Difficult conversations (part II): "The feelings”

Laure Esteveny

In the first part of this three-part article , I explored with you how to tackle the most obvious aspect of any “difficult conversation”: the tip of the iceberg, the question of what happened?

In this second part, we come back to Peter, Jenny and Andrzej, who are still preparing for the conversations they dread.

In their cases, as in all difficult conversations, feelings lie at the heart of what is wrong and are the primary issues at stake:

Peter feels furious that Michael has started to criticise him openly.

Jenny feels irritated having to cope with Mona’s constant unacceptable behaviour.

Andrzej feels worried when his thesis supervisor, Tom, fails to respond to his request for more involvement and feedback.

Most of us find it quite difficult to express our feelings but, ignoring what is behind the issues we’re facing will not help us to resolve them, as these feelings will re-surface sooner or later and create other issues. If feelings are the real issue, then feelings should be addressed.

The first difficulty we meet when expressing our feelings is avoiding making a judgement and/or an assumption. It’s easy to spot when someone falls into this pitfall: if someone says “I feel like … “then what follows is most probably not a feeling but an accusation that will not help the conversation.

If Peter says: “I feel like you are trying to isolate me from the rest of the team”, Peter is not expressing his feelings but merely making an assumption of why Michael is behaving this way.

If Jenny says “I feel like you are judging the competence of your colleagues “, Jenny is assuming that this is Mona’s intention.

Similarly, if Andrzej says “I feel like my work is of no importance to you “, he is assuming that Tom has no interest in his thesis, and he is also making a judgement that Tom is not an effective supervisor.

If you can avoid this trap of confusing feelings with judgements and assumptions, and if you express genuine feelings, no one can deny them or object to them because your feelings belong to you.

Bringing feelings into the conversation is an essential step in a difficult conversation, but it is far from easy, and caution and honesty must be exercised to get it right.

Very often, we may focus on a single feeling such as anger, disappointment or disgust, but it is very important to see the whole range of our feelings before we talk about them. Are we just angry or are we also overwhelmed? Are we simply disappointed or also very worried? Are we just disgusted or are we also wholly disheartened about a conflictual situation in the workplace?

Peter finds himself absolutely furious with Michael. However, when Peter takes a minute to think beyond his anger, he realises that he also feels resentful, disheartened and humiliated being isolated from the rest of the team.

Jenny’s main feeling may seem to be sheer irritation. But, thinking twice about it, she may discover that she is also exasperated and outraged by Mona’s disparaging comments about other team members.

Andrzej is extremely worried by his supervisor’s lack of feedback, but he realises that he is also highly discouraged and feeling very insecure.

Once we have identified what our feelings are, in all their complexity, we also need to be honest about them and “negotiate” with them. Where do these feelings come from? What is the story we are telling ourselves that leads to these feelings? What could be the feelings of the other party? Very often, an increased awareness of the other person’s story changes how we feel.

Reflecting on why he is feeling so furious with Michael, Peter may realise that this is not the first time he’s faced open opposition from a colleague and that this has already caused damage to his career before. If, instead of dwelling on the past, Peter sticks to what the issue with Michael is today, his feelings of resentment and disheartenment might lessen and take on more reasonable proportions.

Finally, a key part of the “feelings “conversation is that feelings should be acknowledged. In a conflictual situation, you cannot ensure that the other party will acknowledge your feelings, but you can show the way by acknowledging their feelings. This is particularly important if you are higher in the hierarchy or have more power than the other party.

If Mona, in response to Jenny’s reproaches, shares her feelings of insecurity and disconnection from the other team members, Jenny should acknowledge these feelings:” It sounds like you are really upset about this.”

If Andrzej rakes up the courage to tell his thesis supervisor, Tom, how he is genuinely suffering from the lack of proper supervision, Tom should acknowledge these feelings: “This seems really important to you. If I were in your shoes, I’d probably feel discouraged too.” This will place the conversation on a much more constructive footing.

When considering whether or not to have a difficult conversation and, later on, when preparing for it, keep in mind that difficult conversations do not just involve feelings but are about feelings. You may want to think about your feelings, all of them, where they come from and how you can influence them. Prepare to acknowledge the feelings of the other party.

This “feelings“ conversation will help you turn a difficult conversation into a learning conversation with the potential to preserve and even improve the working relationship. Remember, the CERN Ombud can help you to prepare for a difficult conversation.

In the next and final article on the topic of “difficult conversations”, I propose to explore with you the third entangled part of such conversations, the “identity” conversation, in other words, how a conversation may pose a threat to the story we are telling ourselves about ourselves.

Laure Esteveny

* Names and situations are fictitious.

This article is inspired by the great book Difficult conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, which I highly recommend. It is available for loan from the CERN Library.

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

Difficult conversations (part I): “what happened?”

Laure Esteveny

We all have to face difficult conversations, i.e. anything that we find hard to talk about, whether in our private life or in the workplace. Such conversations are a normal part of life. Often, visitors come to the Ombud because they need to have such a conversation but don’t know where to start, how to get their messages across or how to have the conversation without damaging a work relationship.

Here are some examples:

Peter^* is made increasingly uncomfortable by the attitude of a colleague, Michael^*, who has recently started to criticise him openly and to isolate him from the rest of the team. A conversation is needed but Peter fears his colleague’s reaction.

Jenny^* needs a serious talk with one of her supervisees, Mona^*, who not only fails to deliver according to expectations but also makes disparaging comments about other team members’ contributions.

Andrzej^* is working hard on his PhD and needs feedback from Tom^*, his supervisor. Despite being asked several times, Tom neglects to give proper feedback. Andrzej is at a loss and needs to have a heart-to-heart discussion with Tom.

The book Difficult Conversations[1] – a great read – claims that every difficult conversation that we are worried about having actually unfolds into three intertwined conversations:

the “what happened?” conversation: a disagreement about what happened
the “feelings” conversation: what are the feelings and emotions at stake?
and the “identity” conversation: what does this say about me and about the other party?

Their analysis resonates very much with what I experience in the Ombud Office. In this and the next two articles, I propose to take you through these three conversations and explore with you what is really at stake in each of them.

The “what happened” conversation is the most evident and eats up time in a difficult conversation. In the three example cases that I mentioned, the parties will spend a lot of time disagreeing about what happened, who said what and who did what, who is right, who meant what and who is to blame. Disagreeing is not a bad thing but, in difficult conversations, the disagreement seems to be at the heart of what is going wrong.

When preparing for their difficult conversations, Peter, Jenny and Andrzej need to remember that each of us sees the world differently and that no one holds the Truth. We have some limited available information, on the basis of which we make observations. Then we interpret those observations, influenced by our past experiences, by our own implicit rules and, very naturally, by our self-interest. No wonder that our stories collide into a difficult conversation, simply because the two stories are different.

The second error that we all make in a budding conflict is to make assumptions about the other party’s intentions. Peter assumes that Michael suddenly has this attitude because they are competing for the same position. Jenny assumes that Mona has an inflated view of her abilities. And Andrzej assumes that Tom gives no importance at all to the thesis he is working so hard on.

The fact is, we do not know what the other party’s intentions are. But we assume what their intentions are, based on the impact that their behaviour has on us (if I feel bad it is because they had bad intentions) and we judge them (they are a bad person), based on the intentions we that we feel certain they have. Conversely, the other party undoubtedly attributes to you intentions that you do not have, based on the impact your actions have had on them, and judges you based on these supposed intentions. Yet another reason for the conversation to go wrong.

The third error we make in the “what happened?” conversation is to focus on who is to blame. Who is the bad person? Who made the mistake? Who should apologise and who gets to be righteously indignant? The problem with focusing on blaming is that it triggers defensive reactions from the other party, gets in the way of the communication and prevents us from understanding what the problem really is, how we may have contributed to it and how to correct it.

With so many pitfalls in a difficult conversation, how can we have a conversation that allows both parties to move forward?

The authors of Difficult Conversations propose an interesting solution: they propose to place a third story at the centre of the conversation. Not your story, nor the other party’s story, but a story that both parties are ready to discover together and accept:

The first step to the third story is to let go of certainty and try curiosity. If Peter, Jenny and Andrzej start the conversation by being genuinely curious about how the other party sees things, and why they may see things this way, they have a head start for an effective and open conversation.

The second step to get to the third story is to stop assuming what the other party’s intentions are. Remind the person of what they did and what impact this has had on you; point out that you do not know what their intentions were. Very importantly, reflect on the complexity of your own intentions and be honest about them.

The third step to get to the third story is to stop blaming – which gets you nowhere – and to reflect together on your respective contribution(s) to the problem. Reflect with an open mind on how you may be part of the problem.

Easier said than done, but, as CERN Ombud, I find this makes a lot of sense as I observe these mechanisms every day and they become particularly evident during mediation. I would like to encourage you to try these principles when you engage in what you fear will be a difficult conversation. You might not get to the third story the first time, but the conversation will take you and the other party much closer to a solution. The Ombud can help prepare for a difficult conversation.

In the next article, I propose to explore with you how feelings and emotions play an important part in the conversations that we find so difficult to have and how to untangle that part of the conversation.

Laure Esteveny

* Names and situations are fictitious.

This article is inspired by the book Difficult Conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, which I strongly recommend. It is available to loan from the CERN Library.

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

[1] Difficult Conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen

Maintaining motivation throughout your career

Laure Esteveny

Andrew^*comes to my office to discuss an issue of concern. After I remind him of the working principles of the Ombud – confidentiality, informality, impartiality and independence – I invite him to explain what is worrying him. Andrew chooses to start with: “I have only six more years to work so I’m putting up with it but …”.

The topic that I would like to explore here is not the issue that Andrew shared with the Ombud that day but the weariness and apparent lack of motivation he feels six years before retirement. Indeed, such statements from my visitors are not infrequent, and my spontaneous reaction to them is that six years, or even one year, can be very long in a job where you’ve lost meaning and motivation...

From the story that he shares with me, I see that Andrew’s motivation was not lost overnight. It is rarely the case. It started with difficulties with an over-controlling new supervisor, difficulties that they did not manage to overcome together. Then his request for internal mobility did not work out as quickly as he hoped. Andrew’s technical competences had been acknowledged but, as time passed, interesting projects were entrusted to younger colleagues who needed to strengthen their career trajectory, while Andrew was kept in charge of more operational, routine tasks. A long-awaited promotion never came and that felt unfair. By the time we talked, Andrew was feeling undervalued, no longer integrated in a team and disconnected from the Laboratory’s overall mission.

There are many motivation factors at work; the key ones are:

Accountability, autonomy and empowerment at work. These are fundamental drivers of employee motivation, satisfaction and overall workplace well-being. The extent to which the Organization trusts Andrew and the freedom he is given to determine the most appropriate way to achieve clear objectives drive his motivation. The over-controlling manager and their joint inability to discuss the problem dealt the first blow to Andrew’s motivation.

Pleasant working conditions and strong connections with colleagues at work are strong drivers of motivation. A culture of equal treatment and effective conflict management are needed in the workplace to help maintain the motivation of all.

Our personal lives may at times be very demanding. This was the case when Andrew had small children and, later on, significant difficulties with one of his teenage sons. In parallel, his workload had increased, and Andrew felt overwhelmed and not supported by his manager. His motivation dropped as he no longer could maintain a proper work–life balance. There went another chunk of motivation…

One of the strongest drivers of motivation is continuous skills development. The capacity to learn and develop is essential, throughout your career. When Andrew’s requests for training opportunities were considered as low priority, motivation dropped a little bit more.

Fair recognition in the workplace is important and is more than just acknowledgement. Recognition includes assigning tasks that match Andrew’s aptitudes and desire to learn and appreciating his investment in projects, as well as tangible rewards such as salary increments, bonuses or promotion. Pay may no longer be the main source of motivation at work. But remuneration must remain fair, in line with the skills and investment of the worker, the position held and the length of service.

Last, but not least, motivation is strongly driven by caring and participative managers. Managers who are available and give priority to developing their workforce and creating a cohesive and psychologically safe environment are going a long way towards keeping the members of their team motivated and invested.

Keeping a high level of motivation throughout your career is also very much your responsibility. The Organization has developed a number of development modules to help you reflect on your career and on the options that you have at any point in time, such as the “Career focus”, which is designed to be an energising experience.

If you feel that motivation is not as strong as it was, whatever the reasons, don’t settle for weariness, boredom or frustration. It may be time for a discussion with your supervisor, your Human Resources Adviser or with the Ombud. Remember, you are the main actor in your career, but you are not alone!

There are many drivers of motivation, most of them intrinsic, and some of them are the responsibility of managers and the Organization. But it is essential, for the well-being of the workforce and the success of the Organization, to nurture and cultivate motivation throughout a career, right until the end.

^*The name and situation are fictitious.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

Full details of the CERN Ombud’s role are available at: https://ombud.web.cern.ch/

Overcoming a deadlock? Try reappraising!

Laure Esteveny

Janet* has just been informed by her management that she has to step down from her current job and responsibilities and start a new project in another unit, taking on a role that poses a real challenge but entails no managerial responsibilities. Because of her excellent work in her current position, because her managerial skills have been widely recognised and most of all because she was not involved in the decision, Janet is struggling to accept this change.

She keeps wondering why this has happened and is very concerned about the potential impact of this change on her career. She feels shocked, worried and depleted of all energy. As a result, she is not sleeping well and has lost motivation for work. She needs to find a way to cope with the new circumstances and regain peace of mind and confidence.

Let’s have a look at what happens to our brains in such circumstances, how emotions take over and what we can do to regain a sense of control.

Our brains like certainty and autonomy. A sense of uncertainty about the future and a feeling of being out of control both generate strong limbic system responses: our emotions, in this case negative ones.

In the situation described, Janet is both facing uncertainty about her future and experiencing a relative loss of autonomy. Hence the negative emotions that take over and start affecting her health.

In such situations, we may be tempted to try to suppress our emotions and even deny them. This does not work and, on the contrary, reinforces the negative feelings.

Janet could try to label her emotions by asking herself: what is it exactly that I am feeling now? Indeed, labelling and recognising emotions is proven to reduce them as they kick in. And, contrary to common belief, it will not make Janet feel worse.

Another very powerful tool to face challenging situations is to reappraise them, i.e. change the interpretation that creates the negative feelings in the first place.

After the much recommended “Stop, take a deep breath and think”, there are several ways to reappraise a situation, which we will try to apply to Janet’s case:

Reinterpreting the situation
This is when we consciously decide that the situation is no longer a threat. In Janet’s case, she could decide to see the new job as an opportunity to demonstrate another set of competences and skills, all assets for her future career.

Normalising the situation
Change is always difficult; it is normal to feel uncertain and apprehensive when facing a new situation that we did not necessarily choose. When Janet consciously realises that what she feels is normal and even to be expected, she will reduce her emotional response to the new situation.

Reordering priorities
We all have our set of values, in a given order of priority, which supports us in life. Janet gives priority to the well-being of her family. Still, having managerial responsibilities and being able to influence things at a high level are also very important to her. Next in her current ordering of values comes the excitement of tackling challenging projects. Maybe Janet, to cope with the situation, needs to reconsider the relative importance of the last two, at least for a period of time, in order to find satisfaction in her new job and reduce her negative emotions.

Repositioning the perspective
A very powerful way to reduce emotions and turn them from an “away” to a “toward” reaction is to look at a situation from a different angle. Janet could also consider that her competences are critical to make her new mission a success and see that the management has chosen to entrust her with this highly challenging project. By doing so, she would change her negative emotions into excitement and regain peace of mind.

In challenging situations, we can, to some extent, control our brain’s response. It requires first being aware of our emotional responses, labelling them and applying effective reappraisal techniques.

If you are facing a difficult situation and are overwhelmed by your emotional response to the challenges, why not come to the Ombud’s office and discuss it?

If you would like to know more about how the brain functions and how we can manage our emotions, I highly recommend the great book from Dr David Rock, Your brain at work.

*The name and situation are fictitious.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/ .

More information on the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact her can be found at https://ombud.web.cern.ch.

The potential harm of anonymous complaints

Laure Esteveny

I very rarely receive anonymous complaints or accusations of inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, but it does happen. These complaints always arrive by emails that can’t be traced back to the sender, should anyone want to do so.

Because they feel protected from any kind of consequence, the alleged victims or witnesses often vent the strongest feelings of anger, frustration, indignation, envy or animosity. And since the senders avoid giving details that could identify them, what they write is often quite vague.

All sorts of things may hide behind an anonymous complaint, including:

a colleague who is in good faith and truly affected by a breach of the Code of Conduct, such as harassment, and particularly concerned about possible retaliation, especially if the issue is with a supervisor or someone high up in the hierarchy;
someone wanting to harm another colleague by triggering an investigation against them;
several anonymous complaints targeting the same person in a short time, in which case the possibility of a concerted attempt to impact that person’s career, for whatever reason, must be considered; or
simply someone enjoying the art of accusing and spreading rumours.

The impact of an anonymous complaint on the target is significantly stronger than when the person knows who has complained and why. With anonymous complaints, it is impossible to react, defend oneself or, in some cases, to understand why a management or disciplinary process has been initiated. This is extremely destabilising and may also put the person accused at risk.

No one can respond to accusations when they don’t know who is accusing them and when they are given only vague information about what allegedly happened and when.

Anonymous complaints also deprive the Ombud of the opportunity to discuss with the complainant their fear of retaliation and to understand how and why such a fear is grounded in their work environment. They also deprive the complainant of having their case reflected in the trends that are reported in an entirely anonymous way to the top management as part of the Ombud’s annual report.

When I received anonymous complaints, I once again had to carefully reflect on the Ombud’s role. And after having deeply considered how to address them, I have come to the conclusion that I can only acknowledge them but decline to act on them in any way.

I respond to the anonymous senders with a copy of the Ombud’s mandate to remind them that my role is centred on informal dispute resolution and explain why I will not act on their email. I also remind them that the CERN Ombud is the closest they have at their disposal to a whistleblowing channel, as the CERN Ombud will not – under any circumstances – reveal their identity or do anything without their authorisation. I also invite them to a meeting in my office so that they can describe the case. If they do not want to risk being seen in my office, I suggest a Zoom meeting.

The CERN Ombud will not act on anonymous complaints. If your complaints or accusations are in good faith and if you are concerned about possible retaliation, I encourage you to contact the Ombud at ombud@cern.ch. This will give you the opportunity to expose the breach of the Code of Conduct that you are aware of, while fully preserving your anonymity.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team members at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

More information on the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact her can be found at https://ombud.web.cern.ch.

Active listening – from sponge to trampoline

Laure Esteveny

Linda^* makes a deliberate effort to be an active listener in a discussion with Igor^*. She gives time to the discussion with him and puts all distractions to one side. She listens carefully to what Igor says and nods consciously to demonstrate understanding and attention. She even remembers to reformulate in order to show that she has understood his message. She bounces off what Igor says and gives examples based on her own experience.

Despite all Linda’s efforts to be an active listener, Igor leaves the discussion feeling unheard and close to feeling dismissed. What went wrong?

In this article, I would like to share with you how difficult active listening can be and how we can improve this skill.

Back to basics: Active listening is when you not only hear what someone is saying, but are also attuned to their thoughts and feelings. If you actively listen to someone, you are turning a conversation into an active, non-competitive, two-way interaction.

Each of us has a natural listening style:

A task-oriented listener is focused on the efficient transfer of important information.
An analytical listener is primarily analysing a problem.
A relational listener tries to build a connection and respond to the speaker’s emotions.
A critical listener judges the content of the conversation and, possibly, the speaker themselves.

I admit to being, in my everyday interactions, a mixture of an analytical and critical listener, mostly inherited from previous functions, but, in my role as Ombud, I make a conscious effort to be an active listener when visitors share with me the challenging situations they are facing.

The art of active listening requires a conscious and deliberate effort on three levels:

Cognitive: you have to devote all your attention to what the other person is saying, either explicitly or implicitly, and you have to understand and integrate this information.

Emotional: you must manage your own emotions during the conversation. Many emotions may well up inside you during a conversation: enthusiasm, surprise, excitement, but also annoyance, boredom or even anger. You must be conscious of your own emotions, as they have no place in active listening.

Behavioural: you need to convey interest and understanding, verbally and non-verbally.

As Ombud, I very much like and fully adhere to this metaphor[1] of an active listener acting as a trampoline:

“You’re not a sponge merely absorbing information. Instead, think of yourself more like a trampoline that gives the speaker’s thoughts energy, acceleration, height, and amplification.”

Still, it’s far from easy to go from simply absorbing information – like a sponge – to helping your colleague abandon an inefficient thought process and bounce back. One way to achieve this and ensure that you actively listen to the ongoing conversation is to ask yourself simple questions:

Why do I need to listen right now?

Reflecting on the purpose of the conversation, both for you and for your colleague, will help you to decide which type of listener you need to be at that moment. Empathy and consideration of the other’s needs will help you tune your listening style.

Who is the focus of attention?

This is another pitfall to be aware of, especially for the Ombud. We are all tempted to quote stories from our personal experience, but this steers the conversation away from the needs and perceptions of your interlocutor. It takes experience to resist this temptation, which is detrimental to active listening.

Am I really listening?

Very often, in our everyday conversations, we think about what we’re going to say next to our colleague, or what question we’re going to ask. This is no longer listening. We may also be busy thinking of ways to convey attention: Should I nod now? Unfold my arms? Smile? Lean forward? And so on.). In both cases, we are no longer listening.

Am I still listening?

Especially in those cases where our interlocutors are rather talkative, we tend to think that we have heard enough to form an opinion, stop listening and surreptitiously check our smartphones. We are no longer listening, and they may be saying something that is really key to helping them unlock the situation.

What could I be missing that my colleague is not telling me?

Active listening is all about asking the right questions, which will help your interlocutors to reflect on their issue and how they are approaching it. They may also give important non-verbal clues, such as how uncertain, vulnerable, confident or confused they may feel. These clues will help you to adapt your questions.

Reflecting on your natural listening style and asking yourself these simple questions will help you to practise effective active listening. It takes extensive experience to become an active listener, but your interlocutor will leave the conversation feeling heard and understood, which is the first step to overcoming a challenging issue. Moreover, research shows that those who engage in active listening are seen as more competent, likeable and trustworthy by others.

Allow me to wish you all a very happy, healthy and peaceful 2024, under the auspices of open-mindedness, empathy and true collaboration!

Laure Esteveny

* Names are fictitious

This article is inspired by an article by Amy Gallo published in the Harvard Business Review journal, 2 January 2024: “What is active listening?”

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

More information on the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact her can be found at https://ombud.web.cern.ch.

[1] “What great listeners actually do”, Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman, Harvard Business Review, 14 July 2016

Impartiality or, better, multi-partiality?

Laure Esteveny

Confidentiality, informality, independence, neutrality and impartiality are the working principles of the Ombud and I have shared with you in a number of articles[2] my experience in putting these principles into practice.

With significant experience today in the role of CERN Ombud, I would like to come back to neutrality and impartiality and propose a somewhat different view of how these principles are embedded in my Ombud’s practice.

The Ombud is a designated neutral, which means that the Ombud does not engage in any situation that would create a conflict of interest. This is largely made possible and supported by the Ombud’s independence.

Impartiality, on the other hand, refers to an absence of bias. It relates directly to not favouring one side’s interests over the other side’s interests.

The requirement to remain impartial does not force ombuds to refrain from having personal opinions or from sympathising more with one party over another. Instead, this principle prompts ombuds to avoid acting on those preferences and requires them to separate their personal opinions from the performance of their duties.

When I took on the role of Ombud, I found the principle of impartiality to be the most challenging one. Not only are we, as human beings, wired to take sides, but the very idea of not choosing sides often raises suspicion. In addition, it seemed to me that impartiality asked me to disengage from the parties and to maintain a solid wall between myself and them.

Recently, I discovered that being engaged and simultaneously maintaining an equidistant stance between the parties has a name: multi-partiality. And I feel very comfortable with this concept. Rather than not favouring anyone, being multi-partial means that I favour everyone equally and I engage – with my intellect, emotions, energy, knowledge and skills – equally with everyone.

In the vast majority of the conflicts that my visitors share with me, I hear only their perception of the situation, as I rarely meet the other party.

However, it may also happen that both parties in a conflict come, independently, to discuss the situation with me, without either of them being aware that I have access to the other side of the story.

These situations are prime opportunities for the Ombud to exercise multi-partiality to the full. It is amazing to see how the same situation may be described differently by two parties. The two situations exposed may only intersect – at best – with a few facts, as not all factual information is retained by one party. The feelings, the emotions that one party shares are completely misunderstood by the other party. Words are interpreted differently, intentions are misunderstood. And the impact that the situation has on the other party is totally ignored.

When parties in a conflict have agreed to engage in a mediation with the Ombud, they often realise how differently they have experienced a situation and how their own anger, bitterness and perplexity have arisen from this misunderstanding.

My personal biases come from my experience, history and character. Impartiality, defined as the absence of bias, may be very challenging to exercise. For example, I may be instantly triggered by sexist remarks or blunt bad faith.

Multi-partiality, however, allows me to engage fully with each party while maintaining an equidistant stance between them.

At this time of the year, I would like to thank you, readers, for your interest in the Ombud’s corner. I wish you all a very relaxing end of the year break with your dear ones and look forward to exchanging with you in 2024 with renewed energy!

I would like also to mention that, with my upcoming retirement in spring next year, a vacancy notice for the Ombud’s position has been published. If you are interested and would like to discuss the role with me, you are most welcome to contact me!

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

More information on the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact her can be found at https://ombud.web.cern.ch/

[2]

https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2023/08/cern-ombud-unique-resource-we-return-summer-break

https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2023/06/no-judgement-really

https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2022/04/values-and-principles-ombuds-profession-what-are-they

https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2021/07/staying-drivers-seat-principle-informality

https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2021/06/third-chair-ombuds-office-principle-impartiality

Pivoting: a basketball metaphor for addressing conflicts

Laure Esteveny

In basketball, a pivot is a rotation to face another direction, in order to pass or shoot the ball more effectively. I have been reviewing a variety of reading material about conflict resolution and was surprised to find that the book The Conflict Pivot by Tammy Lenski[1] uses this basketball term as a highly visual metaphor for a unique approach to addressing conflicts.

This excellent book focuses on how you can find peace of mind when faced with a conflict, without focusing on what the other party can do. I find the approach innovative, well argued, well documented and highly practical.

The approach proposes three successive pivots to address any situation of conflict you may experience:

Pivot 1: Away from your “stuck story” and towards its message

This first pivot asks you to stop ruminating on your stuck story and, instead, attend to what this stuck story is telling you. A conflict story can hold a meaningful message for us if we take the time to consider it with an open mind.

Pivot 2: Away from their behaviours and towards your hooks

In a conflict, we normally view the other party’s behaviour as the reason we feel hurt, rejected, insulted, angry, etc. Instead, this pivot asks us to consider what has hooked us to the situation and which of our needs has not been respected. For example:

Competence – our need to be recognised as capable, intelligent or skilled, or as having expertise
Autonomy – our need to be acknowledged as independent and self-reliant and to have our boundaries respected
Fellowship – our need to be included and viewed as likeable, cooperative and worthy
Status – our need to be admired for our tangible and intangible assets, such as attractiveness, reputation and power
Reliability – our need to be seen as trustworthy, dependable and loyal
Integrity – our need for others to respect our dignity, honour, virtue and good character

In other words, this second pivot asks us to look at ourselves and what has been hurt, rather than at what the other party did.

Pivot 3: Away from the past and towards the now

Conflict thrives in the uncertain past of who said what, who did what, who’s to blame or what really happened. Focusing instead on the present and future can set you free. Conflict also thrives on our reliance on the other person to set things right. By focusing on what you can do about the conflict, you take back your power.

Tammy Lenski’s book elaborates in quite some detail on each of these pivots, using many practical examples. It is definitely worth a read!

The “conflict pivot” approach offers a path to finding peace of mind when faced with a conflict without involving an external and independent third party, such as a mediator. The approach does not resolve conflicts but suggests that you view conflicts differently and trust your own self-awareness and ability to distance yourself from your usual thought patterns and gut reactions. The Ombud is available, should you need a discussion and/or guidance on how to apply this approach to a conflict that may be bothering you.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

More information on the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact her can be found at https://ombud.web.cern.ch/

[1] This article is strongly inspired by Tammy Lenski’s book, The Conflict Pivot, 2014, Myriaccord Media. See https://tammylenski.com/books/conflict-pivot/

True or false: How much do you know about mediation? (Part II)

Laure Esteveny

Mediation with the Ombud is available to all members of the CERN community and is an effective tool, yet it is largely underused, and colleagues who visit my office often describe conflicts that date back six months, a year or even more. Waiting this long to address a conflict with a colleague compromises the chances of resolving the situation and of restoring the dialogue, empathy, mutual respect and trust that enable the exchange of ideas between both parties.

In my first article on this topic, I invited you to test your knowledge of mediation by answering seven questions. This second article contains seven additional questions to help you complete your overview of mediation.

True or false? Mediation is not always the best way to resolve a conflict

True: Before the mediation begins, I always organise a short meeting with each of the parties involved. If the Ombud becomes aware that one of the parties is not fully committed to resolving the conflict, no further action will be taken. Similarly, in cases of severe and proven breaches of the Code of Conduct, or when the rules of the Organization have clearly not been respected, more direct arbitration by the management may be more appropriate. Finally, if the conflict has been dragging on for a long time (for example, one or two years), it may be very difficult to restore respect and understanding between the two parties through mediation. It is still important to consult the Ombud about the possibility of mediation, who will answer you in full transparency about what can be attempted.

True or false? Mediation by the Ombud will be recorded in my personal file

False: Once mediation has ended, all notes are destroyed, whether they have been taken by the parties involved or by the Ombud. Mediation with the Ombud is informal, and the exchanges between the parties, as well as the agreement reached, are strictly confidential; this obligation must be respected by the Ombud as well as by each of the parties.

True or false? I have filed, or am the subject of, a harassment complaint, in accordance with Operational Circular No. 9. This means that I can’t seek mediation

False: OC9 states that either party may request mediation by the Ombud at any stage of the procedure. If both parties agree, the time frame and deadlines for the procedure will be suspended, and mediation will take place. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement following mediation, the procedure laid down in OC9 will resume.

True or false? As a manager, I can conduct mediation between two members of my team

False: As a manager, you are not necessarily trained in mediation techniques. Plus, it's very difficult for you to remain neutral and impartial in a conflict between two members of your team whom you may have known for a long time. Neutrality and impartiality are essential in gaining the complete trust of both parties in a conflict. However, you can listen carefully to each party's side of the story so that you are aware of their individual perception of the situation, the impact the conflict is having on them and what each party needs for a calm working environment, and you can try to meet these needs with the resources at your disposal. Any decision you make to resolve the conflict must be well-founded, fair and transparent.

True or false? Mediation only ever occurs between two parties that are in conflict

False: A conflict may involve more than two people. Mediation by the Ombud in such cases is still possible but may take longer, as the conflict is likely to be more complex. The number of meetings that will be required cannot be predicted.

True or false? Mediation can damage my reputation

False: Putting your trust in the Ombud and in a well-established and proven process can't hurt your reputation. Attempting mediation gives you a chance to clear up any misunderstandings, understand the other person's perspective and accommodate different outlooks. On the other hand, if you allow a conflict with a colleague to continue and let the situation deteriorate and gradually affect your whole team, your reputation is likely to suffer.

True or false? Mediation is always successful

False: Successful mediation results in an agreement between the two parties, but this is not always possible. The Ombud may decide to end mediation if it’s clear that dialogue cannot be re-established. Alternatively, either party may wish to stop the mediation for any reason. In such cases, the Ombud will request a private discussion with the person concerned before confirming that the end of the mediation. However, even if it is not always successful, or if it is not completed, mediation never makes a conflict situation worse.

True or false? Informal conflict resolution is not the only benefit of mediation

True: Successful mediation allows both parties to reach an agreement on how they will continue to work together. Restoring a calm and respectful working environment is the primary benefit of successful mediation but it is by no means the only one. The process of mediation involving the Ombud helps us to step back when we tell the story of a conflict and to focus on what we’ve felt rather than who we believe was right or wrong. Mediation teaches us to express our needs and objectives clearly and calmly. These are all skills that are extremely useful in our working lives.

I hope that this second article on mediation has answered any questions you may have had. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. It would truly be of great benefit if mediation were to find its place in the culture of our Organization.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

Find out more about the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact the Ombud at: https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/

True or false? How much do you know about mediation? (Part I)

Laure Esteveny

Mediation is at the heart of the Ombud’s services. The mandate of the Ombud states that the services of an Ombud can help to resolve disputes in a consensual and impartial manner, thus promoting the good functioning of the Organization.

I have dedicated a page on the Ombud’s website to mediation and encourage you to take a look if you would like to understand what mediation is and what it can do for you.

Despite all the communication to promote the Ombud’s services, the possibility to request mediation when dialogue with a colleague has broken down is still largely overlooked and underused. One of the reasons for this apparent lack of interest could be misconceptions about mediation.

With this in mind, here is a first set of questions designed to test your knowledge of this conflict resolution tool and to debunk a few myths about this highly effective process.

True or false? Mediation is just one of many tools available for informal conflict resolution

True: The Ombud offers many different ways to resolve conflicts, all of them informal. A simple discussion facilitated by a third, independent party can be enough to defuse a conflict. In other cases, when two parties are finding it impossible to speak to one other, the Ombud can offer good offices services. In such cases, the Ombud will deliver messages from one party to the other, ensuring that exchanges remain respectful and constructive. Finally, mediation by the Ombud is a structured process that encourages both parties to discuss their perception of a situation, to clearly state the impact the situation is having on them, to voice their needs and to reach an agreement to restore a good working relationship.

True or false? Mediation is not always necessary, I can resolve my conflicts on my own

Both: The mandate of the Ombud says that ideally, interpersonal issues between people working at or on behalf of CERN should be resolved between the colleagues concerned. However, the mandate also states that when dialogue is not successful or possible, the services of the Ombud may help. During a conflict with another person, our brain automatically goes into “fight or flight” or “freeze” mode, preventing us from having the necessary perspective and empathy to understand that the same situation can be perceived differently by two parties. A third party, particularly the Ombud, who is a fully independent body trained in informal conflict resolution, can help to re-establish dialogue.

True or false? Mediation is a voluntary process

True: No-one can force you to use mediation to resolve a conflict. Mediation may be recommended to you by a colleague, a supervisor, your human resources advisor or by the Ombud directly. For mediation to be successful, it is important that the two parties in conflict are fully committed to the process of restoring a calm and productive working relationship. As well as being voluntary, mediation is confidential and non-judgemental and remains under the control of both parties at all times.

True or false? My supervisor or other people can be notified of the outcome of mediation

False: Mediation by the Ombud is a strictly confidential process. It provides a safe space for the two parties in conflict to discuss the situation that has arisen in the workplace. The Ombud’s role is to structure and facilitate dialogue by encouraging empathy and consideration of the other party’s perspective. The agreement reached by the two parties will be theirs alone. The Ombud will only conduct mediation requested by a supervisor if both parties agree and are fully committed to the process. If a supervisor has recommended mediation, the Ombud will simply notify the supervisor about whether the mediation has taken place and whether the parties have reached an agreement. It should also be noted that both parties are bound by the same confidentiality requirement.

True or false? Mediation services for the CERN community are offered only by the Ombud

False: Your human resources advisors can also offer support for informal conflict resolution in the workplace. However, the Ombud offers mediation that is strictly confidential, informal and led by an independent, neutral and unbiased third party. These are the guiding principles of the Ombud’s work and what makes it unique compared to all the other support channels offered by the Organization.

True or false? Mediation takes time

True: Mediation through the Ombud takes time, but much less time than the time that is lost if a conflict drags on. A destructive conflict requires a lot of energy and comes with significant costs: loss of concentration and productivity, stress, a damaged or destroyed working relationship, lower morale, a tarnished reputation, etc. Structured mediation takes roughly six hours of each party’s time: two meetings with the Ombud spread over two days and an afternoon for a meeting with the other party, with of course the Ombud present.

True or false? The earlier the mediation, the better the chance of a successful outcome

True: If an interpersonal conflict is left to fester, it will not simply resolve itself and will likely escalate. The earlier the mediation, the more likely it is that both parties will be able to resume dialogue and rebuild empathy and mutual respect.

I hope that this quiz has helped to demystify mediation and provided you with clear information. Check out my next article for answers to frequently asked questions about mediation.

Laure Esteveny

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.

Find out more about the role of the CERN Ombud and how to contact the Ombud at: https://ombuds.web.cern.ch/