Francisco*: “I feel frustrated because stand-by duty is not shared out fairly between the members of the team. Out of 12 people, only six, myself included, regularly do stand-by duty; the others always get out of it using various excuses. A voluntary system doesn’t work; we need a new policy. I’ve raised this point several times at our weekly meetings but no-one listens to me, so I’ve decided to take my name off the list of volunteers.”

Visitors to my office often tell me of their difficulties in getting their points across to their supervisor or colleagues, despite many attempts. This could be due to the fact that their request is too vague, unrealistic, negative or concerns no-one but themselves.

It’s therefore not surprising that Francisco’s approach is not getting him concrete results or is even meeting outright resistance. As it stands, his request is indeed quite general (make things fairer), not very realistic (a short-term change in policy), negative (I’m not going to volunteer any more) and closed (I’ve decided). It’s a weak position that makes fruitful debate within the team difficult. How can he transform his approach into a proposal that has a chance of success?

During our conversation, Francisco sticks to his goal but explains that what he really wants is a fairer distribution of stand-by duty. He is conscious of the fact that individual situations can vary. For example, Marcel*, who has the same family situation, lives in the same place and is in the same state of health as him, has never volunteered. Michael*, on the other hand, has been doing stand-by duty for several years, even though he has health problems. Francisco realises that a change of policy takes time and that he must find a more pragmatic and quicker solution. He therefore proposes the introduction of a system of objective criteria to decide whether colleagues should or shouldn’t be included in the roster. At the end of our conversation, he concedes that he is open to other suggestions, provided that they help to make the situation fairer. By approaching his needs in a different way, Francisco feels much more confident about putting the subject back on the table during a future meeting.

A few weeks later, I bump into him in the car park and ask him for an update: “I managed to initiate a proper discussion and we had a very open and constructive exchange of views. My colleagues were interested in my proposal to use objective criteria and we are currently defining what they should be.” By reformulating his request in a more specific way, making a realistic proposal with a clear objective and remaining open to other suggestions, Francisco was able to initiate a positive and fruitful discussion and make progress towards his goal, to the benefit of the whole team.

*Names have been changed

Pierre Gildemyn

If you’d like to comment on any of my articles or suggest a topic that I could write about, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at Ombuds@cern.ch.