Why to keep talking (even if there is “nothing to discuss”)

I recently read the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Competing Human Rights.  One of the things that struck me was that they recommend mediation or some kind of facilitated discussion, even if it is clear from the outset that a complaint may have little merit.  Why would mediation or discussion be a good idea even if no one’s rights are violated, or even when it seems obvious that one party is in right and the other party is in the wrong?

Some reasons why it might be a good idea to keep talking:

Even if it does not result in agreement, a discussion can clear the air.  People involved in a conflict sometimes often have a need to express their point of view.  They want the other side to understand their position, even though they realize that it may not result in any concrete change.  A frank discussion, with or without the help of a mediator, can help them achieve that.

A discussion can be educational.  Sometimes conflicts arise because people simply are not aware of the rules or of others’ rights.  Just as crucially, people may have no idea how others feel, or just how important others might find something that seems trivial.  A discussion can reduce the possibility of future misunderstanding and inadvertent offense.

Even if the rules are clear, the details of compliance might require a discussion.   I used to live near a playground where a posted sign proclaimed a single rule:  “Respect Everyone.”  A lovely sentiment, to be sure, but what does that mean in practice?  By their very nature, rules do not contain the details of their application.  Two people might have very different ideas about what it means to “respect” others.  A discussion of the specific actions that the rules require and forbid can go a long way toward preventing misunderstanding and conflict.

Considering a different perspective can help clarify your own.  Even if you never change your mind about an issue, listening to a different perspective can be useful.  It can remind you of the reasons why you hold your own view.  It can make your own view clearer to you.

It is important to be heard.  Just as it is important to hear another party’s point of view, it is important to have your own position heard.  Even if no one changes their mind, it is important to have one’s own view attended to and acknowledged.  This is impossible without discussion.

Mutual understanding and respectful acknowledgement is not a substitute for agreement, but it may be the next best thing.  The next time you think to yourself that there is “nothing to discuss,” please reconsider.

Fall Newsletter Now Available

The 2012 Fall Newsletter for Principled Dispute Resolution and Consulting is now available on the Newsletter Archive page.  My lead article discusses some recent surprising research on the effects of rude behaviour.  You can also subscribe so you're sure not to miss future issues.  (The sign-up form is on the left - scroll down if necessary.)

Competing Human Rights at the Art Gallery

The Dowse Art Museum, a municipal art gallery in Wellington, New Zealand was recently the subject of a human rights complaint when it announced a “women and children only” exhibit.

The exhibit in question is a short (3 minute) documentary film called “Cinderazahd: Behind the Veil” by Qatari-American filmmaker Sophia al-Maria, and is being shown as part of the wider exhibition, “In Spite of Ourselves:  Approaching Documentary.”  The film, apparently shot on a hand-held camera, shows a group of Qatari women and children getting ready for a wedding.  Because the women are unveiled, al-Maria stipulated that the gallery could show the film only on the condition that men be prohibited from watching it.  Cam McCracken, the gallery’s director, agreed to the stipulation and has not seen the film himself.

The decision to exclude men proved controversial .  (“Dowse prepares for worst ahead of exhibit” read a headline in The Dominion Post.)  The case caught my attention because I recently read Ontario’s Policy on Competing Human Rights which is designed to offer guidance on exactly these sorts of cases.  What is to be done when one individual’s or organization’s rights conflict with – or appear to conflict with – those of another individual or organization?  While all rights are absolute and no rights are more important than others according to Ontario law, the courts have also recognized that rights may have limits in some situations where they substantially interfere with the rights of others.  The policy recommends mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution if parties cannot come to accommodation through other means.

New Zealand’s human rights policy also recommends mediation in the case of complaints, and a mediation was held between representatives of the gallery and Mr. Paul Young, the complainant.  The details of the mediation are confidential, so all I am able to report is that no decision was reached on the legality of the ban, and the gallery acknowledged that they should have, “worked harder to ensure accurate information about the work, its cost, content and intent, was available to the public earlier.”  (You can read their statement to the media here.)

While no one likes to be excluded, it must be admitted that being prevented from seeing a 3-minute film is a fairly minor violation of human rights on the scales of global injustice.  And I can’t imagine that the film will start a trend such that men need to fear that their access to art will be compromised.  The majority of artworld “gatekeepers” (critics, curators, gallery owners, collectors, etc.) are men and artists who want to be taken seriously will not make their work inaccessible to them.

Thinking about the controversy in New Zealand prompted me to think about some other ethical issues in the arts.  What is an artist’s responsibility to the people she depicts?  Did al-Maria inform her subjects that their wedding preparations would be the subject of a film that might be shown in an art gallery?  Did they give their permission?  Did she assure them that the film would not be seen by men, and if so, was this really something that she could guarantee?  Is there a tension between an artist offering something as a work and at the same time invoking her moral rights to exclude certain people from viewing it?

One final thought:  Displaying a work in a separate part of a gallery and restricting access to women and children is certainly one way of excluding certain viewers.  Are there less obvious ways in which viewers may be excluded by the artworld?  Do we give certain people the idea that “this is not for you” without saying so out loud?  Is the language used to discuss art exclusionary?  Some galleries (such as the Frick Collection and the Neue Galerie, both in New York City) deny access to children.  While I can see reasons for and against excluding children from art galleries, doing so makes it much more difficult for parents to visit.  High admission prices exclude those with limited disposable income.  None of these may warrant a complaint to the human rights commission, but they may be just as exclusionary as a “women only” exhibit.

“In any other workplace…”

When people learn that I work in conflict resolution, they are often eager to tell me about the conflicts in their workplace.  I hear about bad behaviour, bullying, rudeness, and the description usually builds to the following declaration:

“In any other workplace, this person would have been fired long ago!”

And at this point I have to smile, and suppress the urge to roll my eyes.

I have heard this claim from people in large organizations and small, unionized and non-unionized, industrial and academic.  Many people are under the impression that their workplace is uniquely dysfunctional and that the person they have told me about – whether a supervisor, co-worker, or employee – is distinctively awful.  The unfortunate reality is that bad behaviour in the workplace is widespread, and no matter how often I hear about it, my heart always goes out to those affected.  Workplace strife and conflict take a terrible toll, not only on the financial well-being of organizations, but also on the mental and physical health of everyone who must deal with it.

While the claim that things would be different in “any other workplace” is not literally true, it does point to an underlying fact about workplace conflict.  Although every unhappy workplace (like every unhappy family) may be unhappy in its own way, certain structural factors in organizations make workplace conflict particularly difficult to manage.  Let me just mention two:

First, the offending person is likely to be perceived as providing great value to the organization.  Maybe he or she is the top salesperson, or has some hard-to-replace set of skills, or is well-connected within upper management.  Whatever value this person brings is perceived as making up for or out-weighing the grief that he or she causes.

The key word here is “perceived.”  It is an open question whether the “value” that a conflict-prone employee brings to an organization really out-weighs their overall cost.  If someone took the time to crunch the numbers, they might be surprised at how they work out.  In his book, The No Asshole Rule, Robert Sutton tells the story of a men’s clothing store in which the top salesman was an overbearing jerk and made life miserable for the other employees.  When he was finally let go, the store’s overall sales actually rose.  Although this person was an effective salesman, his incivility and bad behaviour prevented others from succeeding.  Sutton has many similar stories.


Second, there is often a view that, since it is “impossible” to get rid of the conflict-prone person, there is no point in confronting him or her about their actions or in hoping for any kind of behavioural change. 

Is it really “impossible” for an organization to discipline or dismiss a conflict-prone employee?  Only your HR specialist or employment lawyer may know for certain.  As for the hope of behavioural change, I will say only that it will not happen if the employee in question is never confronted about his or her actions.  Conflict-prone employees often lack insight into the effect they have on others.  They may genuinely not realize that their behaviour is unacceptable.  If you are the supervisor of an employee who makes coming to work an ordeal for others and you have not discussed this with him or her, then (sad to say) you are part of the problem.

If a person in a position of power really believes that things would be different “in any other workplace,” then it may be time to ask what is holding your organization back from attempting positive change.

How to Respond to Criticism

How to respond to the co-worker who criticizes your presentation, to your spouse who disapproves of the way you load the dishwasher, or to the random stranger who passes judgement on your parallel parking?

Everyone has been on the receiving end of criticism.  If you’re lucky, the criticism was relevant, and delivered with sensitivity and tact.  Unfortunately this is often not the case. Criticism can be delivered so badly that any value it may have for the recipient is all but impossible to recover.  (See my previous post for some ideas about how to give constructive criticism.)  Yet attending to criticism, no matter how tactless or ill-conceived, is important.  We get better by attending to critical feedback.  One of the biggest differences between novices and experts in a given domain is that while novices pay more attention to positive feedback, experts hone their skills by attending more to negative feedback.*


Much of what I’ve seen written about responding to criticism is not very good.  Recipients of advice are told not to “take it personally.”  But whether or not it is useful to take criticism “personally” depends very much on what kind of criticism we’re talking about.  Certainly, a scientist should not take it “personally” if her methodology is criticized.  And a graphic designer should not take it “personally” if a client rejects one of his designs.  Yet some legitimate criticism is of a personal nature, and one can only learn from it if it is taken “personally.”  A customer service rep who is criticized for having an abrasive manner does in fact need to take the criticism “personally” if he or she wishes to change and be more effective in the job.

The most important thing about responding to any  criticism is to put yourself in the correct mindset so that you can learn from criticism. Think carefully about critical feedback.  Try to separate those aspects of the criticism that may be useful from those that are not. This can be difficult to do.  It might help to discuss the criticism with a trusted friend or mentor – someone who respects you enough to tell you the truth, even if the truth is hard to hear.

Another piece of advice I’ve seen regarding criticism is to “ignore the haters” – with the implication that anyone who offers criticism is a “hater.”  A more helpful suggestion is to consider the source of the criticism. Is it your boss delivering the criticism, a co-worker, your spouse, a stranger?  How seriously to take the criticism and how to respond will depend on the answer to this question.  Is the person criticizing you angry or upset?  This might mean that the criticism is unfair or inappropriate.  But it is impossible to be sure:  True words are sometimes be spoken in anger.  Again, discuss the criticism with someone you trust, or try to have a conversation with your critic when he or she is more calm.

When responding to criticism, even unfair or misplaced criticism, try not to be defensive.  Do not attempt to answer your critic on the spot.  It is much more important to make sure you understand what is being said.  Repeat back your critic’s words.  This will show that you have been listening, and it will also give you time to frame a response.  Ask questions to make sure that you have in fact understood.  As difficult as it is to hear criticism, walking away confused or unsure about what you may have been doing wrong is worse and more damaging in the long run.

Sadly, some of the people who criticize you (while perhaps not “haters”) will have questionable motives, and some may be acting from confused emotions.  But if someone genuinely wants to help you, or is in a role where giving critical feedback is appropriate, then listen, learn what you can, and be grateful.  It isn’t easy for most people to offer negative feedback, and when they do so out of a desire to help you, recognize that they have tried to do you a favour.

* Stacey R. Finkelstein and Ayelet Fishbach, “Tell Me What I Did Wrong:  Experts Seek and Respond to Negative Feedback,” Journal of Consumer Research.  June 2012.

How to Give Constructive Criticism

At the grocery store the other day I saw a great example of how not to criticize someone.  I have no idea what started it, but when I walked by the “Customer Service” desk an angry woman was berating the employee there:  “You don’t have the right personality to work in customer service!” she said.  The employee shrugged and mumbled something to the effect that she was trying her best.  There wasn’t much she could say.  How can you effectively respond to a stranger who criticizes your personality?

The incident made me think about the correct (and incorrect) ways to offer constructive criticism.  What was wrong with the customer’s actions?  She offered criticism when she was angry, in public, about someone’s “personality” (rather than say, about some specific actions), seemingly without any consideration for feelings or the impact that her words might have.

There are better ways to criticize, and a lot has been written on this topic.  I’ll keep this to a few suggestions.

Reflect on why you want to offer criticism.  There are many reasons to offer constructive criticism.  It might be part of your job description to offer critical feedback to others.  You might have a genuine impulse to help a friend who could benefit from the advice.  But the desire to criticize can also have a dark side, and taking a few moments to examine your own motives is a good idea.  Are you angry or upset with the person you are thinking of addressing?  Are your comments intended to be wounding?  Does criticizing others make you feel better about yourself?

Pick the right time and place.  Find a time when both you and the other person are calm and undistracted.  Don’t offer criticism (however well-meaning) to someone who is angry or upset.  Don’t criticize someone in front of others – wait until you can be alone.  (This holds true when criticizing children as well.)

Be transparent about your intentions.  What is the purpose of your criticism?  Is it part of a routine performance review?  Is it a response to a request for feedback?  Do you want to help the other person achieve some goal?  Are you trying to get him or her to change some specific behaviour?  Share the reasons for your criticism with its recipient.  Your remarks should not come “out of the blue.”  Constructive criticism is easier to take if it is put in a larger context.

Be nice.  Focus completely on the other person.  Although some people have had more practice than others at receiving critical feedback, I don’t think that anyone ever looks forward to it.  Be as tactful as you can.  Focus on the other person and stay in the moment.  Attending fully to others is a way of showing respect, and this is especially crucial if your message is likely to be unwelcome.

Criticize actions and behaviour – not character or personality.  Compare:  “You are often late for meetings,” and “You are so selfish that you don’t care if others have to wait for you.”  The first is a criticism of specific behaviour; the second is an attack on character.  Which do you think will make the other person defensive and possibly hostile?  (And remember – it isn’t always possible to read intentions from actions.  I have known several chronically-late people who were disorganized and overwhelmed rather than inconsiderate.)

Keep it positive.  When you give specific advice, make your suggestion positive.  If possible, focus on the actions that the person should do, rather than what he or she should refrain from doing.  For example, say you have single male friend who goes on a lot of first dates …. but not many second dates.  He asks for your advice, and you’re pretty sure that his tendency to speak at great length when given the opportunity is part of the problem.  Rather than telling him to talk less, advise him to listen more.  It is easier to initiate a new habit than it is to monitor and curtail an old one.

Start and end with a compliment.  (Sometimes called, “Hug them in and hug them out.”)  This is especially important if you are giving criticism as part of an official role, say as a manager, coach or teacher.  Find something nice to say about the person you are about to criticize.  Begin by complimenting him or her.  (Again, try to make the compliment about specific actions or behaviour; not about general characteristics.)  Then deliver the criticism as tactfully as you can.  Finally, repeat the compliment (or offer a different one) before ending the encounter.  Make sure that your compliments are sincere.  The other person will recognize it if they are not.

Next post:  How to respond to criticism.

Bill 168: A Recent Arbitration Decision

Bill 168 has been law now for just over two years, and we haven’t yet seen many decisions interpreting and applying the legislation.  A recent ruling by arbitrator David Starkman is of interest to labour and employment lawyers and HR professionals because it provides some guidance about Bill 168’s scope and application.  Below I briefly summarize and discuss this very interesting case.

Background:  In 2010 the Peterborough Regional Health Centre, faced with the need to reduce costs, took a decision to replace some of the Registered Nurses (RNs) in the Hemodialysis Unit with Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs).  RPNs have less education than RNs, earn less money, and have narrower scope of practice.  The Health Centre Management planned a 6-week orientation period for the RPNs when they would be mentored by the RNs.  However many of the RNs were unhappy about the introduction of RPNs, which would result in the layoff of RNs, and which they feared would compromise patient care.  Several RNs refused to volunteer to mentor their new colleagues.

Incidentally (or maybe, not so incidentally), the RNs’ concerns were later shown to be valid.  An Independent Assessment Committee found that the hospital failed to plan adequately for the staffing changes, and failed to evaluate whether the changes affected patient care.

Allegations:  Although there seemed to be a great deal of tension and bad feelings in the unit when the RPNs started, one of the RNs in particular was particularly hostile.  (I will call her Sally.)  She engaged in non-verbal behaviour designed to make the RPNs uncomfortable, including rolling her eyes at them, staring and flapping her hands as they walked by her work area, refusing to make eye contact, and on one occasion, walking directly toward an RPN and making contact with her shoulder.  Another RPN reported that, while she was washing her hands at a sink, Sally came behind her, tried to pull her hair in to a ponytail, and made remarks to the effect that, patients do not want hair in the way.

The Employer’s Response:  Reading the testimony presented to the arbitrator, there were clearly many problems on the unit.  Several of the RPNs quit and spoke of an atmosphere of bullying.  Morale was very low.  After a number of complaints abut Sally, the employer met with her to discuss their concerns.  Sally did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.  When her inappropriate behaviour continued, Sally was put on paid leave while the employer undertook an investigation.  The result of the investigation was that Sally was found to have engaged in a pattern of intimidation and harassment and was terminated for just cause.  Sally grieved both the decision to place her on leave and the firing.

The Arbitrator’s Decision:  Mr. Starkman found that the employer had just cause to discipline Sally and to put her on paid leave pending an investigation.  However, they did not have just cause to terminate her employment.  Although the employer had discussed their concerns with Sally she was never formally disciplined.  While Starkman acknowledged that Sally’s conduct was very subtle and therefore difficult to evaluate and discipline, he held that the principle of progressive discipline nonetheless applied, and that termination was too severe a penalty.  However, he also found that Sally’s conduct, her refusal to acknowledge that her behaviour was inappropriate, and her failure to apologize, meant that she should not be returned to the unit.  Instead, he directed that Sally be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement.

(Just an aside – some of you may be wondering, “Can Sally really not have understood that her behaviour was inappropriate?  I’m afraid that this is entirely possible.  For one thing, her co-workers were very reluctant to confront her about her actions.  And trying to understand it from Sally’s perspective, she likely saw herself as a strong advocate for patient care, not as someone who made the workplace a nightmare for others!)

Lessons for Employees:  If you disagree with management’s decisions, don’t take it out on others.  Even if you have a valid point, the organization’s code of conduct still applies.  And if management raises concerns about your behaviour, take it seriously.  If you are on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour, speak up – either raise a concern directly with the offending party or if that is not possible, speak to management or HR.

Lessons for Employers:  Several of the people who spoke with the arbitrator reported that Sally’s behaviour in the workplace had been a source of tension for a long time.  When employers fail to deal directly with inappropriate behaviour, it rarely corrects itself on its own.  Inaction and delay result in greater costs down the line.  (See my post on the costs of workplace strife for more information.)

Lessons for Everyone:  Eye-rolling?  Flapping one’s hands?  Is this really intimidation and harassment, such that discipline is appropriate?  The answer is yes.  It is clear from the testimony that the RPNs felt bullied, harassed, and unsupported in their work.  As Mr. Starkman wrote in his decision, Sally’s actions were “extremely subtle, and in that sense were extremely insidious. Bullying and harassment can consist of a single incident, or a series of repeated incidents both of which can have great impact upon the victim of the behaviour.”

Note:  I offer investigations of complaints related to workplace harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, and other matters covered under bill 168.  See my website for more information, or contact me directly to discuss the situation in your workplace.