Mediator and Negotiations Specialist Allan Stitt explains the role of a mediator in the ongoing Ontario school strikes.
Watch the video on the Global News website: GlobalNews
The Barbados Advocate
Visiting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems design specialist Allan Stitt showed local departmental heads yesterday, that while some persons view conflict in a negative light, there are actually quite a few benefits that can be identified.
These observations were made when participants from various governmental organizations, got a first hand look at an alternative to dispute resolutions at a four-day seminar being held at the Amaryllis Beach Resort.
The seminar, an initiative of the Justice Improvement Secretariat, provoked department heads to cite possible causes of conflict, which in one example included potential conflicts between the employer and employee stemming from a number of reasons namely, miscommunication, abuse of power and discrimination, to name a few. He then went on to show participants the barriers to resolution, problems with litigation and proceeded to show them a video on mediation.
Stitt, who strongly advocated mediation as an alternative means of settling disputes, told participants that out of conflict, parties could then open the window for communication; it is the forum for getting out the issues and it is a major step towards change and development. He challenged that in a society where there is no conflict, it would remain without change and would essentially remain stagnant.
A Chartered mediator for over 11 years, Stitt also told participants, including representatives from Her Majesty’s Prison and the Royal Barbados Police Force, that process of mediation versus litigation would significantly reduce time and money spent in the court, by identifying the underlying needs of both parties, while seeking the maximum mutual benefit.
He showed that creating an environment without fear, without prejudice and setting out a few simple guidelines could lead to an amicable solution, where there is no clear cut winner or loser.
The special lecturer at the University of Windsor said that basically any one could be a mediator.
“There is no rule about who should be a mediator. There is no governing body to say you should or should not be a mediator. A number of lawyers are mediators, some business people, educators,” he said.
He noted however, that persons who have the personality to help persons work through disputes and are capable of negotiating are normally considered to be the best mediators.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
An Oprah Winfrey show entitled “Mom’s Around the World” caught my attention as I was flipping through the channels searching for a “not too heavy” / “not too light” program to watch. The segment that I saw featured a mother from Uganda who had 10 children and no husband. She worked as a porter, carrying loads for anyone who needed something moved from one place to another. The show conveyed a number of powerful messages, particularly about how mothers around the world have a similar desire to protect their children, regardless of their cultural, economic, and social differences. The piece about negotiation that struck me was to see the Ugandan mother negotiating with one of her fellow porters and convincing her to split a load that was too heavy for her to carry alone. They each earned 75 cents for carrying the loads across a beaten uphill path for the better part of the morning. I found the importance of this negotiation to this mother coupled with the amount of compensation that she received worthy of reflection, to say the least.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
One of the topics that we discuss in our workshops is negotiation styles. Most of us engage in some sort of negotiation on a daily basis, whether it has to do with working out the details of a complicated contract, roles and responsibilities within the workplace, or something as simple as who is responsible for making dinner tonight. What we often fail to think about is the process of how we engage in that negotiation.
Let’s take a look at the simple example of a customer-service related complaint, which is something that most of us have had experience with and probably seen many times from the back of the “complaints line”. In my personal experience, I have typically observed people negotiating in two very different ways in this context. The first way is to attack the customer service representative, kick up a fuss, and bang your fists on the table. This can help you to get what you want, but it also has a downside. Many people are not comfortable using this type of negotiation style and from what I have seen, both parties do not walk away from the table feeling comfortable about the negotiation. The other style that I have observed in this situation is people giving in to whatever the customer service representative says, even when they have a valid claim. This style also has its advantages, in that it may be less stressful, but the person with the complaint often ends up with a bad deal at the end of the day. One cannot help but think that there must be a better way to get what you want.
We talk about these different types of bargaining styles in our negotiation and ADR workshops. We also give a lecture about Principled Negotiation, which is a method of negotiation that was developed at Harvard. Principled Negotiation provides you with a system to help you prepare for and work through negotiations. It also helps you to make sure that you get a good deal for you, without having to jeopardize your relationship with the other person or unnecessarily give in to their demands. All of our role-plays and exercises are geared towards gaining an in-depth understanding of Principled Negotiation techniques so that at the end of the workshop you are able to put them into practice at work, at home, or wherever you choose to do so.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
How can you negotiate well when you have already been committed to a limit, either by your previous actions or by someone else?
Consider this example: a general contractor works out an agreement with a landowner to build a custom home at a remote location in a vacation area during the next building season. He lines up tradespeople, and gets commitments from them on costs and timing for their work. He enters into a fixed price contract with the owner based on these commitments. When the building season starts, he starts the project and for a few weeks all goes well. Then several of the tradespeople come to him and say they want more money.
The contractor is stuck: the tradespeople are in great demand, and if he alienates them he risks them walking off the job. In this situation he will not be able to complete the project, therefore becoming subject to penalties; just as importantly, he will lose credibility and reputation and future business. If he lets the tradespeople walk away or get more money, he fears being taken advantage of in the future by them. He is not willing to go back to the owner at this point because he has already committed to the price as a condition of the contract, and any change will result in a financial penalty. If he simply tries to absorb the cost increases, he will not make any money on the project himself.
He decides to have an initial conversation with the tradespeople to investigate the reasons for the demand. He decides not to express his concerns at the outset; instead, he resolves to take on an attitude of being curious, and to investigate without worrying about who is right or wrong or what the contract says. What he discovers after some digging is that the increase in the price of motor vehicle fuel between the time he set up the contracts and the time building started has created a significant burden for the tradespeople, who all have to drive their large vehicles and supplies to the remote worksite every day. With this information, he sits down with them and generates a new question: is there a way we can deal with the fuel price problem without me paying you more money? The solution they come up with together is to work a four day week: each day will be longer, so the total work time and the schedule for the project is the same, but the tradespeople save one round trip every week, or about 20% of their fuel use, and several hours of travel time in total.
With this change they end up receiving the profit they anticipated because they have lowered their costs, and the contractor fulfills all his interests in completing the house on time and on budget. During the long days of summer the tradespeople are happy to have Fridays off, and light and temperature conditions are safe to work in.
What can we take from this kind of example? First, don’t assume a preset limit or your constraints will automatically prevent you from dealing effectively with a situation: you must understand what is driving the constraint or demand, not just what the constraint or demand is. Second, look for creative solutions first, solutions that do not require you to give up your constraints or compromise to meet them, but solutions that allow you to accomplish your goals as you work within the constraints. To do this, you need to enlist the creativity of the other negotiator and frame the situation as a joint problem to be solved. Third, if there are no ideal solutions, work to find other measures to mitigate the impact of the limit: for instance, a budget freeze may still allow you to make non-monetary changes that benefit staff. Finally, even if compromises are necessary, searching sincerely with the other party for solutions can reinforce your good intentions and maintain your working relationships. People who are dealt with this way will remember your efforts, even if you are not completely successful, and work with you again in the future.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Aboriginal organizations seeking funding from third party sources can take a page from the negotiator’s book to get better results. Many aboriginal groups negotiate funding arrangements with a variety of third party sources (“Funders”) such as the federal and provincial governments, companies negotiating impact benefit agreements and other interested organizations. Funding arrangements relate to all manner of projects from resource development to education and capacity building, to social programs and more. Over the years, we have consulted with and trained several organizations on such funding negotiations, seeing both the Funder and the Applicant sides.
One key area in which organizations seeking funding can make major improvements to their ability to secure funds, is on the use of factual support (legitimacy) in proposals. While not a negotiation in the traditional sense, the process of applying for and securing funding is still a negotiation, and you need to persuade the Funder to commit their funds.
One of the most powerful tools to persuade the other side in a negotiation is the use of legitimacy (objective criteria, independent third party standards of fairness, benchmarks, comparables). People often put forward their subjective opinions or simply put positions out with no justification, a characteristic of many funding proposals that I have reviewed. Legitimacy can be thought of as the factual proof or evidence as to why a given proposal is correct or fair.
Many funding proposals make requests for very large sums while providing the Funder with only a minimal breakdown for the use of the funds, and even less support for the need for those funds. As one example, a proposal for a social welfare/medical project listed approximately $50,000 for “Office Equipment” as one line item in a proposal totaling almost a million dollars. Another line item relating to staff was “Travel Expenses” listed for approximately $100,000. No further explanation was supplied.
The Funder reviewing such a request has several options. One is to reject it as being too vague to justify such high amounts. The second is to accept the proposal and hope that the amounts are justified and will be well spent. The third is to go back to the Applicant and ask for supporting information. In a world of tight timelines, tighter resources and overworked staff, not many funding organizations can spend the time to make an Applicant do its homework, which leads them back to the first two choices. If someone else did a better job of persuasion, they will get the funding.
If you want to ensure the path to funding is as smooth as possible, make it easy for the Funder to say ‘yes’ to your proposal as opposed to others. Think like a funding agency. Provide the supporting documentation to answer a few key questions that will always be in the Funder’s mind:
1. Why is the project worth funding? What is its purpose?
From the very beginning of your proposal, state the project’s purpose in a way that clarifies your goal and communicates why that goal is worth achieving. Your purpose statement is your hook. If the Funder is not convinced your goal is a worthwhile one, they will have little interest in funding it. Did the first sentence of this article make you read further. If so, you were hooked.
2. What specifically will the money be used for?
If you are asking for more than a few thousand dollars, a diligent Funder will want some detail on what their money will buy. Provide a line item breakdown of all proposed spending with sufficient detail that the Funder can see where the money is going. Saying “Office Equipment – $50,000” is too broad.
Example:
Office Equipment
Computers (6 laptops x $1500 each) $6000 (4 desktops x $1000 each) $4000 Desks (4 desk sets x $500 each) $2000 Etc.
3. For each line item, why is that item necessary?
Prove to the Funder how that particular good or service is necessary to the underlying goals. Give them a valid reason for that part of the request. Why are computers needed? Why 6 instead to 2? If there is an obvious concern, like “Why do you need laptops instead of cheaper desktops?” give the Funder a rational answer.
Example:
Computers: Six laptops are required, one for each new field agent being hired (as recommended in the pilot project report). Although more expensive than a desktop unit, the nature of their work is that field agents will be spending 40-60% of their time visiting the remote communities in their field area (6-8 communities each). Based on the pilot project results in the attached report (see page 27), field agents’ ability to compile and work with the data gathered will be severely compromised without laptops. Four desktop units are required, one for each regional sub-office in ….
4. For each line item, why is that amount necessary and appropriate?
Don’t make the Funder take your word that the estimated amount is correct. Make their review easy and back it up with corroborating information in an objective form they can verify.
Example:
Attach copies of quotations for the computers from a computer supplier (ideally attach 3 competing bids); attach a photocopy of the catalogue page for the item, etc. For the travel, produce quotes from a travel company to support the cost per trip, and records of the previous year’s travel for a typical field agent to support the number of trips.
5. Are you the person/organization I can trust to manage and spend my money wisely?
Demonstrate the trustworthiness of your organization. Show the Funder that your organization is competent enough to perform the tasks required to meet the goals in a cost effective way. One way to do so is to document the credibility of your staff. Another is to document successful past projects of a similar nature.
Example:
Attach resumes of your key staff, copies of reports on past projects, reviews from other funding agencies or third party agencies of your work.
By doing a good job on organizing and submitting the funding proposal and documentation, you will benefit in three major ways. One, your proposal will be far more convincing. Two, in gathering the documentation, you will gain a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of your own proposal, and you will make it stronger. Three, by impressing the Funder with the caliber of your proposal, you have already taken a giant leap towards a ‘Yes’ under question number 5 above. You are proving your ability in a very concrete way by coming to the table with answers in hand.
While there are many skills in putting together a successful funding proposal, don’t forget the power of adding legitimacy to your request. No funder wants to spend money unless they know they will be getting value. Don’t try and sell them, show them.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
“This article originally appeared in the Mar 31, 2006, issue of The Lawyers Weekly published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.
How important is it that a mediator really understand the issue being mediated? Some mediators believe that it is not necessary for the mediator to have any expertise in the substantive area. In their view, the mediator is responsible for managing the process of the mediation while the parties are responsible for the substance of the dispute. When mediating a legal dispute, it is their view that the lawyers know the law and the parties know the facts better than any mediator should or could. Also, since mediators must be careful not to provide legal advice to the parties, some might argue having a mediator with legal expertise is of little value to the parties.
While substantive expertise is not always necessary, there are some circumstances where it might be helpful and perhaps even desirable. A simple landlord/tenant dispute over noise probably does not require the mediator to have specific substantive expertise to grasp the issues. However, if a dispute involves, for example, an allegation of infringement of a patent, the mediator may need technical expertise simply to understand the nature of the dispute let alone the legal issues that have been raised.
Lawyers and parties do not want to slow down their discussions to explain the fundamentals of the underlying technology to the mediator: they do not want to educate the mediator. They want the mediator’s assistance to communicate about the issues in dispute in a productive way. Therefore, in order to be of assistance to the parties, the mediator may need some technical expertise.
In some cases, it may take years of experience to develop the necessary expertise. Although Don Wright of Lang Michener had a degree in physics and geology, when he first began to handle intellectual property cases as a solicitor over thirty years ago, he faced a “very steep and lengthy learning curve to get up to speed which anyone commencing from a standing start would encounter” . Now, as a mediator, that expertise helps Don to understand the complex technical language and concepts that are so often a part of IP mediations.
The role of the mediator is more than simply managing the exchange of information between the parties; a mediator needs to assist the parties to make informed choices about various settlement options. At some point during a mediation, each party is going to have to decide whether or not to accept an offer made by the other side. For those mediations that take place in the shadow of the law, the party receiving an offer has to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of accepting the offer against the benefits and drawbacks of proceeding with the court process.
Although mediators with legal training cannot give legal advice to the parties, they can rely upon their familiarity with the law to ask questions designed to help the parties to reflect carefully on the benefits and drawbacks of proceeding to court. “In wrongful dismissal cases, I often have discussions with lawyers and their clients about the likelihood of their being able to get punitive or ‘Wallace’ damages” comments Allan Stitt of ADR Chambers. “If I think people are being unrealistic about the likely outcome at trial, I know it’s my job to ask some tough questions.”
Having experience and expertise in the substantive area in dispute may also allow the mediator to quickly bring focus to the issues in dispute. In cases where counsel have raised multiple legal arguments, Don Wright believes that “a mediator who is familiar with legal principles and who can swiftly grasp the facts may be able to quickly reduce the number of issues to those that really matter”.
Some studies have suggested that it can be very difficult for lawyers to objectively assess evidence once they have been retained to represent one side of a dispute. (This is true notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of people believe that, contrary to the norm, they can be objective in their own cases.) The mediator can sometimes assist the parties by providing neutral feedback as an objective observer. The parties will only find the mediator’s feedback valuable, however, if they respect the mediator’s understanding of the law and the issues in dispute.
Another reason why it can be good for a mediator to have substantive expertise is that it may enhance the credibility of the mediator with the parties. The more the parties have trust and confidence in the mediator, the more the mediator can do to help the parties reach a settlement. In many circumstances, the mediator will gain credibility if the parties believe that the mediator is knowledgeable about the issues on which there is disagreement.
If substantive knowledge is of assistance, what degree of knowledge is necessary? Given that the mediator will never have a better handle on the facts than the parties and will only rarely know the law as well as the lawyers, it is lucky that it is not necessary for the mediator to be the most knowledgeable person in the room in order to be of assistance. It is likely enough if the mediator has the necessary experience and expertise to: understand the terminology used by the parties; follow the arguments advanced by counsel; ask insightful questions; offer alternative approaches to achieve settlement; and gain and maintain the trust and respect of the parties.
Written by Elinor Whitmore.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Mediators can help disputants to resolve their disagreements and improve their inter-personal relationships. Receiving mediation training can be valuable for personnel who work in management; human resources; government; consulting; law and other business areas who have a desire to improve their conflict resolution skills.
If you are looking to develop mediation skills, a good place to start is a course that will provide training in the process of mediation and will allow for practical implementation through mediation simulations. The course should also provide you with an understanding of how to deal with ethical issues that may confront the mediator. A recipient of mediation training should develop a basic understanding of how to:
• Increase capacity to actively listen, empathize, understand divergent interests, spot issues, develop options, and build agreements;
• Recognize the ethical and legal requirements of mediation practice;
• Promote positive relationships, while allowing values to remain intact;
• Improve negotiation and problem solving skills;
• Be conscious of strengths and weaknesses as a mediator so that you can strive for self-improvement;
• Appreciate the different styles of negotiation and mediation;
• Approach negotiators who behave in a difficult manner and use hard tactics;
• Manage multi-party negotiations;
• Work through difficult conversations;
• Identify what the barriers are to an effective negotiation;
• Adapt to the prevailing behaviours that are being demonstrated;
• Move forward from an impasse that may arise during a negotiation; and
• Control and manage your emotions, and the emotions of others, in order to promote mutual understanding.
Regardless of the type of dispute you seek to resolve, it can be beneficial to assess the effectiveness of your past conflict resolution training and the methods you have previously used. The Stitt Feld Handy Group offers training in mediation, negotiation, arbitration, communication skills, and alternative dispute resolution for individuals and businesses of all sizes that uses the latest adult education techniques. Contact us today to learn more about how to get started.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
National Sports Organizations (“NSO”s) sometimes seek advice from the SDRCC on how to minimize or eliminate conflicts before they get to the SDRCC level. The old saying that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is fully applicable to conflict resolution, and this article will review several preventative strategies that can reduce the number and severity of disputes at the NSO level. One strategy operates at the systemic level of the NSO, one as a general process approach, and one on a more personal level for individual disputes.
Strategy 1: Creating Clear and Fair Criteria for Carding and Team Selection
A common type of complaint at the SDRCC involves athletes challenging the criteria for either carding or team selection as being unclear or biased (a variant on this claim is that the criteria were wrongly applied, for which strategies 2 and 3 below may be more applicable).
As a preventative measure, there are steps NSOs can take to greatly reduce the likelihood of disputes challenging their established criteria. For team selection, criteria are often dependent not just on the NSO but on external organizations such as the event organizing committee, the international sport federation, and the Canadian multisport organization (e.g., for the Olympics: the Games organizing committee, the ISO, the IOC and the COC). The external organizations may also have a right of review. The size of the Canadian team can depend on a variety of external factors beyond the NSO’s control, such as the performance at the last Olympics.
The NSO has the responsibility to be aware of all external criteria and to set their own criteria in a manner that will fairly select the appropriate athletes for the team. That responsibility is true for carding criteria as well. The SDRCC has a helpful pamphlet with advice to NSOs on how to establish clear and fair criteria called “Selection Criteria for Major Events in Sport”, which identifies the specific external organizations relevant to most major games.
The first question is how to create appropriate criteria that achieve the NSO’s goals and that minimize disputes on the eventual selection. In some cases, the NSO’s mandate may not be to select the best athletes, but to select the best team or to select the athletes that have the most promise for the future. The SDRCC recommends a four stage process including:
1. Background and Research– Identify the external organizations that impact on athlete eligibility, the time limits in question (for filing etc.), the other conditions bearing on selection (such as citizenship), the appropriate minimum criteria for the sport and event, and the time frame for qualification. The SDRCC database of cases on selection for carding and teams is a useful database to review, as are past experiences involving selection within the NSO.
2. Development– An unbiased NSO team with appropriate expertise and a proper mandate must develop the details of the selection process, bearing in mind the external criteria, the NSO goals, and NSO policies (such as athlete agreements). Other stakeholders should be involved early in this development process. The more people (from a variety of perspectives) who review the criteria design, the more likely potential problems can be spotted. Athletes, coaches, administrators, and others all bring a different eye to the criteria. Learning from the past mistakes of your NSO and other NSOs can help avoid future pitfalls. Actively seek input early both to create buy-in and to improve the selection criteria.
An athlete’s forum in 2007 revealed that most athletes were not consulted when their NSOs put together criteria, a source of frustration. Athletes felt that they could add value in terms of their perspective on athlete needs and rights, and also in communicating decisions to the larger pool of athletes.
Minimize the use of subjective criteria and criteria that may create or be perceived to have bias (such as heavy reliance on a coach’s opinion when they have had working relationships with individual athletes). Where subjective criteria are required, use them in ways that minimize potential bias (e.g., have a panel of coaches, rather than one). Consider the risks that may impact on the selection process (such as injuries, scheduling conflicts, the effect of costs on attending certain events), and deal with them accordingly.
3. Validation– Test the draft criteria in a variety of ways before enacting them. Doing a walk through of how the results will be calculated (e.g., based on past year performances) can help identify challenges that may occur. Let neutral parties and impacted parties (athletes, coaches, etc.) review the criteria and comment. Respond to the information received, even if not adopted (so that the effected parties can see that their concerns were considered). Be open to making appropriate changes after feedback, as no criteria are likely perfect on the first draft.
4. Communication and Implementation– Once criteria are in place, the NSO must take steps to educate its high performance athletes on the criteria in a timely manner. Athletes and coaches in turn have the responsibility to actively learn about the criteria, in a timely manner, so that training and competition schedules can be tailored appropriately. Communicate with a variety of methods (website, brochures, meetings) with an opportunity for questions to be answered. Translate the documents, communicate them effectively to the target audience (casting a broad net to avoid concerns that parties were unaware). Update parties immediately along the way if criteria change (athletes will need to adapt their plans).
Implement the criteria fairly and in accordance with the plan. Announce the results clearly and provide an opportunity for questions to be answered fairly and openly (see Strategy 2).
Finally, learn from experience and adapt your criteria for the coming year to deal with any potential challenges that surfaced. I highly recommend reading the brochure “Selection Criteria for Major Events in Sport”, available on the SDRCC website. Following the steps outlined therein (and others you have developed over the years) will help minimize the likelihood and severity of disputes on selection for teams and carding.
Strategy 2: Communicating to Manage Conflict
Many disputes arriving at the SDRCC have escalated levels of tension and distrust between the parties caused by communication challenges (failure to communicate, delayed responses, lack of full disclosure, defensive or aggressive tones in communications).
When athletes are upset by an NSO decision that went against them, the NSO is often seen as the enemy, as a barrier to their goals. In addition, the athlete may not know the full rationale for that decision, or the efforts that were made by the NSO in dealing with the issue. When people disagree with substantive decisions (like who should be on a team), they often fill any information void with negative speculation (“they ignored my prior year results”), baked with a healthy portion of distrust (“the decision-maker is friends with the other athletes’ coach…”)
Similarly, on the NSO side, there is often an instinctive reaction to defend and justify a decision that was made, which can often seem aggressive or cold to the athlete receiving the bad news. It also has the potential to make the NSO look like it is closing ranks and closing its mind (i.e., the NSO is less concerned about getting the “right result” on the merits than defending the initial decision).
Clear and open communication on problems may not make the problem go away, but can significantly reduce the level of tension, and in some cases may resolve the issue or prevent an appeal being commenced. When athletes do not clearly know what happened, they may feel that a formal appeal is the only way to find out (which involves stress, time and effort on all sides, often with a very short time frame before a deadline). Think of how it feels to sit on the airport tarmac, waiting for a takeoff that is endlessly delayed. Poor airlines let passengers sit and fester in their own increasingly rabid speculations. Good airlines make regular announcements explaining the situation. People kept in the dark tend to be much angrier people. Poor communication makes a hard problem harder. In many cases that I have dealt with over the years, a side issue, which often grows to overshadow the initial substantive issue is “the way I was treated” by the other party. That side issue is entirely preventable.
As an example of the benefits of communication, in one case the affected athletes heard for the first time at the SDRCC level that the biggest barrier to the desired team selection result was not within the NSO at all, but arose from requirements of the external International Sports Organization and of the foreign tournament itself. The athletes were not aware that the NSO executive had contacted various stakeholders in those external organizations to seek flexibility, actively trying to get all affected athletes on the team. Once that explanation came out, the dynamic between the parties shifted to a problem solving approach and a mutually agreeable solution was found that got all athletes on the team, without the need for an arbitrated win-lose result.
When an issue arises, on the NSO side, notify all affected parties in a timely manner, and give them a full explanation. Any decision with a negative impact will generate questions, so providing an opportunity to have questions answered helps relieve tension, and create the grounding for a rational problem-solving discussion (see Strategy 3). On the NSO side, you should also be prepared to provide objective proof (e.g. minutes of meetings) of assertions to combat the natural veil of mistrust around decisions. Don’t take it personally. You know fully what happened. The athlete generally does not. Create the trust by providing support, so they don’t have to take it on faith. They will appreciate it.
Athletes, in turn, need to recognize that NSOs sometimes have to make tough calls. There may only be one spot available on the team and someone has to decide who gets it. If you or your representatives publicly and aggressively attack the decision-makers, remember you may be working against your own goal of changing the decision. When feeling attacked, people tend instinctively to defend (the issue becomes personal), and are less inclined to help you. Making it personal rarely generates flexibility and may negatively impact the public image of the sport or team. Public attacks may also backfire on you when all facts come out. Get a full explanation first. There may be legitimate reasons for the decision of which you are unaware. And if you disagree, you can disagree with NSO staff in a respectful way, maximizing the likelihood of NSO cooperation in reviewing the decision.
Creating a shared pool of background information about the issue helps minimize tension, and may genuinely change people’s perspectives. Sharing information does not commit anyone to a particular course of action, but makes it more likely that the next steps taken will be appropriate. It also sets the table for effective problem solving (see Strategy 3 next).
Stragey 3: Creative Problem Solving
When disputes arise, a joint problem solving approach can maintain and even develop trust, and may lead to creative solutions that work for all affected parties. Focusing solely on “rights” can put parties in adversarial stances that lead to a win-lose result (one athlete goes to the event, one stays home).
Begin by identifying the parties’ interests (their wants, needs, and concerns). Identify what the affected parties want to achieve, and why those goals are important to them. It is also important to identify their concerns (for example, what are the negative consequences of the decision for them). Resistance to agreement tends to be the result of goals not being met or concerns that have not been addressed.
Peel back the layers of the initial positions with which people often start. For example, an athlete may begin by saying only that they “deserve to be on the team” but there may be a variety of goals or concerns underlying that answer. It may be the last meet at which they can make an Olympic-qualifying standard. They may want exposure to particular competitors. They may simply want to travel to a fun location. Similarly, on the NSO side, the selection denial may be based on a variety of reasons (lack of funds to send more athletes, external ISO limitations, a desire to develop younger athletes etc.)
Once the goals and concerns on each side are understood, one can generate options that may meet the interests of all parties. Brainstorm a variety of ideas and see which ones might work. If an idea meets resistance, ask why the idea won’t work. Once the underlying concern is identified, try tweaking the idea to see if the concern can be addressed (for example, if the NSO can’t send more athletes purely because of the cost, perhaps the athlete can cover their own costs). An athlete may want the monthly income from a card in order to pay for training leading up to the Olympics. If there is no possibility of getting the athlete a card, the NSO may be able to arrange free coaching. Both athlete and NSO have the shared interest of having the athlete do well at the Olympics. Focus on the value to each party, not just the obvious win-lose rights-based answers.
Many problems are more amenable to solution than initial appearances suggest. Even issues that appear to have only win-lose outcomes have more potential solutions than parties typically see on the front end. For example, one carding dispute was resolved not by arbitration, but by an agreed sharing of card benefits (e.g., one athlete may want the monthly income but not need the tuition remission).
Similarly, in one team selection case, the athletes in question agreed to a more old fashioned process to decide the question than legal arguments. A sporting showdown, mano a mano, was scheduled to decide the victor. If an older experienced athlete wants to go to the Olympics one last time but is no longer seen by the coach as a best fit for the team, perhaps room can still be made for them at the Olympics in another capacity (trainer, mentor, PR rep) where they still contribute positive value and are still part of the “team”.
When parties are open to one another’s goals and concerns and willing to jointly problem solve, the variety of possible solutions is often surprising. As a mediator, every single SDRCC case that I have had mediated has generated some positive ideas that were not initially considered.
Final Thoughts
Many disputes can be prevented at an early stage by careful development and implementation of selection criteria. And when disputes do arise, if you can communicate effectively, in an atmosphere of respect and trust, you can problem solve solutions that meet people’s needs and offer more satisfaction and value than rights-based solutions.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
HR Leader Article
Our learning & development budget has been cut significantly as a result of organization-wide cost-reduction initiatives. How can we still train staff and maintain our L&D line despite this?
If your department has been cut significantly, and more significantly than other departments, chances are your organization hasn’t fully recognized the value of training. Your work as manager of L&D is not done until the organization sees L&D as an investment rather than as a cost, and recognizes that its health, durability, and success depends as much or more on well developed staff than anything else.
Your arguments to hold on to your L&D budget, to reduce the scope of cuts, or to get funding for specific programs in tough times can focus on ROI, and a web search will give you many sources of information about the metrics for these calculations. Helping an organization realize this point, however, is a long term project, something to work at over time no matter what the economic climate.
But if your organization needs to cut, there are some reasons why L&D should be maintained even in hard times.
First, with cutbacks and uncertainty, morale is low. Unlike cosmetic spending that can been seen as a waste, training spending indicates commitment to those who remain, and can raise morale. Staff members feel more confident that your organization will weather a crisis if it demonstrates a longer-term perspective by keeping up training that will help people do their work better. Training shows that the organization thinks there is a future, and that staff will be part of it.
Second, an effective organization will be using downtime or shifts in resources to prepare for recovery and the longer term. Training is the way to develop people who already have valuable information and background experience in the organization and help them into new roles, or give them the next generation of skills they will need to help the organization recover and flourish. The cost of training or retraining existing staff is far less than the cost of recruiting and training people who have no experience in your organization, and you will be a step ahead of the competition and able to take advantage of opportunities more quickly than others.
Third, today’s successful organizations must reflect a commitment to learning if they are to retain people who remain mobile even in bad times, or those who because of uncertainty may be looking for other opportunities that appear more secure. Paying lip service to training instead of really committing to training damages the credibility of an organization in other areas as well. “Stay loyal to us while we cut our commitments to you” is not a recipe for success. In addition to damaging loyalty, such behaviour adds cynicism to the workplace atmosphere.
Finally, don’t forget that there are ways to deliver learning now that are less costly than in the past. In house training departments can develop intranet or Internet tools for delivery with fewer travel or logistical concerns. External consultants for periodic programs can be less expensive than maintaining a full learning department but still deliver high quality for specific skill topics. And training organizations understand the pressures and challenges that exist today; they are often prepared to make special arrangements to accommodate cost concerns, such as adjusting the length of programs, the number of instructors, the timing of payments, and so forth.
So, remember that investing in training is an investment in the future and contribution on the road to recovery. Good luck in your negotiations!
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
