Still a hot topic

The ongoing allegations about Jian Ghomeshi, formerly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the cross-border show Q, have demonstrated how old-fashioned sexual harassment can be new again.  It's got people talking.

Too much talk, as people have been too vocal on either side of the issue in social media.  Many were quick to defend Ghomeshi, and blame the CBC ("The Mother Corp") for prudishness.  At least now people are inquiring about the barriers that keep victims/survivors from making complaints.

What does this have to do with family businesses?  It applies the same as other workplaces, and maybe more.  I worry, with some basis in experience, that the informality of some family enterprises, the inexperience of some family members, and the desire to protect loved ones, may leave the business and the employees vulnerable.  If your business has grown quickly into one with several managers and employees, your company structures will need to keep up.

In short:

• Does your business have a harassment policy?  How about suitably arms-length procedures?
• Is everyone, especially managers, informed about the law, the policy, and the procedures for handling issues?

If you say, "We never have had a complaint," just reflect on whether that's a good sign or a sign of fear in your company culture.

Given what I've said, in the context of the police investigation into Ghomeshi, it may seem odd for me to mention informal options to handle complaints.  However, informed complainants (i.e., who understand their options) and respondents may sometimes prefer mediation, for instance.  Particularly where the allegations are likely restricted to one victim, perhaps as a first offence, mediation can offer a less punitive education, with more privacy for respondents and complainants (and less costly and disruptive to employers).  It helps to have a mediator with harassment experience who will to stop the mediation if it seems more appropriate to investigate.  Luckily, mediation is "without prejudice", so it will not likely harm a subsequent investigation.  Sometimes mediation happens post-investigation, if the parties must return to working together.  That type of meeting requires great skill in the mediator.

There is also good value in sensitivity coaching for those who did, or likely did commit unwelcome and inappropriate conduct.  But employers need to invest more than a token amount of time (i.e., more than a couple hours) to such coaching.

If you answered 'no' to those questions above, now's the time to harassment-proof your company.

Daryl Landau is a mediator, coach and investigator.  He once worked at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

For more on Ghomeshi:
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/ghomeshi-gate-proves-opinion-minus-fact-all-too-common-on-social-media/article21376025/

- http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/sex-lies-and-the-cbc/

Holiday Thoughts About Relatives

I had a nightmare - perhaps the result of undigested food from Thanksgiving through to Halloween - imagining that my most colourful relatives living and deceased gathered together for a feast.  Perhaps you have your own nightmares of this sort.  If you ever need my services to make your gatherings more pleasant...well, maybe we can make a trade in kind.

Dreams exaggerate the truth.  In reality, my family gatherings on all sides have nearly always been comfortable and fun, despite or because of the characters involved.  And I get along with all of them most of the time.  And my family was quite open (not many unspeakable topics, though I'm learning some secrets as I get older), and also very accommodating, and generous.

From my experience I glean these lessons:

1. Make an effort.  Otherwise you make others, and yourself, miserable.  These events are important to others, and you might consider it some pay back for the help family provides.  Be thankful, and contribute what you can.

2. Set your limits before you reach your limit.  When I said 'no thanks' to something, people accepted it, perhaps because I'd made an effort at other times.

3. Read body language.  It's not hard to tell when you're annoying someone, and if you can't tell then you might have an empathy gap.

4. Make traditions flexible.  That's a bit of a paradox, but if you meditate on it you might see the wisdom of striking a balance.

5. Pick your battles.  If it's a recurring problem, and the person has some capacity to learn, then give a firm but diplomatic response at some time and place other than the dinner table.

6. After months or years of not speaking, just decide to 'bury the hatchet.'  Everyone else in the family will breath a sigh of relief.

I realize not every family has it as good as I do, but it's worth some effort to improve it.  After all, it's inescapable.