When I took on the role of CERN Ombud, I was not prepared to encounter what I now call the “Janus” effect. Let me give you two examples^*:

Adam comes to my office to share his difficulties with his supervisor, Sandra: “She’s such an ill-minded, manipulative person. She takes all the credit for my work and is only interested in the next step of her career. Sandra doesn’t care about the people who work for her. I’ve lost trust in her and fear any contact with her. In fact, I’ve lost my enthusiasm for my job.”

Julie, another visitor to my office, talks about her problems with her colleague Peter: “He doesn’t listen to any of my ideas or concerns. He’s domineering, as if only he knows what’s right. Peter takes decisions before we’ve even had a discussion. I feel unheard and undervalued and I’m no longer motivated.”

As it so happens, I have known both Sandra and Peter for many years and have worked with them in the past. I remember Sandra as a kind, reliable and frank colleague, and I enjoyed working with her. I also know Peter as an energetic, enthusiastic person, conscious of his responsibility for his team. My experience with both of them is very different from those shared with me by Adam and Julie, to the point that I wonder if we are really talking about the same people. 

Might my visitors be distorting reality? I am very confident that they are not, and that what they are sharing with me is their real perception of the other person. Are Sandra and Peter incarnations of Janus, the two-faced character from Roman mythology? This seems difficult to believe. Why would Sandra and Peter show different faces depending on whom they are working with?

Of course, the power imbalance in a relationship may affect the way two colleagues interact with each other in the workplace. However, a hierarchical relationship should not change the fundamentals of good and trusting relationships, such as respect and honest communication. If one person treats colleagues higher in the hierarchy with more respect, empathy and honesty than they do their supervisees, that person is not behaving as they should and may need bringing back into line.  

Setting aside this specific case, let us remember that the relationship between two people is a system^** in which each part influences the other. We enter into a relationship with our character, past work experiences, reputation and difficulties of the moment or, on the contrary, the energy that comes from a blessed period in our life. Depending on how a person resonates with the context we find ourselves in, they might enter our landscape with a halo – i.e. a positive impression – or with horns – i.e. a negative impression.

The same happens for the other person, who will project their past experiences, the lessons that they have learned, and the difficulties or successes of the moment onto the relationship and will act differently depending on how these factors resonate with them. It is no wonder, then, that the same individual may appear so different to different people.

Moreover, after we have forged a first impression of a colleague, we systematically look, in our interactions with this person, for attitudes and words that confirm the image we have built up, ignoring those that could point to a more balanced assessment. This is called confirmation bias. 

I often hear from Adam(s): “No, I haven’t talked to her about this but, knowing her, I’m sure she’ll refuse.” In the case of Julie(s), I often hear “I’ve given up trying to talk; I know he won’t listen”.
In both cases, Adam and Julie, sticking to the image they have of their colleagues, assume what their reactions will be and thus, in a way, give up some of their rights, i.e. to be respected and listened to. 

This “Janus” phenomenon is particularly challenging for the Ombud, who needs to remain impartial and not be deceived by their own possible bias (halo or horns). In such a situation, the Ombud will focus on the specifics of the situation as experienced by the visitor, thus demonstrating exactly what the visitor needs to do in order to overcome their own bias.

What can we all do about this? Well, one thing we can do is to be aware of the phenomenon and not assume that what we perceive from another person is their complete self. Let’s take a risk and try to meet the other side of the colleague by communicating openly, asking for clarifications and presenting our arguments constructively and respectfully. 
We rarely take a fresh look at our colleagues and may too often build up our view of a given person on what we hear and on our first impressions.  

Let’s take the risk of challenging our beliefs, whatever they may be, about a colleague. Open up the conversation, talk about how you feel, try to find out more about the other person and be ready to be surprised. And be prepared to learn more about yourself as well!

Laure Esteveny

*)   Names are fictitious
**) A group of natural objects moving in relation to one another under the laws of nature (Oxford English Dictionary: Astronomy)

I want to hear from you – feel free to email ombud@cern.ch with any feedback or suggestions for topics you’d like me to address. 
NB: If you would like to be notified about posts, news and other communications from the CERN Ombud, please register to receive the CERN Ombud news.