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.