A senior leader client recently told me about some challenges she is managing. It was not her own stress that was most concerning to her but that of her direct reports. She talked about one of her managers who came unglued recently after a stressful event. She reminded him that he needed to take a deep breath and regain his balance before he could begin to seek solutions. “You cannot think clearly when your anxiety level is so high”, she told him. How true. Research has shown that we literally cannot think as clearly when we are stressed.

It seems that wherever my work takes me, my clients and their colleagues are experiencing more stress, trying to do more with fewer resources and less time. Some are dealing with new roles and organizational structures, others with new clients and systems. Each new and more demanding situation applies more pressure, upsetting whatever level of stability we may have had.

How well are we managing the stress we all seem to be facing?

At the end of the day, the extent to which we can remain balanced, persevere and make good choices through challenging circumstances is what makes us effective. If we meltdown or derail when the pressure is on, we are not contributing.  For leaders, maintaining balance and acuity means is a prerequisite to taking responsibility for organizational success.

We have to keep going. And we have to stay in balance to do that.

How Can We Stay in Balance?

How often do we need to take a deep breath, calm ourselves, and re-focus; before responding to a demanding client? Or an impatient manager? Before giving feedback to a team member that has performed poorly? Or before picking up the phone when our spouse or child is calling?

There are many ways to re-center ourselves, including the following:

1. Take a deep breath. Even one can make a huge difference.
2. Go for a long-overdue walk in the corridor or out to the parking lot.
3. Exercise.
4. Do yoga.
5. Keep photos nearby that relax you when you look at them; favorite family vacations, parks, gatherings of family and friends.
6. Listen to music for a few minutes.
7. Meditate or clear your head in whatever ways work for you.

Which tools we use is not particularly important. What is critical is that we use them. As often as we need to in order to stay sharp, focused, and relaxed. It is only then when can think most clearly and most effectively respond to the challenges we face.

I invite you to re-connect with those things that keep you balanced, and to use them. Your organizations, colleagues, clients, and families are counting on it.

It has become much more challenging to lead organizations — from large multinationals to local non-profits — as a result of two growing dynamics: suspicion and transparency. Suspicion has been brought on primarily by the unethical and sometimes illegal behavior of certain leaders; the transparency is the result of the Internet, the proliferation of a wide variety of news outlets, new regulatory requirements, and other information and comment reporting mechanisms. This new reality demands that leaders practice ethical behavior and openly demonstrate that behavior — thereby treating transparency as a leadership opportunity.

A Time of Suspicion

Never before have there been such high levels of suspicion of people in leadership positions. Approval ratings of elected officials have plummeted on all sides of the political spectrum in the United States, if not elsewhere. In June 2009, the editor of the Harvard Business Review wrote that “the public’s trust in business leaders has never been lower”, and cited a statistic that trust levels had dropped from 58% to 38% in one year.

What has happened? Automobile companies and banks receiving government bailout money; financial institutions selling questionable (perhaps fraudulent) investments; elected officials’ dubious relationships with lobbyists; corporate CEOs laying off thousands of workers while increasing their own compensation packages. All this and more have increased the extent to which people are deeply suspicious of people in leadership positions.

Whether these leaders may have brought this upon themselves is not the point in this commentary. That may very well be true; real scandals, many of them criminal, have filled our newspapers in recent years. The point is that the deeds of some leaders have brought upon others a gaze of suspicion that makes effective leadership more difficult. Consider these questions:

• How much harder is it to engage employees when they suspect your motives or question your integrity?
• How much energy is spent validating what in the past was trusted?
• How much more difficult is it for a mid-level manager to gain buy-in for an operational change when her employees are highly suspicious of senior management?
• Can anyone expect employees to work harder for the same or less money when they wonder what senior management is thinking?

The headwinds are strong indeed.

An Age of Transparency

At the same time, it has never been easier for interested people — employees, prospective employees, investors, concerned citizens, voters, community members — to learn more about organizations, their leaders, the impact of their activities (e.g., labor practices, carbon footprint), and other details.

In The Naked Corporation, Don Tapscott and David Ticoll describe the challenges that organizations are facing as a result of the proliferation of information, primarily on the Internet. “Transparency is being done to organizations, whether they like it or not. No firm can safely protect any secret, particularly any that angers stakeholders. Increasingly corporations are naked.” Leaders react to transparency as a threat or respond to it as an opportunity. Some fight it and others cooperate with it. The authors of The Naked Corporation argue organizations will be more successful if they openly align their business with the interests of stakeholders. In other words, use transparency to their advantage.

It is not necessarily a bad thing that so much information is available to so many people. Nor is it wrong that suspicion of leaders has been heightened— as noted above in many cases if we are not suspicious we are probably not paying much attention. It is simply harder to lead effectively as a result.

So What to Do?

Tell the truth to your people and to the marketplace. If they don’t already know the truth they are going to find it out soon anyway. Customers and business partners/vendors know when you slip up. Own it, move on, and they’ll trust you more for it. Certainly organizations will do their best to craft their messages and time their communications to ensure the most positive impact, but disclosure is a given- so be sure what is shared is true. And remember that the very presence of suspicion creates a demand for organizations and leaders with integrity; leaders should consider how they can best satisfy that demand.

In their June 2009 article in the Harvard Business Review, James O’Toole and Warren Bennis argue for organizational “cultures of candor”. Leaders need to make a conscious decision to support transparency and create cultures in which candor is the norm. This may not be easy; they suggest that it is human nature to conceal and hoard information because information is a source of power. [Perhaps that’s true, but it’s also true that real candor feels hard because we’re not accustomed to it.]

Don’t just talk about ethics, model them. If you believe in community service as an organizational value, then organize an event that supports a community in which you work or live. Invite people. I have heard key business contributors share with me about their former bosses, “I never thought of him/her as a particularly ethical person”. Who would want to hear that? Leave no doubt. Ethical behavior alleviates suspicion.

Be visible about your values as an organization. Real values guide behavior. Be willing to talk about them— even better, create opportunities to talk about them. Although talking about values is not nearly as important as modeling them, there is great value in demonstrating a willingness and ability to engage your people on this level.

Drive changes in your organization that promote transparency. Promote the awareness of websites and other media that evaluate your business practices and inform your stakeholders. Also, ensure protection for— in fact, reward— employees who bring ethical concerns to your attention. Hire employees who have demonstrated the ability to raise tough issues. Rushworth Kidder of the Institute for Global Ethics has written about what he calls the current “ethics recession” and argues that the only real solution is the creation of “broad-based, authentic cultures of integrity within our organizations and institutions.” Consider what can be done to promote such a culture in your organization. One place to begin is an ethics audit— a process for assessing the level of ethics within your operations and culture.

Responding to the challenges presented by the current climate of suspicion and transparency requires purposeful behavior and, often, conscious change. To remain successful, leaders must model the ethical behavior that will overcome suspicion. What’s more, they must also demonstrate the willingness to face the new reality of transparency, and embrace it as a means to communicate the integrity and positive direction of their organizations.

Conflict: Familiar, Inevitable, and Challenging to Manage Formally

Most organizations have conflict. In a law firm setting, organizational conflict might involve employment decisions, such as performance reviews, partnership decisions, or claims of mistreatment ranging from annoying behavior to actionable discrimination or harassment. Law firm conflict might also involve ethical issues (conflicts of interest, client trust fund management)

The existence of such conflict is entirely understandable, even predictable- law firms are certainly not unique in having these challenges. But the additional pressures under which law firms operate puts more pressure on firms to manage their conflict well, or suffer the consequences, which include loss of reputation, bar association discipline, and unwanted turnover – all of which translate into lost billables and revenue, and clients looking for new representation.

What is important to address is how conflicts are managed within the firm. We would like to think that issues are dealt with when people come and talk with the managing partner, practice group leader, office manager, HR professional, or other firm resource. But often that does not happen.

Why might law firm staff or attorneys be unwilling to raise conflicts and other issue of concern with the formal channels available to them? There are at least several reasons why not. The first is that people often do not feel “safe” talking with any of these formal resources. They fear retribution of some kind, are concerned about the perceived stigma of raising an issue, or might feel embarrassed. Would a legal secretary or assistant talk with the office manager about her being asked by an attorney to be “creative” with an expense report?

Related to this fear is the fact that these conversations are not confidential. Would a young associate approach the managing partner about her perception that a practice group leader is abusive? Or discriminating against her or someone else?

Another reason attorneys and staff might not raise issues is their belief that those formal resources will not be able to effectively act in support of them- because those resources are closely tied to the firm’s leadership and are therefore not “neutral”.  People might also not come forward because they believe that nothing will change, and these resources don’t really want to hear attorneys or staff “vent” or express individual challenges.  Does a practice group leader want to hear another partner expressing concerns about inappropriate record keeping or subpar client service? Will the firm’s HR leadership be approached by people who have trouble balancing their work commitments with the demands of young children at home?  If people think they would be wasting their time (and the other person’s time) they will not express their concerns or issues.

The High Cost of Conflict

OK, so some things are perceived as problems or conflicts- either for individual attorneys or staff or for groups of people. So what? Not every wrong has a remedy, right?  Why should firms care about the conflicts and concerns that they don’t hear about? This is a critical question. The answers include:

1)      Loss of talent

How much does it cost a firm to replace a high-performing paralegal, legal assistant, or attorney? Two times her/his annual salary? Remember that these costs include lost productivity, training, benefits, and more.

2)      Loss of reputation

What would happen to your firm’s reputation if the local newspaper wrote a story about the firm being unfriendly to certain minorities? Or a bad place to work? Or if abovethelaw.com was actively posting comments from mistreated associates?

3)      Loss of clients/business

Clients have more choices than ever before about who gets their business. And they might very well take their business (and their referrals to other potential clients) to other firms as a result of a firm’s behavior toward them, toward another client, or even toward internal staff.

4)      Legal action against the firm

How much does litigation cost against the firm? (We know this one, don’t we?) Remember to include in this measurement not just legal fees, but lost productivity of the lawyers and staff involved, lost productivity of everyone else who is talking about the case by the water cooler- as well as the loss of talent, reputation and clients resulting from the legal action.

One Solution: Using an Ombudsman

The term “ombudsman” has different meanings to different people and the role is defined differently by different organizations. (The term is Swedish and translates literally as “office man”). Universities and government agencies often have ombudsmen, as do labor unions. More corporations are now using the role as well, and the ombudsman function is different in the business world: it is not one of advocacy and formal investigation, as might be the case in other settings. According to the International Ombudsman Association, the four principles of an organizational ombudsman are independence, neutrality/impartiality, confidentiality and informality.

An ombudsman is an independent, neutral, and confidential resource to anyone employed by the firm; a resource that complements existing grievance procedures that might exist within a firm. He/she assures an additional level of anonymity and safety in the raising of issues to the firm’s leadership. Generally, the ombudsman reports to the board or the most senior leader in the firm. (In corporations, ombudsmen report to the CEO, Board of Directors, or perhaps an audit committee of the Board.) Since the ombudsman is “outside” of the formal organizational structure, he/she has more freedom to raise concerns or to help others raise these concerns themselves.

A law firm ombudsman can:

1. Help firm staff and attorneys clarify challenges they are facing or conflicts they are experiencing with others in the firm or with the firm itself. Issues might include interpersonal conflicts, claims of mistreatment, unfair or inconsistent firm practices, supervision issues, unusual stress, and concerns of unethical or unprofessional behavior. The ombudsman is a counselor.
2. Assist staff and attorneys in resolving disputes, whether by facilitating conversations, mediation, “shuttle diplomacy” involving people in a tense relationship, or any other method of conflict resolution that will provide positive results. The ombudsman resolves disputes.
3. Report patterns based on themes and aggregate data to leadership so that future liability or conflicts can be minimized if not avoided entirely. The ombudsman can make significant contributions to the firm’s formal processes. For example, an ombudsman can share patterns of issues being raised by employees (such as practice group conflict or inappropriate leadership behavior) so that those that make firm policies will be more fully informed. The ombudsman is an organizational improvement consultant.

The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) has recommended that firms use an organizational ombudsman, “so that attorneys who want to discuss their experiences have a well-trained and well-informed person to whom they can turn for guidance”. According to the MCCA,

“Law firms should earmark resources that allow all attorneys to voice their concerns, doubts and ideas in a confidential or even anonymous forum, where they are not fearful of retaliation or retribution from senior management. Firms that are receptive to the issues raised by all attorneys will be able to change their culture, policies or practices. Those that stifle feedback will have reticent and unhappy associates who may depart whenever the first good opportunity knocks.” [MCCA, Creating Pathways to Diversity: A Set of Recommended Practices for Law Firms]

Firms should consider whether they would be willing to take appropriate individual and organization development measures based upon the ombudsman’s work and recommendations. They should also keep in mind that there are many different forms an ombudsman’s role might take, including full-time, part-time, and contract arrangements. Exactly which structure would be most effective for a particular firm, and how to establish the role, are critical and complex issues that may be the subject of a future article. For now, firms are encouraged to begin to consider the benefits of using an ombudsman to proactively manage conflicts, support employees, and protect the firm.

[A version of this article was originally published on the American Bar Association's Law Practice Management website in February 2010.]

A book about women and negotiation caught my attention recently. It is called Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. Ms. Babcock is a professor of economics and Ms. Laschever is a writer, both based in the United States. The book summarizes research conducted by Ms. Babcock and others about women’s general reluctance to negotiate, as well as the challenges faced when they do.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this area of research. Even though I am a lawyer and mediator and I’ve consulted to organizations in the areas of gender balance, women’s leadership and diversity, at the end of the day I am a white American man with my own life experience. With that said, I have read much of the research about how men and women tend to operate differently at times, and my experience is usually consistent with that research.

The Research

The authors of Women Don’t Ask assert that women often get less because they ask for less. Not only do women aim lower, according to the research, but in many cases they don’t ask at all. [In a conversation I recently had with Ms. Laschever, she reminded me that in actuality women negotiate all the time; they just tend not to negotiate on their own behalf.]  Why is that? Because, according to the research, women are less sure of what is negotiable and the parameters of what would constitute a good deal. The research further concludes that, for women, in many cases the social costs of negotiating seem much higher than the benefits. Women might have learned that to ask is to be argumentative, unpleasant or uncooperative, and so they might avoid negotiating.

The authors note in this book that in some contexts women are generally more effective negotiators than men. They generally negotiate well with other women and with men who use a cooperative negotiation style, and in negotiations in which creative problem-solving or moving beyond “fixed pie” solutions are possible. The authors conclude that women have the advantage in these types of negotiations because they require communication, information sharing, trust building- approaches at which women are generally more skilled than men. These win-win negotiations often create better working relationships between parties, making execution easier and contributing to the likelihood of better negotiations in the future.

It is not my intention to argue for or against these conclusions, only to use what is presented to consider what I can do to support people in their own growth and effectiveness. If I take these research findings as true, three questions come forward.

1. Who is responsible for these dynamics?

According to these research findings, social forces (including childhood games, classroom conduct, and family roles) play a major part in the creation of these gender differences. These forces direct and reward women for focusing on others’ needs, rather than their own desires. Social norms that define “appropriate” behavior for women discourage assertive self-interested tactics more commonly used by men in negotiation.

As a man, am I to blame for this? I think not. I do not create social forces- although I certainly have a part in perpetuating them. This may seem obvious, but the responsibility question is important in terms of how willing we are to engage. I believe that all of us- but particularly men- are much more willing to engage in a constructive conversation if we are not being blamed for the existence of the challenge we are addressing.

2.  Who is impacted by this?

The next question that this issue raises for me is who is affected by it. Is this simply something women must manage? No. I am affected by my colleagues’ willingness and ability to negotiate, as well as my client’s negotiation skills. I am affected by the effective negotiation (or lack thereof) of my wife, my sister and mother, and the other women in my personal life. I am impacted by the success and fulfillment enjoyed by my women friends, and by any unhappiness they experience as a result of unpleasant and unproductive negotiations.

This is not “their” issue, it is my issue. As the personal impact of women and negotiation becomes clearer to me, one question jumps forward.

3.  What can I do about it?

I can do my best to promote the type of healthy, productive win-win negotiation that generally suits women’s negotiation style best. Because this type of negotiation creates a positive impact on the parties’ relationship, it is likely to be in my best interest to do that anyway. In doing so, I can make the “women’s style” of negotiation more the norm than the exception. Perhaps if we all did more of this win-win negotiation it would not be referred to as an alternative, “women’s” style.

I can offer support for the women I know as they prepare for important negotiations, whether they be professional or personal. While I do not consider myself to be an expert negotiator, I might be able to provide ideas and suggestions in preparation for negotiation. I could also provide encouragement; if it is true that women back off because they might think that negotiating renders them uncooperative or argumentative, I can remind the women in my life that they are absolutely entitled to go for what they want in their business and personal dealings. I can support them in remembering that.

I could also invite the women in my life to read the new book by Ms. Babcock and Ms. Laschever, entitled Ask for It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want. This book is like a how-to manual that offers women (and men as well) strategies and techniques for negotiating. It helps women (and men) recognize opportunities to negotiate, avoid the real or perceived social costs of asking, and ultimately have more of what they want. The four phases of negotiation are discussed, including: preparation (including deciding what we want and don’t want- challenging personal assumptions in the process), research and discovery (to determine what is possible and realistic), pre-negotiation preparation (which involves deciding how high to aim and creating a strategic plan), and the negotiation itself.  This book is a great resource.

Finally, I can continue to look for opportunities to support my clients, colleagues, friends and family as they identify their focus and take steps to realize their goals. And I can remember that we are all striving to be more effective in our professional and personal lives. For some of us, negotiation is challenging. For others, there are other challenges. We all have barriers. Books like these help identify their causes and offer solutions that will help us have more of what we want- whether it needs to be negotiated or not.

Introduction

Many large organizations benefit from internal (in-house) dispute resolution (DR) programs. These services can be highly successful in terms of resolving disputes quickly and informally, thereby avoiding the potential of litigation against the company, the reduction in productivity and engagement, and/or the loss of talent. However, as useful as internal DR might be (my informal research indicates that over 70% of matters are resolved), organizations do not leverage it as much as they can; there is much value “left on the table” after disputes are resolved. This article provides a brief overview of how DR works and how it can add more value to an entire organization- primarily to leadership development, but also to decision-making, performance management, and work team dynamics.

Overview of Internal Dispute Resolution

Most organizations encourage disputes and concerns to be resolved at the local HR level. If possible, this is the best level at which to voice and resolve concerns because it is likely to be the closest to the problem (e.g., supervisor, culture, specific work challenge, work practice, etc.). However, there are times when the conflict cannot be resolved at the local HR level- which may be the case for a variety of reasons.

Increasingly, organizations are also using some type of dispute resolution service, whether it is called an office of dispute resolution, ombudsperson, or some title reflecting the intention to employ a neutral resource to resolve concerns fairly and expeditiously.  DR facilitation might include counseling an employee, conducting investigative interviews with an employee/claimant’s colleagues and/or manager(s), gathering performance feedback data, assisting in facilitating agreement and understanding between an aggrieved employee and his/her team or manager, and more.

Benefits to the Organization

My experience with these dispute resolutions programs is that they can be very effective. They provide the following benefits to the organization:

Quick resolution
An effective DR facilitation process provides a means to address a claimant’s concerns very quickly, often within a few weeks. Such swift conclusions enable all parties to return to work quickly, avoid drawn-out disputes that drain energy and create tension in work systems, and promote uncertainty and suspicion. As one of my old law partners once told me, “a quick resolution is a good resolution.”

Talent retention
Employees who do not feel heard, or have no place to talk about an issue that is very challenging or disturbing to them except an attorney’s office, might very well leave the company. Certainly, considering the litigious environment in which we operate, this should be avoided if at all possible. Perhaps more importantly, even in a slow economy with the “war for talent” not raging as it was a few years ago, organizations do not want to be losing talent for this reason. [Although it is certainly true that some percentage of claimants are poor performers, it would be best to let go of such performers in a clean, deliberate way rather than by constructive termination or a messy dispute.]

Avoidance of litigation
This point I can keep really brief. Litigation is expensive to undertake, generates negative publicity, and features the potential for dramatic judgments. Any reasonable efforts to avoid it benefit the organization.  Remember: the lawsuit is reported on page one; the dismissal of the lawsuit is printed back in the obituaries section.

Organizational improvement
This is the silver lining of dispute resolution. The ability to resolve workplace disputes informally provides the benefit of improving the organization because what is learned in the process can be used for improvement. For example, systemic or managerial trouble spots that are revealed during an informal investigation, for example, can be addressed behind the scenes. This will be discussed more fully below.

What Makes these Programs Work

Internal dispute resolution works for the following reasons:

• Focus given to resolution.
  Line managers and “local” HR people are understandably pulled in many directions and may not have the time or energy to give their undivided attention to an issue that may be deeply important to the person raising it. The HR resource may also not have the counseling skills to really “hear” the person, and may also be perceived as being too close to the issue to be impartial. They are doing the best they can, but they may not be able to dig into the details as much as may be necessary. In effective dispute resolution programs, a skilled facilitator is a dedicated resource who can apply his/her counseling, investigating, and mediating abilities to resolving issues- with greater success.
• Employees with disputes feel heard.
  The counseling of employees by a facilitator (or, for that matter, by others to whom the claimant may be referred- such as EAP) is extremely valuable; perhaps more valuable than any “solution” to a claim. Also, related to the previous point, HR resources may not have the skills and experience to effectively counsel the aggrieved employee. The dispute resolution facilitator performs this critically important function.  Claimants have the opportunity to express their concerns and feelings openly, which itself can be a significant step in resolving a complaint. Giving the employee the time and space to “vent” also contributes to the employee’s willingness to reach a cooperative solution. In my experience facilitating disputes it is not uncommon to see the most “movement” as a result of simply and powerfully listening to the employee raising an issue.
• The parties own the resolution.
  In most organizations, participation in the internal dispute resolution process is voluntary. The employee/claimant is not obligated to use the service, and the manager/work group is not required to participate in the informal resolution if invited to do so. If a facilitator makes inquiries and/or performs some investigation, the parties are under no obligation to compromise or to consider the others’ positions. This is both good news and bad news: the power of resolution remains in their hands, and they must truly believe that participation and good faith discussions are in their best interests. It also means that any resolution will be supported by the parties to a greater degree than if a decision was forced upon them by a judge, jury or arbitrator in a binding proceeding, or the legal department. And when the parties are invited to “come to the table” together to reach resolution, there is a higher likelihood of an ongoing relationship between the parties (less “bridge burning”).

Leveraging Learning from Conflict

What is uncovered and discerned from investigating and resolving employee concerns may have great value to the organization. For example, when I have facilitated resolution of conflicts I have identified the following:

• Management strengths and weaknesses,
• Important cross-cultural differences that impact day-to-day operations,
• Training needs for employees
• Skill gaps for supervisors
• Communication process flaws/lapses
• Ineffective decision-making processes
• Problematic team and department cultures
• Corporate ethics concerns

The opportunity is to leverage the awareness of these concerns so as to minimize the chances of them arising again in the future. After you slip on a wet surface, you either try to clean it or do whatever you can to avoid it in the future. A dispute resolution office/facilitator has knowledge of these spills that can help an organization improve its performance and processes. It would be foolish not to use what has been learned. This is a core Organization Development principle- as well as good common sense.

1) Leadership Development

a)  Coaching
What is learned as a result of the dispute resolution process is extremely important for leaders to know: what to do more of, what to avoid, and how to lead more effectively with different people and in different situations.  A skilled dispute resolution facilitator can provide invaluable coaching to leaders whose groups/departments were the subject of the dispute, and coaching about how to limit avoidable and unnecessary conflicts in the future.

b)  Leadership Development Programs
Internal dispute resolution professionals should be connected to any leadership/management development programs throughout the organization. I have seen the impact of real-life stories in these programs on many occasions. Sharing stories of how conflicts arose and how they were resolved enhances learning and illustrates key leadership skills that might otherwise only be discussed conceptually.

c)  Leadership Assessments
Learnings from conflict can also be used to design/modify organizational 360? surveys to ensure that the most useful questions are being asked. What is learned in resolving disputes can identify impactful leadership skills, which can be assessed through organizational surveys. Again, to not use what has been learned in the resolution process would be a regrettable lost opportunity.

2) Human Resources and Organization Development
Internal dispute resolution should be connected to HR within the functional area from which the dispute arose, both during and following the resolution process. Sometimes the issues that are presented by a claimant are symptoms of broader organizational problems, such as performance reviews/feedback, hiring issues, and lack of role clarity. The dispute resolution office must not hold these issues; they should be shared with the people in the operating group that could best take action to improve the organization so as to minimize the likelihood of future problems. Local HR will function best when informed with the lessons learned in the dispute resolution process.

Particularly as the scope of dispute resolution broadens so as to provide facilitation support to a wider array of work-related claims, it is important that the program have access to and collaborate with other organization resources that have expertise in the areas of the disputes (e.g., Talent Management, Organization Development, Succession Planning, etc.). The input of a DR officer can be a valuable source of feedback for those “thought leaders” within the organization, because part of their work is identifying what isn’t working well in the organization- and dispute resolution programs attract what isn’t working. Patterns of issues raised, whether related to the nature of disputes, organizational groups impacted, or other factors, can be extremely valuable diagnostic information. For example, an HR leader reviewing a succession planning system would be able to design something more effective if he/she were aware of any patterns of conflict related to the way talent is assessed in the organization. Simply put, if I tell them what conflicts I am seeing then they can make those issues part of their design process.

3) Law Department
There might also be opportunities to integrate with the law department, for example stories might be shared that illustrate some of the potentially illegal activities occurring in the company. When I was a lawyer representing businesses I would frequently ask about a company’s experience with particular issues. Attorneys can be provided anecdotes that would support them in overseeing their clients’ activities so as to most likely “catch” problems as early as possible. Presentations/briefings by the dispute resolution facilitator to the legal group can support this effort.

4) Ethics Initiatives
Many organizations now have initiatives or even offices related to ethics. What a facilitator learns in resolving a dispute may very well have ethical implications. These should be brought to the attention of an ethics officer or other key leaders who might be primarily responsible for matters of organizational ethics. Again, this is an opportunity to learn from the conflict; disputes can be used to minimize the occurrence of any future breaches of ethics.

5) Office of Diversity
Those involved in organization dispute resolution should also be in regular contact with the company Office of Diversity. “Problems” related to diversity will appear in the DR office, whether they pertain to cross-cultural differences, harassment/discrimination, performance management issues related to a failure to give appropriate feedback to “diverse” employees, etc. Offices of Diversity would benefit from knowing what diversity-related issues are causing problems across the organization. The DR office can be a valuable source of input.

Moving Forward

I encourage you to look for ways to use dispute resolution as an opportunity for individual learning and organization development in your organizations. Distill value from the conflicts that arise.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.”

To what extent will your organization learn from its experience?

The story is told of a man who finds himself lost in the desert. In his wandering he sees a faint image of someone or something on a distant sand dune. He walks closer and closer and the shape grows to a point where he can clearly see another man walking- carrying a car door. He cannot believe his eyes. When he finally is close enough he shouts, “What are you doing? You’re carrying a car door!”

The man responds, “Yes, I know”.

“Why on earth would you be carrying a car door in the middle of the desert? It’s 125? out here!”.

“Oh, the heat isn’t so bad once you get used to it. And besides, if I begin to feel hot, I just roll down the window.”

When I coach and counsel leaders, I often hear the equivalent of carrying car doors in the desert. People make the best of a bad situation, sometimes even referring to it as personal or organizational “baggage”. On the organizational level, managers may be carrying a poor performer, tolerating an outdated process, or putting up with a perpetually delinquent account. These are the types of burdens that hinder our individual effectiveness and weigh down our business performance. On the personal level, we might also be holding onto a personal limitation of some kind, such as a lack of focus or poor communication practices. And even if we are practiced in downplaying or hiding such challenges to the extent they manifest in our work they too can handicap us.

To unload personal burdens can mean facing unpleasant truths and honestly accepting things about ourselves of which we may be less than proud. Doing this work requires compassion, focus and a willingness to take meaningful action to change what we can. If what needs to be left behind is an organizational challenge or liability, we must be willing to give candid feedback to others about what is not working, as well as give suggestions about what would work more effectively and why. When I consult with my clients about addressing these organizational challenges, I remind them that the unpleasant realities of organizational politics and favoritism must be considered as part of their decision making.

Yes it’s hard; if it were easy we probably would have done it already. But consider the relief in leaving these things behind, and emerging from the desert lighter and freer to put your energy into more effective places. Often when we gain some altitude and perspective we can see more clearly. It is from that vantage point that we can recognize the burden this perpetuates. The process of unloading things that no longer serve us in our lives- and hinder our ability to achieve our professional goals- is a big part of what meaningful leadership development is all about.

With the new year upon us- particularly in challenging economic times- this is an excellent time to pay some attention to what “car doors” we might be carrying around with us. What is no longer serving us that we can unload in order to be more effective? What organizational baggage can we properly identify as no longer useful and resource-draining? I encourage you to have these conversations now- and receive the benefits of greater organizational capacity and personal energy and freedom.

From my point of view, women and men today are more drawn to asking and answering deeper questions about their own purpose, values and vision than they were, say, 20 years ago. Or at least they are more willing to acknowledge the attraction to these meaningful issues more openly than in recent years past. This change of orientation is reflected in many ways, including the best-seller lists, rising interest in yoga, meditation, and spiritual practices, and sometimes even the political dialogue.

Why the shift? I doubt there is a definitive answer to this question- but I do know some of the reasons why we have changed our conversations (both inner and outer). Perhaps it is because of the uncertainty of the working world. Organizations are not “taking care” of their employees the way they once did. The notion of lifetime employment is an older generation’s anachronism. What about layoffs/down-sizing/right-sizing/off-shoring? Whatever one calls it, it results in uncertainty and unease for those who are let go and also those who remain. What about terrorism? Environmental crises? Overpopulation? One could cynically argue that most of what is seen and heard in the news around the world is discouraging, if not worse.

We can no longer rely on any organization or government to support us. Because of the challenges, worries, and threats facing us in the “outside” world, many have turned inward to find solace, clarity, and strength. We feel the pressure to support ourselves.

Leaders in business and other organizations have the responsibility to support not only themselves but others as well. They need to provide guidance and vision, and act with confidence and compassion, which is no small task given the uncertainties which face them. For leaders to hold their ground they need to know what their ground is- they need to be grounded. They need to know where they are headed as people. The Oxford Leadership Academy calls this “finding your personal compass”.

I participated in Oxford’s Self Managing Leadership program last year, and I was so drawn to the work that I have become a Fellow of the academy.

The Self Managing Leadership program provides the opportunity to find one’s place on the compass and to identify one’s direction- in life, and in our work. It is an opportunity to step off the moving sidewalk of our jobs/roles and consider what is important to us and what is needed of us. We can consider what is most relevant for us and give it the attention it demands from us. Doing this is often uncomfortable (as in any meaningful change in patterns and behavior), perhaps challenging, and usually very fulfilling. Most importantly, it is a necessary conversation for us to have in order to more effectively lead ourselves and others in this increasingly challenging world.

I encourage leaders at all levels to take some precious time to discover, clarify and re-commit to their values and purpose- and to translate and apply those inner compass-points toward focused action. Doing so improves our performance as leaders, enhances our own levels of fulfillment and satisfaction, and provides the opportunity to answer some of the most relevant questions of our time.

I invite you to contact me to talk more about this impactful and fulfilling work. You can also explore the Oxford Leadership Academy website- including my profile- at www.oxfordleadership.com

I was recently involved in a very engaging talk with Kenny Moore, author of The CEO and the Monk: One Company’s Journey to Profit and Purpose. He was talking about leadership and the nature of the decisions that leaders make. First line managers/supervisors face problems, and they are challenged to resolve them with solutions. As they move up the ladder of responsibility, however, leaders face dilemmas. Dilemmas are challenges that are complex and usually cannot be resolved as neatly as the problems they once endeavored to resolve. The resolution of dilemmas, then, is movement; movement toward improved effectiveness, even though all of the problems are not resolved.

Does this sound familiar? It does to me and to my clients. Very often, we want to find the solution and we cannot pick it off the solution tree because it’s not there. It’s just not that simple. More accurately, it’s not as simple as we’d like it to be. We have to look somewhere else for it. Some of the best leaders I know recognize that the best decision- the best option- is less than ideal and they accept that as the reality of the situation.

Not only does this type of leadership require acceptance, it also requires courage. David Dotlich, Peter Cairo and Steven Rhinesmith talk about this in their book Head, Heart and Guts: How the World’s Best Companies Develop Complete Leaders. Part of effective leadership is courageously moving forward relying upon decisions that will not satisfy everyone, decisions that are not tidy solutions and might not be popular with all stakeholders.

Managing these challenging dilemmas requires a steady flow of clear communication and healthy relationships, so as to promote alignment with decisions and minimize misunderstanding. It also creates an environment more conducive to promoting more informed decision-making in the future. Staying on top of this communication and tending important relationships can be the most challenging part of the process for many leaders, in my experience.

These are the challenges that many leaders face, and the higher they go in an organization the more challenging the process becomes; decisions and their resolution become more complex, more courage is required to act, and there is more pressure to communicate and nurture relationships more effectively. It is no wonder that leadership can feel so demanding- it is.

Not long ago, I was providing some coaching to a business leader. After we discussed some feedback she had received from her peers and direct reports, she asked me what I would recommend as an action plan. She seemed quite surprised at the question I then asked her: What are your goals?

Only if I know what someone’s goals are can I make meaningful recommendations. To put it another way: how can I offer someone direction if I don’t know where they’re going? The same premise is true for teams, business units, corporations, or any other entities. Yet it is not uncommon, feeling the pressure to take action, for leaders to make commitments without first considering his/her goals. I’ve heard this referred to as ‘ready, fire, aim!’

The principle of Putting Goals First applies in virtually all settings (except, perhaps, organizational values). Last week, I was discussing this with a client with whom I am supporting in Team Development. We were discussing the establishment of his team’s operating agreements. Again, he asked what I would recommend in terms of how the team would best work together, and I asked him what are you trying to accomplish. We then spent a full hour discussing his objectives in terms of staff development, innovation, resource sharing, team communication, and more.

I have also discussed this approach many times in the context of leadership development efforts. Leaders will ask me ‘what should I be doing to be more successful’ and my response will be ‘what does success mean for you and for your business?’ In other words, what are your individual and organizational goals? Goals must be identified before I can offer my best recommendations and strategies as a consultant.

In another column I might share some ideas about how to effectively set goals. For now, it is important to remember to put goals in front of planning and execution, so as to be sure that what we are doing will support us in reaching the place we want to go.

Working with a cross-functional chemical development team recently, I saw once again a familiar element of team dynamics surface. The context was this: the organization was at a critical stage in terms of the evolution of its business. Decisions needed to be made about what ventures would become or remain the team’s priority projects. The questions were very significant: Where would resources be allocated? What is the market forecast for the team’s products? In what direction are we going? In answering these questions necessary to move forward, people wanted information- statistical and industry data, trends, forecasts, etc. But how much information is enough? How much information must we have to make an informed decision?

What become strikingly clear is that reasonable minds (and the reasonable people who employ these minds) can differ in answering this question. Some wanted a complete and thorough review of all the available information, and were not prepared to express a decision unless and until additional data was gathered/learned. Others on the team had more than enough data and, in fact, became frustrated that decisions were not being made more quickly (Can’t we just make a decision already?).

As the consultant in the room supporting the team in its decision-making process, it was not my role to make any judgments about whether there was ‘enough’ information to decide. However it was clear to me that the team members needed to agree on the appropriate degree of input needed to make decisions if they were going to achieve their stated objectives. So I facilitated a process that enabled them to clarify how much information they needed.

Highly-successful people can differ widely in their views of how much information they need to make decisions. This is an interesting aspect of individual diversity, one that transcends more traditional definitions of diversity (and frankly is more relevant than traditional elements of diversity). As with all aspects of diversity, there is no right and wrong here- only the reality of difference. What should be kept in mind is that answering the ‘how much information is enough’ question is a prerequisite to answering a business most important questions.

© 2007 Lighthouse Consulting, LLC; All rights reserved.