by jcooper131 | Oct 25, 2016 | Conflict, Disputes, Ethics, Mediation, Negotiation
After the Shock Wave
This week’s blog can also be called Ethic’s Seismic Fracture, and here is why.
Wells Fargo Corporation opened fake bank accounts and fake credit card accounts, and charged its customers fees for accounts they did not know existed. These actions were both illegal and unethical and will have significant consequences for all those involved. It has all the trappings of a soap opera scandal and everyone is piling on adding his or her opinion wherever they can. But the story is not over and I think there is more to come.
This is an ethical failure of seismic proportions, and I will likely write about it in a future letter, but it is too soon because I don’t believe we know the whole story. It does offer an excellent segue into a related issue that I think is relevant to this story.
An article in the Harvard Business Review discussed the subject of listening and why this is such a critical skill for CEOs and other leaders. The author noted that a recent survey indicated as many as 25 percent of CEOs of major companies were either not good listeners or down right bad at it. The article went on to explain that this deficit at that level of leadership in a company can have severe consequences to the point of damaging the company. I think it’s safe to say the authors of that survey got that one right.
When such a deficit exists at the top level, imagine what the absence of this skill would mean in someone heading up a major business unit who must communicate and receive feedback from other business unit leaders. Information naturally flows up an organization making information transfers across the various organizations difficult at best, but it is made more difficult if the person in charge of one of these organizational structures does not listen well.
Think for a moment about a company much like Wells Fargo where employees at multiple levels in an organization are trying to convey important information up the chain of command; information that signals the train is going too fast and is about to go off the tracks, but that information doesn’t move up the organization. It meet resistance that shows itself in several ways. These can be procedures that require detailed explanations and lengthy reviews for no apparent reason, a set of well-established routines that do not conform to any written procedures or policies and which cannot be bypassed, and a culture that says to the average manager or employee “make your numbers first and save your complaints for later…” The transition from poor listening skills to an un-willingness to listen is a very short step.
One of the most important skills a leader has is the ability to listen. It is one of the ingredients of leadership that separates a leader from the rest of the crowd. Does this mean that you can’t achieve a leadership role without this skill? No, it doesn’t; a person can achieve a leadership role in a company or organization without this skill, but the chances of doing well in that position are significantly diminished without it.
The leaders at Wells Fargo failed in their leadership role. It is not the first company to suffer a severe failure of leadership, and it won’t be the last. As more time passes I think we will find there were ample opportunities to change the work ethic in that company, but the warning signs were ignored. I believe the failure to listen at various levels of the organization was the catalyst that sowed the seeds for disaster.
Successful leaders learn early in their careers that listening is part of a process designed to produce communication with others that works so that misunderstandings are reduced or eliminated. I encourage those who read my letter each month to read, or if you have already, then re-read Stephen R. Covey’s book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. He understood that listening, especially empathic listening requires training. Sometimes leaders trained themselves to achieve this level of listening, and sometimes leaders found someone to teach them how to achieve this level of listening.
In chapter 5 of his book Stephen Covey wrote that there are several principles of communication and he begins by saying “seek first to understand then to be understood”. I believe those principles are as valid today as when he wrote his book some 30 years ago.
The idea that you first needed to understand the person you were talking to was a completely foreign concept to the vast majority of people. In the business world of that era it was seen as an impractical point of view, and that view was not hard to understand in that most communication at time was directive in nature where the boss told his employees what to do and when he wanted it done and the employee was expected to figure it out.
I am firmly convinced that empathic listening as he wrote about has a sound ethical foundation and provides the best framework for building listening skills of the scope and reach that will separate you from the crowd, and sustain you in your role as a leader.
A strong ethical culture requires the right kind of action. Listening is an action and so it must be supported by the right kind of action to be successful.
Food for thought: Great readers and great listeners all have great work ethics. They work hard at what they do and they are devout about their reading and listening. (Andy Wilkinson)
CDC Integrated Services believes that small businesses are the foundation of ingenuity and supports the efforts of the Services Cooperative Association in Houston in its efforts to foster and promote entrepreneurship
by jcooper131 | Sep 6, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
This is the third post in my series of comments on the Wheel of Conflict developed by professors Bernard Mayer, Ph.D. and Christopher Moore, Ph.D. In developing the graphic illustration of the different factors that drive conflict, these two gentlemen placed Emotion immediately after Structure. There are sound reasons for their decision to place where they did because emotions drive one’s actions, behaviors, and even thinking.
More than 50 years of research offer compelling evidence that emotions strongly shape most decisions, and are a key driver of behavior, and are often the impetus behind conflicts in the workplace and even between companies. Emotions are not uniformly negative as both science and history teaches us. Strong emotions can drive people to achieve extraordinary things; even anger can generate positive outcomes.
But the converse is equally true in that emotions such as anger can create a negative and damaging environment in the workplace and is often the driver behind many workplace conflicts.
Psychologist John D. Mayer argues that emotions carry a physical aspect when they bridge thought, feeling, and action and can impact a person’s physiology both positively and negatively depending on the level of stress being felt at the time of the decision/action. This simple truth has been experienced by anyone confronted by a demanding task coupled with a critical timeline.
Managers and supervisors often fail to recognize that decisions people make in the workplace are judged, by those making the decision or taking the action, on the basis of the risk to themselves. That perceived risk strongly influences their decisions or their actions. Someone who feels anxious about the impact of the outcome on him/her may choose a more conservative approach, involve others, take longer to execute the task, and potentially sacrifice the best outcome for one that is safe.
A negative work environment will drive other negative behaviors. Doing the safe thing can lead to doing only the least necessary to stay “under the radar”, and it can lead to other more damaging behaviors such as missing schedules, making excuses, asking others to do the work for you.
Managers and supervisors need to develop an active awareness of those situations where emotions can have an adverse effect on the work, the cohesiveness of the group, and the productivity that is necessary to produce the necessary outcomes, and they must be able to react in a constructive way to avoid the potential for conflict without creating reasons for greater anxiety and uncertainty.
Want to know more? Visit us at www.cdci-mediaion.com or call us at 832-452-8537.
by jcooper131 | Aug 15, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
Direct from The Ethics Workshop. Have you been to the library recently?
Well, come join us at the Kendall Branch of the Houston Library (see below) on August 25th.
Experience an Introduction to:
A NEW DYNAMIC – DOING THE RIGHT THING AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THE RIGHT REASON®
Mark down the date and location shown below. Spend just two hours with us and you will learn about the building blocks for a more dynamic culture in the workplace.
Behavior drives failure and behavior drives success. Lean how to prevent/mitigate failure and increase success in your work.
WHAT WILL BE COVERED
In two hours YOU will learn:
That doing the right thing sets the stage.
That doing the right thing at the right time defeats failure
That doing the right thing for the right reason is the difference between success and great success.
In two hours find out how these building blocks apply to real life situations and can transform a department or a company.
AUGUST AT THE LIBRARY – join us on the 25th from 1:15 to 3:15 PM at 609 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, TX 77079.
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?? WOW! YOU ARE IN LUCK. For this day only it is FREE.
The regular price for this is event is $189.00 per person, but we are introducing it to businesses in West Houston and Katy on the date indicated above through this no cost introductory offer.
To register, or for more information about other dates, please contact Jerry Cooper at: 832-452-8537, or at jerry_cooper@att.net.
Jerry P. Cooper
CDC Integrated Services, LLC
by jcooper131 | Aug 4, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
In my earlier post I introduced the Wheel of Conflict created by Professors Bernard Mayer, Ph.D. and Christopher Moore, Ph.D. When you read their work and the work of other practitioners, the starting point is often a discussion about the role of structure as a source of conflict. The point the two authors emphasized was that many conflicts result from the dynamics that exist between a manager/supervisor and the employees that report to him or her.
The primary fact of any company’s or organization’s structure is they contain a hierarchy where the higher you are in an organization the more authority and power you have over the actions and decisions of others. The manager or supervisor is the key player in anticipating and mitigating the potential for conflict. Therefore, one of his/her primary rolls is avoid being the source of conflict.
In any department, group, or team conflict is inevitable because the members of that organization will have different views on how to advance the work and often there will be differences of opinion on how to proceed. These differences can be exacerbated by the realities that every organization faces: limited resources, limited time, budget constraints, and a range of other constraints as well.
The manager or supervisor has a critical responsibility to see that the structure under which the team operates does not become the problem. The organizational structure by design puts limits and controls over any process and the people there. The manager’s goal is to make those constrains as neutral as possible.
It often sounds trite, but the key to eliminating structure as a source of conflict lies in the way managers communicate with the other members of the team. What gets communicated, how it’s communicated and when are critical factors in how a team responds to the information they must work with.
by jcooper131 | Jul 19, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
Wheel on train service vehicle
No single element in a conflict stands alone, and no conflict arises from one single reason. There are multiple factors and these are better understood when they are placed in relation to a wheel as discussed below.
Structure, emotion, history, communication, and values are elements/factors that influence the dynamics of conflict in the workplace. All of these exist to some degree in every conflict, and how they interact and influence each other often drives the direction and the severity of a particular conflict.
Professors Bernard Mayer, Ph.D. and Christopher Moore, Ph.D;’long time students, teachers, and practitioners of conflict resolution, created a graphic in the form of a wheel to help those who want to avoid, mitigate, and when necessary resolve conflict. Each of the above elements, viewed as a section of the wheel, form distinct aspects of a conflict, and those confronting conflict can use this representation as an aid to thinking their way through the minefield that is conflict in today’s workplace.
In the coming weeks I will use this space to discuss each of these factors and why looking at them individually is a necessary first step in understanding the larger picture. The concept of the Wheel of Conflict is important for those trying to resolve conflict because it helps them understand the complex and tense emotions that are present in these situations. The wheel reminds us that one’s point of view is not necessarily shared by the others involved in the conflict.
I will discuss structure in more detail in my next post, but for the moment I will leave with Messrs Mayer and Moore’s description that it is in part “…the dynamics of the participants that might be creating the conflict, for example, boss and employee…”
by jcooper131 | Apr 22, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
The word Argument is heard often in the field of conflict resolution. It is one of the words heard most often when a conflict is examined during the course of a mediation or even a post-mediation lessons learned process.
It is an important word with broader application that one gets by listening to what goes on around them. Many of us hear every day that someone got into an argument with so and so. All of us can benefit by the reminder that the most common understanding of this word is well down the list of definitions. There are a total of six definitions for this word, but one is obsolete, so only five are relevant today.
For this post, I believe the strongest benefit for us in our everyday considerations is number two on the list which is “a reason or set of reason given in proof or rebuttal”. Closely following this definition is the third definition which is “a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion”.
Defining an argument as a quarrel or disagreement is well down the list. My point in this post, in a sense, is a continuation of my earlier post. As executives, leaders, managers, your goal is not to avoid or mitigate disagreements, but deal with them through reasoned persuasion or by reasoned argument. And lest anyone forget, reasoned argument carries with it the obligation to listen using both active listening and empathic listening skills.
Want to learn more? We can help. Call us at 832-452-8537 or write us at: jerry_cooper@att.net.
by jcooper131 | Apr 3, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
The companies I consult with fall into one of two camps; they know they will have problems if they are not proactive, or they have a problem and it needs resolution now. I have far too few of the first, and more than I should of the second. Periodically I remind my readers that there is real peril in not resolving conflict in a timely manner. I have written before about the adverse impact on profits, on organizational cohesion, and the impact on quality and reliability of a product or service.
Many studies over the past 25 years give ample empirical evidence of the damage resulting from conflicts that are ignored. So why do so many companies shy away from explicitly preventing conflict or confronting conflict once it begins to impact the organization. What is it about a company’s culture and the leadership that shapes that culture? Let’s face it folks; a conflict produces a lot of early warning signs, and it’s the leader’s job to heed those warnings and change whatever is producing those clear warnings. When they fail to act, to adjust, they are failing as leaders.
When I meet with a CEO or his key executives I ask each of them some simple questions.
Do you avoid talking about conflicts that inevitably appear?
How proactive are you in promoting procedures and processes for training managers and employees in conflict resolution?
How aware are your employees of the various techniques and tools available to them to prevent, mitigate, or resolve conflict?
The responses to these three questions varies greatly, and that is why I stay busy.
Want to learn more? Visit us at www.cdci-mediation.com, or call us at 843-452-8537.
by jcooper131 | Mar 22, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
Most conflicts in the workplace can be avoided. This is nothing new; you have probably heard that before. So why is it so difficult to prevent conflicts from erupting in the workplace damaging relationships, organizational cohesiveness, productivity, and so many other important facet of the organization? Regrettably, we are conditioned to take actions and make decisions that exacerbate the potential for conflict.
No conflict lands on your desk fully formed “out of the blue”. While it may have caught you by surprise, it was building just beyond your horizon, and like a hurricane, it gave you a number of warnings that you either did not see, or did not interpret correctly. No conflict begins without someone or more than one ignoring the first building block of any conflict – a disagreement.
The disagreement is the easiest of the potential conflict hurdles to overcome. By definition it simply means that you face a lack of consensus. Today, in thousands of offices, the executive, the manager, the team leader is telling the group there is a new project, program, or major purchase. The teams form, and the initial strategies discussed. Before too many days pass disagreements will start to show up.
At this point no one is right and no one is wrong. A lack of consensus simply means different members of the team see the path to success differently. The first rule is do not defend your point of view. Begin by listening to the other members of the team, explain your point of view at the appropriate time, and discuss the differences. The disagreement stage is not the point in the process where one stakes out positions and begins to mount a defense. That is a recipe for failure.
Want to know more? Feel free to contact us at 832-452-8537, or 281-531-8133; or E-mail us at jerry_cooper@att.net.
by jcooper131 | Mar 7, 2016 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
used by permission of Microsoft
I read an article on the power of the short sentence not long ago. The blog post caught my attention because the writer used the works of Ernest Hemingway to make her point. I have several of his books and re-read one or two of them each year, and I agree with the woman who wrote the article. It is his use of the short sentence that adds power and drama to his stories.
In keeping with that article’s theme, I will keep it pithy (to echo a certain television commentator). Conflict needs to be resolved by the parties that created the conflict in the first place. As a mediator, I make my living guiding parties in conflict through a briar patch of their own making, and the most successful mediations result from negotiations the parties take ownership from the start. In mediations where the parties have the most positive outcomes are those where, once I have set the stage, the parties find the outcome they need.
Many years ago I read a book about whale hunting in the 19th century. In the book there is a scene where the whales have been spotted, and the boats lowered into the water. As the boat crews are rowing toward the whales, the bo’sun is giving instructions to a rookie sailor. He looked the rookie in the eye and told him that once the whaleboats were in the water, the most important job was not steering the boat, but keeping it from capsizing.
I always find that a useful mental image to take into a mediation. Want to know more? Visit us a www.cdci-mediation.com.
by jcooper131 | Jun 8, 2015 | Houston Mediation and Arbitration
In mediation as in many aspects of business and life in general asking questions is important to the successful outcome of any endeavor. When you’re in school you are taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. The motive behind that thinking is that students have to be taught not to be afraid to ask questions.
This same thinking finds its way into business coaching and training models and this sometimes does more harm than good. By the time someone has entered the business arena in whatever capacity that person should already know that asking questions is important; so the real question, pardon the pun, is how to ask the right questions. In Jeffrey Gitomer’s Little Red Book of Selling he sets out a number of axioms about asking questions, and I will offer the following three to illustrate my point.
- What you ask sets the tone and the perception of the other party
- What you ask determines their response
- What you ask makes or breaks the deal
How he addresses these truths is worth reading because they have an almost universal application. In mediating disputes asking the questions in the right way is critical to the success of a mediation. A question phrased incorrectly or carelessly can have an immediate and adverse impact on the progress of a negotiation. Conversely, a well-crafted question can be the catalyst that advances the negotiation process.
The key is being prepared. It sounds simplistic but it’s not. Some mediations allow the mediator time to think about what questions to ask, but others occur with little time to prepare. However, those doing the actual negotiating almost always have some time to think about the questions that need to be asked. That opportunity should never be ignored; otherwise failure is the likely outcome.
