How do you motivate your employees? - Business Conflict Resolutions

How do you motivate your employees?

As a business leader have you ever thought about how you motivate people? Of course there is always the traditional way, I reward (pay) you to do your job, and give you no, or negative feedback when you don't.Of course this can work to a point but is this the best way?Perhaps a more productive approach is to motivate your employees from within and in line with their core values.For instance first it is important to put the right people in the right positions. Would you want someone working in your sales department who is an introvert and likely not comfortable around people?In order to have people take ownership of their job it is best if they are motivated by there internal values.An example: John or Mary enjoys connecting with people, finding solutions, educating people , or simply taking care of someone. These folks are likely to be a more effective sales people than Suzy or Jim who really like working with numbers and are less comfortable around people.Yes they may be motivated by a paycheck but if they don't love what they are doing and not feeling fulfilled internally will they really take ownership of their job?When people are motivated internally they buy in to their work and in turn have more success which translates into happier employees, a more prosperous company and an overall healthier culture within the organization.As an effective manager of people it is useful to take the time to identify the person for the position they are best suited. Just appearing to be qualified doesn't mean they are the best fit for the given position.Take time to ask the questions to understand what motivates the individual, what they like,what they are called to do and where they really feel connected in there work. This will give your employees and your organization the best possible chance for success.

Punxsutawney Phil in Mediation

Black-tailed Prairie Marmot - Cynomys ludovicianus

The Associated Press reported this weekend that Ohio authorities have issued an indictment of Punxsutawney Phil, alleging that he “did purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the people to believe that spring would come early.”Additional sources have suggested that Phil is seeking to file suit regarding the slanderous social media war being waged against him. He believes that the vitriol could damage his ability to find work in the future. OvalOptions has begun contacting all parties involved hoping to pursue a successful resolution through public dialogues and mediation. Dragging the case though court would cost significantly more money and take much longer than the successful implementation of our dispute resolution services. We believe that our highly skilled mediation practitioners can help everyone reach a mutually satisfying result in private and outside of court. Additionally, we are confident that all issues can be resolved before spring arrives. We all know that pursuing this through court would cause the dispute to drag on beyond the actual arrival of spring and that once spring arrives, everyone will forget about Phil until next year anyway.

NOPE does mean no, but BANANA is not necessarily a fruit

NOPE does mean no, but BANANA is not necessarily a fruit

I have been a conflict resolution professional for just over twenty-five years.  My most memorable cases have been land use/environmental cases, usually convened at the behest of local governments and involving multiple parties and factions.  To be a successful mediator in this arena, one needs to be aware of the significance of four acronyms.  Their influence on the beginning of a mediation (when it is actually convened, or not), as it progresses and when it ends cannot be ignored. The first of these is the most well-known: NIMBY – Not in My Back Yard.  Any proposed change in land use can be controversial to potential neighbors.  Jurisdictions usually set a limit for potentially affected parties (e.g., 500 feet from the boundary), but residents in the area may see their “back yard” as being much larger than the one defined by the controlling local government.  Even if these neighbors see the use as being one that is generally beneficial to the public at large (e.g., a household hazardous waste collection facility), they will usually say that there must be a better place than the one proposed.  NIMBY is often a result of a fear of declining property values or quality of life due to the proposed project.The second of these is NIMTOO – Not in My Term of Office.  This one applies to the decision-makers (e.g., city councils, county commissioners, etc.).  No elected official likes to be involved with high-profile, contentious decisions on his/her watch.  When win-lose decisions are made (yes, we will allow a landfill one mile from a housing development), the losers will likely remember in the next election.  However, the freshness of memory declines with time, and hard, unpopular decisions are more likely to be made by these folks early in their term of office.  Therefore, it is to the opponents’ advantage to delay, delay, delay, especially if they privately think that the proposed land use change is lawful.  I have seen late-term denials that would have been early-term approvals.The third of these acronyms is BANANA – Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.  This is common among folks who are focused on land preservation above all else.  The concept of shared use, buffer zones and/or minimizing impacts is lost on them.  Although they will enter into negotiations, the eventual goal is preservation of the land in question as it is (e.g., wildlife habitat, open space, etc.) or even moving land from a more disturbed condition (an abandoned factory) to a less disturbed condition (open space).  Thus, a proposal to turn acreage blighted by old, crumbling buildings into a modern office park would not be acceptable, no matter how much landscaping was planned. Last, but not least, is NOPE – Not on Planet Earth.  This point of view is typically advocated by people who have moved beyond BANANA.  Mankind is often seen as a blight upon the planet (an argument that is not totally without merit, if extreme), and any increase in our footprint is something to be fought.  Like the folks who advocate for BANANA, they are not necessarily neighbors of the proposed project.  Their issues go beyond the narrow confines of NIMBY, because their backyard is much larger, in this case the whole world.  Consultants for NIMBY groups (homeowners associations near the proposed project, for example) may don this mantle to increase their impact.  Advocates for national groups may move into negotiations with this point of view, caring not about the individual proposal and its impacts, but more about the overarching issue of preserving the planet.A mediator must, to maintain credibility, treat all of these groups under these acronymic banners with an equal amount of respect.  Their concerns are no less real and credible than those of the people advocating for the land use change (land owners, consultants, developers, attorneys – but more about them in a later article).  These acronyms are meant to clarify the groups of people commonly seen in these disputes, not to trivialize them.  Even if they are not directly at the table (like the elected officials worrying about NIMTOO), their shadow hovers nearby.  If they are at the table, an analysis of their motives will help any mediator better assist everyone involved in the mediation in reaching an agreement that seems equitable to all.Mark S. Loye, Conflict Resolution ConsultantMediation Works 2, L.L.C.Associate, OvalOptions

Martha Stewart in Mediation

Sources have reported that Macy’s, J.C. Penney and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia have been ordered to participate in mediation after three weeks of court testimonies.Court-ordered mediation is becoming more and more common in high-profile disputes. A perfect storm of conditions helps to make mediation more common in our daily lives.

1. The courts are overwhelmed and backlogged.
2. Most disputes settle out of court anyway.
3. Many disputes originate out of hurt feelings, which are cases that most judges have no interest in hearing about.

In 2012, Colorado District Court reported 288,877 new cases. They have seen an increase of 70 percent over the last 10 years. With only 176 judges you can imagine that things are going to get backlogged. Your day in court can be months or years away. Other states are reporting increased numbers also.This backlog of cases means that more disputants are seeking to settle outside of court rather than wait in line for their day (or few minutes) in court. Waiting to see the judge means your losing time and money.Finally, emotions, hurt feelings and egos often initiate the dispute in the first place. In the case of Martha Stewart, CBS News reported that Macy’s CEO Lundgren testified that Martha Stewart called to notify him of the deal with J.C. Penney and he was so shocked that he hung up on her for not discussing with him in advance. Judges rarely care about how the other person’s actions made you feel. Judges must review the law and whether your case fits precedence set by other legal decisions.My belief is that as soon as the judge realized that the problem started due to a communication break down over hurt feelings, he stopped the case to order mediation.We see this all the time in business disputes. A simple breakdown in communication leads to a huge, painful dispute. When people seek out mediation immediately after the initial breakdown occurs they often see results that maintain relationships, save money on attorneys’ fees, reduce the time spent dealing with the conflict and often find better solutions that benefit everyone.Don’t waste time avoiding the conversations, perfecting your legal argument and waiting on a judge to order you to mediation. Contact us early. 

Five Steps to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace

Five steps to resolve conflict in the workplace

As a business manager and leader, don’t ignore conflict in your workplace or business.

Here are some tips to get you started toward conflict resolution:

• 1

  Let them vent.

  Sit down with your employees one-on-one and give them a chance to talk through it. As awful as this may sound it can be incredibly effective. The key is to shut up and listen. Avoid the temptation to offer solutions and “fix-it.” Often knowing that you’re aware of the problem and care enough to let them talk will improve the situation. Validate their perspective without agreeing. (Note: this is also effective on significant others).
• 2

  Task them with offering solutions

  If they insist that you fix the problem you might have some decisions to make but, first, put the task of offering solutions on them. Ask them to put five suggestions in writing and come back for more discussion. A good leader considers the perspective of those closest to the problem. They might have some really good ideas. Do your best to validate their ideas even if they aren’t feasible. Help them understand the bigger picture.
• 3

  Stay open to creativity

  We always want things to be clearly black and white but this is rarely the case. There are plenty of gray areas where resolutions can be found. Take a step back and look at the big picture. The solution may be complicated but will it improve the bottom line?
• 4

  Seek to understand the conflict

  Perhaps there is more going on. What is the root issue of the conflict? Often, the noticeable aspects of a conflict are just the symptoms, and the problem can be deep and difficult to ascertain. Is it systemic? Personal? Externally catalyzed? Knowing the source, root or foundations of conflict can open doors to improvement and progress within your company.
• 5

  Know when to seek outside help

  If you’re too close to the problem it may be difficult to get it resolved. Often the help of a neutral 3^rd party, such as a mediator or a coach, can help your frustrated employees work things out. This strategy will help distance you from the problem while ensuring that the discussions move in a more productive direction.

It is important to recognize that conflict happens a lot but it isn’t always a bad thing. Your bottom line can be improved if you’re willing to acknowledge conflict and address it early-on either independently or with the help of a neutral.

Conflict Resolution: Painless Profit During a Tough Economy

The most overlooked potential for maintaining and potentially increasing profit during a down economy is to focus on your staff. If you are seeing an increase in absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, passive aggressive behavior, or congregation around the coffee pot, you may have problems. These problems are typically associated with unacknowledged conflict. The conflicts may be caused by things such as personality differences and work stresses and may be between two or more employees, between an employee and a supervisor or any combination of personnel.As a business manager, you may often ignore these conflicts because of their relationship to emotional and stress factors. Left unattended, these unsettled conflicts are robbing your bottom line…big time.Most employee turnover is a result of unresolved conflict. Studies suggest that your cost to replace an employee is between 75-150% of that person’s annual salary. Passive aggressive behavior and related symptoms of conflict are also affecting profit in terms of cost overruns, stolen time, poor quality products, customer dissatisfaction and potential loss of customers.Conflict does not magically go away. As a manager and leader, you must take steps toward resolution. Avoidance is rarely the best solution because when conflict goes unresolved you lose your best employees, not the “problem” employees.Our next article “Five steps to resolve conflict in the workplace” will offer you some advice on how to get started towards conflict resolution.

Making the choice between your friend and your politician

The presidential debates are looming, and many of us need to be reminded how to avoid turning our friends into enemies. The tips below will help you maintain sanity during the political season and avoid the need to choose between your friends and your candidates.

1. Remember every issue has many viewpoints; strive to understand them.
2. Listen to what is meant and how you are receiving it rather than how it is stated.
3. Ask questions to clarify meanings.
4. Focus on the issues, not the person.
5. Be respectful; no name-calling.
6. Ask yourself whether you have all of the facts. Be open-minded and willing to learn.
7. Keep the doors open to areas of common agreement and new ideas.
8. Practice patience.

The key to working through all types of disagreements is to strive toward understanding the other person’s perspective. If you understand where they’re coming from and why they believe what they do, then they are more likely to act in kind and recognize your opinion on the issue.Remember that, unless you destroy the relationship now, your friends will be around long after your candidate’s term has ended. Also, be sure to consider how boring the world would be if we all agreed on everything.If you want more information, read about our efforts to encourage productive conversations through Pub Dialogues. 

NFL Lockout: How Mediation is Helping

The NFL owners and players completed another round of mediation last week in their ongoing efforts to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in time for the start of the 2011-2012 season. This most recent session was court-mandated and, as expected, did not lead to a settlement.It’s possible the parties may have made more progress had the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals not stepped in on the same day as the mediation conference, but that’s unlikely. The Court decided to reinstate the owners’ “lockout” of the players, keeping the freeze on all NFL business - including payments to players - in place. This is technically a temporary order by the Court until it issues its final ruling after oral arguments in June. Both sides want to see this particular legal challenge through before negotiating further.Given all the fits and starts to this labor dispute, many are questioning whether mediation has been largely a waste of time. A new CBA seems no more likely today than it did before the two negotiating groups met for 16 days in February and March during their first attempt at a mediated settlement. We have only vague public statements about “progress” and speculation regarding what, if any, movement has occurred from either side in negotiations. Instead of consensus, the parties exit each meeting as entrenched in discord as ever.All of these mediation sessions must appear rather pointless then, right? Doubtful.What Is Happening in the Negotiating RoomThe truth is we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors. But I suspect mediation has already proved more productive to this point than anyone is letting on. I’d even go so far to say that not only is mediation exactly the right process for this dispute, but that it will prove to be the foundation around which a resolution is finally achieved. Despite all of the hand-wringing, this negotiation is unfolding as it must before a new CBA will be reached. Too much money (some estimates range in the neighborhood of $9 billion) and too many competing agendas are at stake for this to be resolved without a few false starts.Consider the dynamics in play. Not only is the NFL a multi-billion dollar industry, the parties are ensnared in a very public dispute as both sides - owners and players - vie for public sympathy for their respective positions. Further, each “party” represents a larger group with diverse interests and agendas that do not always align in-house. Owner divisions include small- vs. big-market teams; cash-rich vs. cash-strapped operations; and traditional vs. progressive sensibilities. Compare that against player tensions arising between top-tier vs. middle-of-the-pack and league minimum contracts; stars vs. “role” players; and current vs. retired members.And, to complicate matters further, every discussion is surrounded by participants with ultra-competitive personalities that have been forged in a tradition where wins happen only when the other side loses.Why There Is No Deal YetAt this stage, the owners and players are bent on gaining whatever leverage they can before either gets serious about working out a deal, and they each have many cards to play away from the negotiating table before narrowing their respective bargaining positions. For the owners, the primary point of leverage is the lockout. They hope it will put financial pressure on enough players to force the union (despite efforts to decertify) to yield to negotiations in order to get its members back to work. For the players, they have a laundry list of legal challenges they can bring to risk the current structure of the league, and which, in turn, could cast this wildly successful joint enterprise into a world of uncertainty.So much of the commentary surrounding these events has been preoccupied with the endgame of getting a deal done. The problem with this approach is that it fails to acknowledge the subtleties inherent in the negotiating process as a whole. Every negotiation involves stages of preparation and discovery before bargaining begins in earnest. The NFL owners and players have not been ready to bargain, because they do not yet feel adequately secure in their bargaining positions. Some of these ongoing legal challenges will have to play out before either side begins to accept their stations at the negotiating table.Mediation Is the FrameworkNegotiations with this many moving parts take time and involve more than a few bumps and bruises. Mediation has provided the NFL owners and players a framework to help them navigate through the necessary preparatory phases of their negotiating process and, perhaps most importantly, a confidential setting in which to do it. Public airings are far from an ideal platform for parties with a long and contentious history to come to terms on an agreement. Mediation requires open and honest communication, and offers a safe space to air discussions outside of the public forum. By invoking confidentiality, information shared during these sessions cannot be used in court, freeing the parties to explore areas and interests that they would not otherwise discuss.Additionally, part of a mediator’s job is to help the parties get to a point where they each feel comfortable bargaining. This may mean helping them better clarify their positions and focus their respective strategies. It may also mean acting as a facilitator to create a collaborative environment for the parties to discover where they have joint interests on which they can build consensus.As a neutral third party who is not there to decide right or wrong on any given issue, the NFL mediator would have been well-suited to help the owners and players sift through their many (often competing) agendas, grievances, concerns and goals. That process would have been constructive regardless of whether it led directly to a deal. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that the current legal strategies working their way through the courts were refined as a result of such an exercise.Common Goal: Keep the League ThrivingAs it stands now, the NFL owners and players remain in the positioning phase of these negotiations. Both groups’ positions will come clearer into focus as some of the current legal challenges are decided. How the parties respond in the short term remains to be seen, but I am confident they will be back in mediation to further negotiations and ultimately strike a deal. Using the courts to garner leverage in negotiations can only take them so far. Eventually, the risk of uncertainty associated with relying too heavily on the courts to “solve” their differences will outweigh the utility of litigation to improve bargaining position.In the final, both sides know they are partners in a very profitable enterprise and they will be forced to bargain with one another to keep it thriving. Mediation will continue to be a critical tool that guides those negotiations much of the way.

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion (Part III)

(Part III of a Three Part Series)Return to Part IISo, what can the Achy Breaky (“A/B”) person do to deal with someone who can’t get out of the way of their own calculations?Cheat Sheet for the Achy/Breaky Person

• Get your facts straight before wailing and keening. Before diving into conflict (legal/domestic/employment), figure out your best/worst case scenarios. Talk with an attorney, CPA, or investment advisor – get the real story. So when Mr. Facts & Figures (“F&F”) brings his numbers game to the table, you have cards to play; rationally evaluate his proposal based upon your own research.    
• Take a breath, then make a practical offer. Just like you don’t shop when you’re hungry, don’t make proposals based upon how you feel at a particular moment. If you do, at best, you confirm his opinion that you’re a basket case – at worst, you lose credibility, confirming that F&F is better off taking his already calculated chances in court. He’ll respond more positively to a realistic proposal, but he’ll still question your offer- So what?  
• F& F isn’t rejecting you – He’s getting his head around your figures and how you arrived at them. When he offers a counter proposal, (a salary figure, a purchase price, a personal injury settlement offer), ask him to explain how he arrived at the figure, so you know where he’s coming from. Trust, but verify them with your professional.  Let F&F explain his logic – Listen and try to hear what he is saying. Try to repeat back what was said (it may be difficult, so be patient!). “Facts & Figures” people also need to be heard and validated – it’s everything.  
• No Yelling for “Judge Judy.” Give the situation a chance; listen, dialogue, validate the other side’s reasoning, if not his actual proposals. If resolution is impossible, then tell Mr. F&F what you’re going to do – don’t waste emotion on threats - a Facts & Figures guy already knows his chances in court. Besides, threatening to go to court is a “be careful what you wish for” kind of problem for you too – what you may receive from a judge financially, may never make up for what you might lose emotionally (increased hostility, new financial fears, grief over a lost opportunity). Clinging to your emotionally driven offer may ultimately cost you more money, time, and energy. Finally, when a Facts & Figures person threatens to go to court, don’t panic. Use his F&F mentality to your advantage: you know he has already penciled out his chances of winning/losing. So, until he really files, he’s still open to informal resolution. Remember, he deals in numbers – it’s his Woobie security blanket. Inhale….Exhale….Repeat.

So, whether you’re a logic person, or an emotions person; each side needs to be heard, understood and acknowledged in a dispute. Each needs to be a part of the decision making process, even if the ultimate decision is not what he/she envisioned. People who can honestly listen, remain open and respectful to the other side’s concerns and interests, and give good faith effort to mutually resolving a situation - can resolve it in spite of their differences.

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion (Part II)

(Part II of a Three Part Series)Read Part I HereSo, how do Logical (Facts & Figures) People and Emotional (Achy/Breaky) People work with each other personally or professionally? 

• Remember that you both have different ways of looking at things, and neither is right or wrong – they’re just different. That alone will get you further down the path of resolution.  
• Pay attention to how the other side sees the issue. You don’t have to agree, but you do need to sincerely acknowledge it. Each party’s concerns/interests are his or hers; they’re not ridiculous or worthless. Respect them, though you may oppose them.

Cheat Sheet for the Facts & Figures (“F&F”) Person: 

• Stop and listen to what the other person is saying. It’s hard, but try to actually hear what the other party is saying – pretend it’s a complicated, but intriguing algorithm. Try to repeat back to her what she said (which may be difficult - be patient!). Give the conversation a chance to progress before you jump into the crux of your logistics (actual figures). Let the other person know that you can understand and respect her point of view, even if you disagree with it. “Emotion based” people need to be heard and validated – it’s everything.  
• Let your proposal breathe. Remember, an Achy/Breaky (“A/B”) person has to feel like her comments have moved you, literally and figuratively. So, your ultimate position needs to “reflect” her emotions. No need for extremes here, just don’t figure out the entire problem on your own then throw out a “take it or leave it” position. Give her interests and concerns due consideration. Engage in dialogue; allow your numbers to be flexible in light of the A/B’s emotions-based counter proposals. If you process her reasoning with the same determination as you devised your proposal, you may be pleasantly surprised at the result.  
• Stop with the “I’ll call my lawyer‼” Give the situation a chance; listen, dialogue, validate the other side’s reasoning, if not her offer. If resolution is impossible, then tell her what your next move is – (especially since you have already calculated the win/loss ratio) – don’t waste threats. Threats intimidate an Achy/Breaky person (it’s personal, not just business), and ruin any chance to informally resolve the dispute. Threatening to go to court is a “be careful what you wish for” kind of problem – what you may get from a judge could be far worse than what you might have gotten by continuing informal dialogue. Clinging to your facts and figures may ultimately cost you much more money, time, and energy. Finally, when Achy/Breaky threatens to go to court, don’t recalibrate. Until she really does, you still have a chance to resolve the conflict. Remember, A/B’s deal in emotions – hitting the panic button is reflexive. Whatever emotion they are communicating is most likely a knee jerk reaction to the “logic” you have tossed onto the negotiating table. Inhale…Exhale...Repeat.

In the final section, we offer suggestions for the Achy/Breaky Person to positively engage in disputes with Facts & Figures People.Contiue to Part III: Cheet Sheet for Achy/Breaky People

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion

(Part I of a Three Part Series)We’ve all seen the ad: the stunning model snuggled up to the nerdy, disheveled genius – and we giggle at the dichotomy. But when we deal with conflict between those of us who are “logical” and those of us who are “emotional,” it’s no laughing matter. (For this discussion, let’s focus on the stereotypically obvious, though either gender can have one or both personality traits.)“Facts & Figures” People (“F&F”) revels in his verifiable, tangible data. For him, emotion is secondary; he’s tabulated the correct value of the inheritance, quantified the relevant ratios of a business deal, or the tax ramifications of taking the house in a divorce. To him, his calculations are irrefutable; to question his numbers is to question his integrity, to disrespect his intelligence.“Achy/Breaky’” People (“A/B”) on the other hand, are emotional - feelings based; the numbers be damned – the issue is what’s right or what’s fair. To her, the house isn’t an “asset” – it’s home, pseudosacred – an integral part of her world. To award the house to the other spouse or to suggest its sale is an outrage – it’s wrong. To reject an A/B person’s proposal is to reject her (or him). Usually, the A/B person’s demand is unreasonably high – and I guarantee it’s outside the scope of what F&F has considered. This is because the numbers don’t really matter: it’s what she feels she is owed – at least in her opinion.The problem arises when these two people must interact – as a couple, co-workers, or as employer/employee. Facts & Figures people don’t have time for emotional silliness. They know that in a business deal, workplace dispute or lawsuit, somebody pays or gets paid; they’ve figured out their chances of success or failure, and just want to get on with the business of the bottom line – which means - the numbers that they have already crunched; end of discussion.Achy/Breaky people on the other hand, aren’t sure what they want as a conflict outcome – it depends upon how they feel at the moment: if they’ve been cut out of the will, they feel abandoned, insecure – so, they feel entitled to what whatever they need. If their spouse left them for another, they may be angry and frightened for their financial future. They deserve to be justly compensated for the years of selfless devotion to that miserable soon-to-be ex-spouse. If the boss has given someone else the profitable new project, the A/B person needs vindication. Think of it as “comfort resolution,” – kind of like a warm gooey brownie and a glass of milk at 10pm…In part II, we offer suggestions for the Facts and Figures Person to move forward productively in a dispute with an Achy/Breaky person.Continue to Part II: Cheet Sheet for Facts and Figures Person