The Canadian Human Rights Commission is responsible for promoting and protecting human rights. As part of this mandate, the Commission is responsible for investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination in employment and the provision of services within the federal jurisdiction.
The Commission is required to investigate and manage complaints that involve important, sensitive and often complex issues. As a result, it is important for its staff to have highly developed skills to manage difficult conversations and resolve complex disputes all while protecting the public interest. Beginning in 1998, the Commission hired the Stitt Feld Handy Group to design and deliver a variety of customized workshops including programs on mediation, advanced mediation and having difficult conversations.
The Stitt Feld Handy Group worked closely with representatives from the Commission to understand their unique roles and the specific challenges they face at the Commission. With this information, the Stitt Feld Handy Group was able to design interactive workshops that were skills-building and that included customized role plays and exercises involving human rights issues. The skills covered by the various workshops included:
Participants left the workshops with an enhanced ability to resolve complex disputes and conduct difficult conversations with greater skill and confidence.
“Great balance of personal stories, concept discussions and group discussions. Very engaging!”
“I found the role plays very valuable. It is great to learn the theory but even better to put it into practice.”
“Excellent, super relevant, practical and well-paced. Highly relevant.”
“The instructor is one of the best instructors I have ever encountered.”
“Engaging presentations, real-life examples, chance to practice leads to real opportunities for change.”
BDO USA is a leading multi-service accounting services firm with 64 offices and more than 5000 staff across the U.S., providing audit, tax, consulting and advisory services to an array of national and international companies and organizations. Founded in 1910, BDO USA is part of a global network and services more than a dozen major industry sectors with revenues in excess of $1 billion as of fiscal year end 6-30-15.
Since 2003, the Stitt Feld Handy Group has provided more than 30 multi-day workshops for BDO, on topics including enhanced negotiation skills, dealing with difficult people, and managing difficult conversations. For much of that period, SFHG has been a core provider of training for BDO’s Leadership Institute (BLI) and its precursor, BDO Sales College. In that context SFHG has trained BDO’s rising stars and future leaders in the art and science of managing negotiations and difficult conversations effectively. SFHG has designed highly tailored workshops imparting key skills adapted to the real world context in which BDO operates, using real examples from BDO’s environment.
In delivering their workshops, SFHG instructors and course designers are highly attentive to the needs of BDO staff, adapting material and instruction to meet evolving needs year to year, and designing new curriculum for ongoing new requests within BDO’s training environment. In an atmosphere where participants are very busy professionals, SFHG has always made their training highly relevant and useful to BDO’s practice.
“I thought the topic and examples were key to what BDO does and will aid me in my development.”
“The instructor was dynamite! He engaged the participants and got a lot out of the group. His use of real world examples during the discussions brought real life to the case studies. The course pulled together a lot of different negotiation aspects and put them into a more clear, concise and usable format for the future.”
“Very effective, real life situations and useful tools to use.”
“Instructor does a great job of recognizing our business and adjusting conversation accordingly.”
“I feel I can apply these concepts immediately back in the office/meetings.”
“Excellent instructor. Not only was he prepared thoroughly, his passion for teaching the principles of negotiation was demonstrated throughout the course.”
The JEITT, a distinct but integral part of the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago, operates with the vision “Transformation through Education”. We deliver continuous judicial education to the judges and judicial officers in support of the administration of justice. The training and development programmes delivered are the hallmark of the Institute as we strive to improve the functioning and competence of the Judiciary and its judicial officers, keeping all au courant with changes that may influence the Judiciary’s operations.
For our “Dealing with Difficult Conversations” series of workshops, Stitt Feld Handy Group facilitated sessions which looked at the primary causes of difficult conversations. Real life video examples were displayed and closely analysed. Participants were encouraged to look at their own ‘triggers’ in daily life and discuss their views on them, following which they participated in exercises focusing on models for beginning, analysing and responding to difficult conversations.
The Stitt Feld Handy Group also facilitated for the JEITT a 5-day Mediation workshop in which participants took part in negotiating role plays, learned about and discussed Principled Negotiation, viewed and partook in activities surrounding Mediation scenarios, and engaged in demonstrations and debriefs.
“Learning skills for listening and how to be heard in actual situations was really valuable.”
“The moderators were knowledgeable and highly engaging!”
“The interactive workshops were quite interesting, and made you recognise your ability to engage in conversations that could be challenging.”
“The workshop was most educational, enlightening and enjoyable.”
The York Region District School Board has over 123,000 elementary and secondary school students and employs over 7,500 teachers, 400 administrators, 1,100 plant and maintenance staff and 1,000 professional and para-professionals.
The Board’s mission statement is, in part: “To advance student achievement and well-being through public education”. To meet their commitment to students, the Board recognizes that their staff needs advanced negotiation and conflict resolution skills as well as the ability to have difficult conversations effectively. To that end, starting in 2000, the Board retained the Stitt Feld Handy Group to offer over 30 different workshops for various groups from the Board.
The Stitt Feld Handy Group has designed more than 30 different customized workshops for the Board ranging in length from one to three days. These different workshops were customized for superintendents, trustees, principals, vice-principals, teachers, special education teachers, social workers, psychologists, plant operations, maintenance staff, IT and procurement staff.
For each of the workshops, we worked closely with representatives from the Board’s Centre for Leadership and Learning to identify their learning objectives for the program. We also interviewed participants through on-line questionnaires and over the phone to deepen our understanding of the issues they face in their workplace. With this information, the Stitt Feld Handy Group then designed and delivered the program for the specific target audience.
Some examples of the workshops we have designed for the Board include: multi-day workshops for the senior administrators (principals and vice-principals) that focused on advanced conflict resolution skills for managing the myriad types of conflicts that administrators need to resolve in the course of their work. For the workshops for the procurement office, the focus was on enhancing and refining their negotiation skills to help them achieve better deals on behalf of the Board and to be able to negotiate agreements when conflicts arose on existing contracts. Several workshops on having difficult conversations were designed for special education staff who need to have conversations with other staff, parents and outside service providers about meeting the special education needs of their students.
“The most useful workshop I have attended in 5 years. Practical solutions were excellent. Theoretical knowledge coupled with practical examples – Excellent!”
“I liked the practical value of the workshop in our dealings with parents and other educators. The instructors broke down the subject in a way that was easy to digest and apply in real-life situations.”
The Government of Nunavut (GN) was established by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and represents all of the people of the territory, both Inuit and non-Inuit. The GN is committed to reflecting the values, the traditional knowledge and the diversity of Nunavut’s population and works hard to support the development of the public service. The GN is doing so by ensuring fair and transparent practices for career advancement, working towards enhanced Inuit employment in professional and leadership roles and facilitating investment in education.
The Government of Nunavut recognizes the importance of providing employees with comprehensive training programs that develop job-specific knowledge and skills through “hands-on” learning and practice. From 2013 to 2016, participants from across Nunavut were given the opportunity to learn alternative dispute resolution techniques such as negotiating, managing difficult conversations, mediating tough problems and learning how to deal with difficult and emotional people. Inuit Societal Values was also included in the program delivery by incorporating sessions in Aajiiqatigiinniq – Decision making through discussion and consensus. An elder was invited to lead the discussion on how dispute resolution was traditionally done in communities and families.
“Skills taught to participants are applicable to a vast range of situations and the professionalism, engagement and experience of the Instructors made the whole difference.”
If you have to say ‘No’ to someone, but want to minimize the damage to your relationship with them, identify the impact of saying ‘Yes’.
Help them understand why you are saying no by pointing out the logical consequences of agreement. If they can see the negative impact of Yes, they may alter their proposal to make it better, or they will at least understand (and not take it personally) when you say No. Framing a “No” as an “I can’t say yes because…” is subtly more positive.
“The consequences of going down that road are…”
“If I say ‘yes’, it means…”
“I just can’t say yes, yet, because…”
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.
Public and private entities worldwide are increasingly using conflict management and dispute resolution procedures as a standard way of handling a wide variety of costly and disruptive conflicts, from legal or quasi-legal cases to workplace struggles to simple product and service complaints. Practical guidelines for designing and redesigning dispute resolution systems are increasingly necessary if organizations are to adapt effectively.
Broadly framed, the purpose of ADR system design is to develop effective processes to prevent, manage, and resolve claims, conflicts, and disputes. The challenging part in any system design is to determine what will be ‘effective’ in any given situation. Much of what makes a system effective is its ability to satisfy the goals of the stakeholders who are using, administering and affected by the system. One of the key benefits in ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) system design is the ability to find effective ways to prevent disputes and to minimize the severity and cost of the disputes that still occur.
One of the great dangers, particularly in the private sector, is that dispute resolution processes will be developed that reflect the mandate of the implementing organization but that ignore or minimize core goals/concerns of users and other stakeholders. This would be less of a concern if not for the fact that many private sector organizations can effectively impose their system, so they are not required to seek broad input. Modifying dispute systems without proper design processes, however, can create significant costs, tension, and pushback from stakeholders affected by the systems in question, and limit the usefulness of the system ultimately implemented. Customers using such systems are already in a conflict of some kind, and they become further frustrated with the organization in charge if they feel the system is biased against them. The cost of dealing with dissatisfied customers in an adversarial setting is high on both sides, with one of the primary costs to the organization being the lost time and stress.
ADR Systems come in various forms, each with its own challenges, including:
Organizations around the world, both governmental and private sector, are actively incorporating alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes like mediation, negotiation, coaching, arbitration etc. into their methods for handling claims, conflicts and disputes (Ury et al. 1988; Wildau et al. 1993; Moore 1994; Costantino and Merchant 1996; Stitt 1998; Rowe 1997; SPIDR 2000; Bingham and Pitts 2002; Bertschler 2004; Katz Jameson and Johnson 2004; Bingham et al. 2009).
Having worked on a broad range of system design projects (from legal, to workplace, to contractual issues, and both public and private sector), the Stitt Feld Handy Group has a wealth of experience on which to draw in helping guide organizations through the system design process. There are 5 broad phases of system design, which vary in complexity and importance from one project to another, but which should be part of any system design project. The five phases, which are described in more detail below, include:
This classification is task-based, and in actuality there may be loopbacks or overlaps between the phases. It is not unusual, for example, to be laying the groundwork for Implementation (by lining up possible monitoring processes and personnel) even before the Design is fully approved. An experienced system design professional can help identify what tasks are most appropriate to the system design project in question – which stakeholders to consult, what questions to ask, what design options to consider and why, etc.
In a world of expanding ADR processes, the future of such ADR system design projects involves organizations increasingly a) borrowing from other successful systems to put such processes in place; and b) in ADR mature organizations, refining the systems already in place by ongoing improvement after monitoring and evaluation. The importance of these changes in saving money and generating greater stakeholder satisfaction should not be underestimated. In one case, for example, the implementation of mediation into a grievance procedure saved millions of dollars in system costs by significantly reducing the number grievance arbitrations and related lost time from work. The earlier cases can be resolved, generally the less entrenched parties become in their views, and the more likely that relationships can be salvaged, which is a key factor in avoiding poisoned workplaces.
Flexibility in the system allows it to adjust to the range of conflicts faced. In another corporate example that SFHG worked on, the use of mediation and other interest-based processes was tailored to the company’s circumstances by using HR staff as mediators (to save costs) but using HR staff from a different “neutral” location (to increase the appearance of neutrality and fairness), with the option for using external mediators in certain high sensitivity cases such as sexual harassment (when the need for neutrality was highest and justified the additional cost). Understanding the underlying concerns of the stakeholders helps focus efforts on optimal strategies. In a third project, our consultation with the client revealed that arbitration decisions were both expensive and ultimately hard to enforce. The losing party would return to the workplace and flaunt the decision. Brainstorming ideas with the key stakeholders led to the design of a peer review process that was less costly, incorporated greater knowledge of the context, and had the added benefit of a built in enforcement mechanism (peer pressure when back at work).
With the growing use of ADR processes in a variety of sectors, public and private, comes the need for practical guidance on effective dispute resolution system design. While every system design project is different, a coherent model to approach the design process provides helpful guidance to administrators at organizations contemplating system changes. There is clearly value to be had in reducing the number, duration and severity of conflicts. The question is how to secure that value without creating further costs and challenges, and an experienced ADR system designer can help answer that question.
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.
Litigation will often create two losing parties, no matter how strong the arguments are on either side of the table. Someone always ends up losing a little more than the other, but this does not mean a winner in any real way was found.
Litigation is best avoided in virtually every conflict scenario. Businesses of all sizes need to assess the intense risks involved with the court system. It could be effective in some rare instances, but it always has costs. These include:
Court exists in an environment that is uneasy and unpredictable. Litigation is a last resort and the potential final path after all others options have been thoroughly exhausted. An empathic and human-based approach can minimize the potential of court.
A Human-Based Platform for Conflict Resolution
Litigation is an impersonal and insensitive approach to conflict resolution. The procedures and trial aspects of litigation take precedence, and the human aspects, feelings and emotional components are pushed to the wayside. Court is not about connecting with human needs and repairing an interpersonal rift. It’s about finding a prompt resolution and moving on, often with a hefty financial cost.
Companies that invest in the emotional health of their team and train them in conflict resolution techniques can avoid the pitfall of court. Your company needs to have a system that encourages people to speak about their issues without expecting unfair retaliation. They need to feel like they will have the support of the company and an open ear.
Employees turn to court because they feel they were treated unfairly. But, there is another layer. Almost always, employees also feel as if they would not be heard if they spoke out. They feel that they lacked a voice. A company that provides a channel for communication and a follow-through will often avoid costly and burdensome court trials.
Thorough Conflict Management
Fortunately, you have options. Conflict management training is a tool for avoiding the all-too-often catastrophic process of court.
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.
First Published in the CBA Aboriginal Law Section Newsletter, January 2010
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:
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.
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)1 $6000
(4 desktops x $1000 each) $4000
Desks (4 desk sets x $500 each) $2000
Etc.
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 ….
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.
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.
Traditionally, managers have relied on having all the answers. In complex environments, with rarely only one answer, managers need a coaching approach that focuses on asking the right questions to build capacity in their staff to develop the solutions.
A key distinction between coaching and managing is that coaching empowers employees instead of directing them. A manager who focuses on “managing” may help staff to respond to a particular problem or attend to a specific task but the manager to focuses on coaching will help the employee to develop their potential to deal with issues in the future as well. Directing others is necessary for emergencies when an immediate response is critical. In most other situations, having a coaching mindset will help a manager to maximize an employee’s skill to achieve organizational goals.
Based on client feedback, the benefits of our Progress Coaching Model are clear. It provides skills to help under-performers improve and help good performers develop for new opportunities or succession planning. It helps employees to become more engaged and pro-active rather than overly reliant upon their managers. Coaching training also helped them to build relationships with employees, which is particularly challenging in hybrid workplaces.
Finding the time to coach and holding back from giving advice are the two most common coaching challenges that we hear from managers. The misperception is that coaching must be a formal and time-consuming process (i.e. a series of 60-minute meetings). We believe that coaching is not an event; it is a daily practice for managers.
Organizations can support managers by developing a coaching culture where employees don’t see coaching as a reprimand; instead, they see coaching as an opportunity for personal growth and development. An organization can also support its managers to coach rather than manage by ensuring their managers are training as coaches. Managers need to adopt a coaching mindset and they need specific skills, such as asking powerful coaching questions, to be able to coach effectively.
We teach managers how to have a coaching mindset and identify coaching opportunities in daily interactions. For example, when an employee begins a question with, ‘How do I’ or seeks advice, it is a potential coaching opportunity. Instead of taking the bait and giving your managerial advice, ask, “What are your initial thoughts?”. This type of question can start a coaching conversation.
Managers can also incorporate coaching into their employee check-in meetings or 1-on-1s. Regularly scheduled times allow for more in-depth coaching and ensure coaching occurs in hybrid working environments with limited spontaneous interactions.
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.
