President's Appointment

Workplace disputes can be some of the most damaging. Conflict at work often contaminates a wider part of the workforce than those actually involved in the dispute. People take sides, factions develop, trust disintegrates, and productivity suffers.

For the employees themselves, conflict at work takes away their ability to function. They dread going to work, absenteeism increases, and frequently longer-term sickness results. At any level, this can be damaging for any organisation. At the highest level, it can be disastrous.

This blog concerns a dispute which has been anonymised, but arose from an appointment from the President of a UK registered company, where two company directors were in significant conflict.

The company Chairman and Chief Executive asked the President to intervene. The two directors concerned were key to the operation of the company, and neither could realistically be released because of their distinct skill sets. Conflict between them had become so visible that the future of the company was brought into question. Whilst not working directly together, the directors met frequently to co-ordinate policy and determine strategy for management.

The President, Chairman and Chief Executive sought an independent expert to work within the company. They considered it to be essential that dispute facilitation and management should happen inside the workplace, and that every aspect of the two directors' interaction should be examined. The task was deemed beyond the company's Human Resources team, and called for neutral and independent expertise. Confidentiality was critically important as competitors were unaware of the issues facing the company.

Our remit was to restore the working relationships, to evaluate the causes of breakdown, to identify and implement strategies to support revised working relationships, and to provide a template for future dispute management. It was agreed that a 40/20/40 split of intervention would be appropriate: 40% of intervention time being spent before a joint meeting between the directors, 20% for the meeting, and 40% of the intervention to support the outcome. Whilst a permanent outcome was sought, the President was realistic about the potential duration of any initial settlement agreement.

A key task for any outsider entering a company is to understand company culture. Here, nothing can be taken for granted - each company demonstrates its own quirks as well as unique procedures. For the facilitator, careful and quiet observation is essential, and formed the first part of the intervention.

We considered it right that all employees of the company should know of the appointment at the outset. Trust and integrity are paramount at all stages of intervention. Throughout the process, I worked with a colleague facilitator to ensure that instant communication was available for all involved, and that objectivity was preserved. We ensured that we spoke to every employee about their working arrangements and relationships. Individuals were not asked directly to comment on the evident issues that resulted in our appointment. This way, all voices were heard without accentuating opinions on the conflict.

The second stage involved individual work with the two directors concerned. This task was complicated by strong personalities and positions. Sub-texts were identified and examined. Issues of power, influence and cultural differences were visible. However, substantial areas of communality were identified and formed a sufficient basis for a joint meeting. Importantly, as facilitators, we addressed the agenda for the meeting, allowing a degree of prescription to enter so as to engage the parties.

Managing the meeting was relatively simple. Due to substantial background work and time with the parties and others, the issues were clear, could be quickly articulated, and we were able to move to the exploratory phase of problem solving. The meeting lasted 3 hours, with one break, and resulted in a written agreement, which was perfected overnight on instructions.

The agreement had highly prescriptive aspects to it, which were clearly unsustainable in the long term. We considered it essential that both parties should agree on, or at least understand, the next phase - allowing the relationship to become less prescribed and more flexible. For this third phase, we returned on three separate occasions to conduct mini-sessions with the directors separately, and one with both together.

This appointment and intervention proved to be highly productive for the company. With new working strategies, many of which were adopted across the company, and with greater functionality of the directors, factions dissolved, productivity rose, and profitability increased almost immediately. A score of 9/10 was given for the mediation process, and 10/10 for the facilitation.