Select Page

Greek Mythology and Ethics

Houston Arbitration Mediation

The story of Sisyphus comes from Greek Mythology.  According to the legend Sisyphus was a king who ruled through guile, deceit, and cruelty. According to the story this king’s misdeeds were so severe that the god Zeus punished him by compelling him to push a huge boulder up a steep mountain, and his punishment was that he would never succeed in reaching the top of the mountain. No matter what he tried, at some point on that slope the boulder would roll back down, and Sisyphus would have to start over again. According to the legend he could not pause and do something else; take a break, have lunch, or even rest. He was condemned to push the rock up the mountain, and when he failed, to start all over again. Over the centuries philosophers have had a field day making comparisons between Sisyphus’ dilemma and our all too human shortcomings.

Ethics and Greek Mythology

So what does this story have to do with ethics? In more modern times tasks that are repetitive and have little or no value, whether performed in a corporate or government environment have become known as Sisyphean tasks. Companies and agencies are aware of the tasks that yield little or no value, yet they are reluctant for a variety of reasons to abandon them. It is here where ethics are often compromised. Employees are well aware that some work they perform has little or no value, and the temptation to skip the task, or take a short cut can be irresistible. Once an employee begins to skip this task or perform the minimum he or she thinks will do, it is a mindset that can poison the rest of his or her work.

Ethical failures matter regardless of the tasks from which it originated. This is why it is necessary that companies have regular conversations with employees and managers about ethics so that every decision and the work affected by those decisions are executed with an ethical framework firmly fixed in the employees mind. Where low value work is found to have infected an organization, employees should not suffer in silence, but challenge the need for the work to continue.

Challenging does not mean complaining about doing the work. It means the employee should apply quality assurance/quality control methods and tools to demonstrate that this type of work is detrimental the overall performance of a department or group, and that it should be abandoned or assimilated into a related set of tasks which do provide value. Where the type of work described here is found, the following steps are recommended:

1.  Compare the work against existing standards. If the work is not described in a written standard or procedure, the work must either be amended to conform to the standard/procedure.

2.  Can the work be measured such that the data can be used to determine actual performance against expected performance.

3.  Can a value be assigned to the work that exceeds the costs expended to produce the data.

If the work cannot conform to all three, the work should be abandoned or rolled up into other work that is more cost effective.

 

How to Avoid the Escalation that Leads to Conflict

People Shaking Hands Across Table
A recent article on Mediate.com offered a commentary on Forbes Magazine’s annual Best Places to Work survey. The article touched on a number of issues that interest mediators and conflict resolution practitioners, but three of the points from the Forbes survey are particularly useful to anyone who wants to improve their workplace environment. These are issues that I talk about with my clients that experience employee disputes.

The first of these is a low tolerance for griping and chronic complaining. Employees who have a legitimate concern, even if only from their perspective, present their complaint in a positive and constructive manner, are treated with respect. Those who frequently gripe or complain but do present their grievance in a positive manner can create an environment where disagreements flourish.  The companies in the Forbes survey tend to have cultures that have a low tolerance for this type of communication. They tend to have formal communication training programs and processes to train their employees in positive communication techniques.

The second point highlighted by the article is that a number of the companies surveyed include in their communication processes training on how to resolve conflicts constructively. It is a concept I strongly endorse. In my own work with clients I emphasize the importance of providing employees with the training necessary to recognize when disagreements are becoming problem issues, and giving them the tools to work though these disagreements.

In my earlier posts I talk about how workplace disagreements can escalate into conflict for a variety of reasons, and how these conflicts can damage the progress of the work and damage the goals and objectives of the department or organization. Employees who can discuss their views in a controlled setting create the kind of environment that can prevent or mitigate the escalation that transforms disagreements into workplace conflict.

The third point discussed emphasized the importance of separating the issue from the person. Employees and supervisors need to recognize that personality traits are not the problem. They can influence how people react to issues, but it is the issue that matters and not the other person’s personality traits.

Are Provocative Questions Helpful?

On a website dealing primarily with mediation and its many facets a contributing writer suggested that it was perhaps time for mediators to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath. The writer includes a brief summary presumably distilled from those who favor such an oath as well as a brief summary from those who presumably oppose such a formal process.

The article poses the question to provoke a discussion among the readers of the articles posted on this website. If one were to land on the website and read the article out of curiosity their initial reaction might be something on the order of “of course mediators should swear an oath, etc., etc.  Yet that conclusion, while normal, would rest on a shaky foundation.

What is the Hippocratic Oath? It is an ancient oath that physicians and physician assistants swear to uphold. Its foundational principle is first and foremost Do No Harm. There are a series of covenants within the oath, and they are all predicated on the above stated principle. The oath exists in its original form as well as in more modern language, and its original purpose was to separate the trained healers from the charlatans. And that remains its principal purpose today.

So what is the underlying proposition of the author of this article? I found none in the article posted on the website. My experience tells me that a hypothesis or proposition is based on observed failures that affect adversely some desired outcome, and I do not see this here.

I am both an arbitrator and a mediator and I believe in conforming to and complying with the ethical standards of my profession. There is a written code of ethics for arbitrators and for mediators, and I work hard to adhere to those standards. Many of the arbitrators and mediators I worked with and those whose work I know are equally committed. The code of ethics to which mediator subscribe is a good one in that it focuses the practitioner on his/her duties and responsibilities. Its focus is on the behavior of the mediator.

My objection to an oath is three fold. One, oaths are administered to people who are placed in a position of public trust where they are called on to act on behalf of the public. Examples of this are elected officials, officials appointed to sensitive positions, and other similar criteria. A second objection stems from the fact that the imposition of oaths has historically been a prelude to licensing, and licensing was widely used in many states as a means of limiting competition. The third reason while separate is somewhat related to the second in that oath taking can lead to creating standards and processes that conflict with the laws and customs of individual states, and which again can lead to a process that limits competition and flow of ideas, tools, and techniques; which are the life blood of what we do as mediators.

Mediators do need to be qualified and, from what I have observed, the certification processes that exist in the various states are up to the task of making sure that practitioners have the training and tools necessary for the work they do.

The Gap between Conflict and Resolution

Bridge2I am in the conflict resolution business and every day I open the newspaper or turn on the television, and see many examples both large and small demonstrating how unskilled we are in diffusing conflict in a constructive manner. As a mediator, a conflict resolution specialist, if you will, I write about conflict here and in my monthly newsletter.

Whether it is played out on the national stage or in your local community, what is plain to see is that people often talk about resolving issues peacefully, but they are poorly equipped to diffuse a conflict and move to the next phase. One thing is absolutely certain; conflicts are not resolved on the picket lines or in the streets.

We are a litigious society, and there are many reasons how that came about, but one of the more enduring myths is the idea that lawsuits solve problems; that they are a way of solving conflict. And this could not be further from the truth. This is a costly time consuming way of resolving the underlying symptoms of a dispute, but it does not mitigate or eliminate the conflict. It is simply a way of managing or controlling it at the edges.

I also write about ethics as ethical behavior is integral to successfully negotiating disputes both on the part of the mediator and those doing the actual negotiating. I believe strongly that ethical behavior requires discipline and practice. This requires that institutions, companies, and even individuals have a method or process for understanding and carrying out their activities in an ethical manner. One of the reasons that many conflict resolution efforts fail is that one or more of the individuals is not fully invested in the process, and holds back or disguises their true motives.

Is the Whistleblower dead?

Houston Arbitration Mediation

Whistleblowing is much in the news these days. However, the reports showing up in the newspapers and on television are not the typical whistleblowing stories. For many years the reports about whistleblowers revolved around misconduct by companies. Those reports not only disclosed serious misconduct by companies, they also showed that the whistleblowers often suffered retaliation within the companies they worked for.  As a result of this the laws regarding whistleblowing were strengthened to better protect those who reported wrongdoing by an employer. The dictionary states in straight forward language that whistleblowing involves the disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrong doing.

Under legislation now in effect, companies and government agencies (local, state, and federal) must have in place policies and procedures that establish a process independent of the chain of command where an employee can communicate their concern to an individual or group of individuals who have the authority to keep the whistleblower’s identity a secret, and to investigate the allegation(s).

It is ironic therefore to see an entire series of whistleblowing reports coming out of multiple federal government departments. These reports reflect major failings within multiple departments. The failings of these agencies go beyond abuse of authority and the total scope of these abuses is the subject of ongoing debate and will be investigated for years to come. What is striking about these numerous events being reported is the frequency and severity of retaliation against the whistleblower. Given the depth and the details being reported there is little doubt that the retaliation is real.

So now there are a series of events where wrongdoing is being reported and those reporting the wrongdoing are being punished, and those doing the retaliating are not being held accountable. This is the most disquieting fact in the morass of ongoing investigations.

In the business world great progress has been made in making the corporate structure more responsive to errors and mistakes whether they are rooted in carelessness or misconduct. It would be disappointing if all of this progress were to be compromised by the cavalier behavior of government employees who feel free in the current environment to behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Persuasion – Does it apply in a Mediated Dispute?

Persuasion – Does it apply in a Mediated Dispute?

Houston Arbitration MediationA recent article discussed in Mediate.com focused on the notion of “persuasion”, and whether it should be encouraged or discouraged in the course of mediation. The article rightly pointed out that many practitioners see the use of persuasion as a negative that can seriously compromise a mediator’s neutrality. The focus of the article centered on its impact within different mediation models (Facilitative vs. Evaluative).

The catalyst for much of what was discussed in this article comes out of a study by two university professors, Douglas Frenkel and James Stark, and entitled Changing Minds: The Work of Mediators and Empirical Studies of Persuasion. The study explored the significant amount of empirical data produced by various social science studies on the impact of persuasion in disputes. To a large degree that article was aimed at practitioners and at those interested in the subject as an area of study.

I found the article on the above referenced website to be thought provoking and I read the study as well. I won’t dwell on the guts of the study because as a practitioner I do not want to get lost in the forest. That said I do not find the notion of persuasion to be a verboten topic. More to the point, I think many mediators find the notion uncomfortable because they do not really understand what lies at the root of persuasion.

Before I get to this root let me state clearly that I do not attempt to persuaded one side or the other to adopt a solution, course of action, or any specific outcome.  Yet, persuasion is the root of many successful outcomes. So what do I mean by this? Well, the goal of the mediator is to get the warring parties to examine alternatives paths that will yield a mutually acceptable outcome.

The parties in conflict have to be influenced or urged to stop defending their position/issues, and coaxed into explaining their point of view, and at the same time get each side to listen to other’s point of view. Explanations lead to discussion and discussion leads to the implicit acceptance by both sides that the other side has a point of view. It’s not important at the beginning that either side accepts the other’s point of view as being valid, but once these points of view are fleshed out by the parties, the process of searching for a way forward becomes possible.

It is the process of explaining instead of defending where the parties themselves use the tools of persuasion to find the outcomes they need. It is the mediator’s role to understand this goal and to construct his or her questions in a manner that moves the dialogue away from attack and defend towards a discussion. Even in mediation that does not succeed, which sometimes happens, the tools of persuasion give the parties a chance to understand the other side more clearly and that is not a bad thing.

In Pursuit of Absolutes

The title of my monthly newsletter is Putting It in Context.  In the letter I look at conflict, its causes, and the affect it has on companies, organizations, and individuals. The letter looks at the tools and techniques for dealing with conflict, and how I use them in my work. I write about ethics as this is a core principle for effective conflict resolution. My bi-weekly blog also touches on these concepts in that I target a particular issue to give my readers potential ideas that they can apply in their own particular circumstances.

I found myself thinking about absolutes while re-reading a book by George F. Keenan.  He was a diplomat in an era when diplomacy required men to have substance – in their education, their training, their intellect. He wrote books and articles that ultimately defined for decades how the United States would use the doctrine of Containment in its relationship toward the Soviet Union. In his book American Diplomacy, several of the concepts he discussed have application outside of politics to this day. In discussing the concept of Containment, he argued persuasively against the pursuit of absolutes – absolute amity, harmony, security. The foundation of his argument was that in trying to achieve laudable goals you can go too far, get the opposite result and harm the general good of the nation.

This does have a direct bearing on many of the conflicts that occur in companies and organizations. Pursuing desirable goals and objectives can go too far, causing a backlash within a company’s structure damaging the culture, the cohesion of an organization, and potentially the quality and timeliness of the products and services being delivered. In his book he uses more classical language, but the heart of his argument was that going too far in pursuit of an objective is often the product of ego. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a corporate environment knows that people in positions of authority who are ego driven are at the heart of most conflicts.

One of the things that I stress when helping parties in dispute is the important of identifying and separating the issues and making the mediation about the issues and not the people. Do you have a question? Contact me at jerry_cooper@att.net, or at 832-452-8537.

Stepping Into Blended Families – Very Carefully

Much of what I do as a mediator involves disputes between companies, employee disputes, intra and inter-organizational disputes, and disputes between individuals. I have mediated disputes between individuals and companies often vendors they did business with. When it comes to divorce mediation, I turn down most of those requests such that this type of mediation is less than 15% of my work.

It therefore something of a surprise that I was approached last year to mediate a dispute involving a blended family, and from that experience I have since been approached to assist in several other disputes, all of which involve disputes within a blended family environment.

Unlike divorce mediation where the mediator is tasked with assisting couples bring to closure a relationship which was destroyed and deal with the aftermath and its impact on children, the dynamics of blended families is underpinned by hope. Here are people trying to build a new family structure for themselves and the children they now share with their former partners. The families I have assisted want very much for their new family structure to work, for their children to be happy and to feel safe in the new environment.

I think what I enjoy best about this new aspect of my practice is how willing the parents are to do everything they can to make things work for the children. I do not diminish the obstacles the parents face in a blended family and I have made it clear to the parents that solving the more immediate issues is not the end of their journey. The children especially need a way of voicing their concerns and fears, and they need to do that with the support of a trained professional. But what is really rewarding is the pleasure and sense of accomplishment the new parents gain by climbing out from under the anger, frustration, and uncertainty about doing the wrong thing. The biggest thing they have to learn is that the best solutions begin with small steps. The children cannot be expected to immediately love the new mother or the new father, but it is a major step forward if the children like being around the new parent.

I have treaded very carefully in this new environment, and so far the feedback has been positive.