dorset hr forum april - having difficult conversations
DESCRIPTION
Dorset HR Forum April - Having Difficult ConversationsTRANSCRIPT
Dec 13 2010
HR ForumApril 2013
Having Difficult
Conversations
June 7 2010
A step by step Checklist to help you
manage Difficult Conversations
A fewinteresting cases
June 7 2010
You know you need to have a ‘conversation’ ….you want to, but something is holding you back……
June 7 2010
Maybe you’ve tried before,
but it didn’t go well and you’re still feeling the
scars!?!
June 7 2010
Could be that you’re
worried that you’ll just
make matters worse?!
June 7 2010
Or perhaps you’re just not sure where to
start, or confident about what you can
and can’t say??
June 7 2010
Remember this….You are the employerYou pay the wages
You are entitled to speak to an employee about any concerns you have with their
performance, conduct or behaviour.
PROVIDING
You are fair and reasonable in how you do it.
June 7 2010
June 7 2010
Stage 1 – Do your preparation
Stage 2 – 4 Steps to a Good Outcome
Stage 3 – Practice,Practice, practice
June 7 2010
Stage 1 – Do your preparation!Ask yourself some key questions:
1. Why are you having the conversation?2. What assumptions have you or are you
making about the persons intentions?3. What ‘buttons’ of yours are being pushed?4. How is your attitude toward the
conversation influencing your perception of it?
5. Who is the opponent?6. What are your needs and fears?7. Have you contributed towards the problem,
if so how?
June 7 2010
Stage 2 – 4 Steps to a Good OutcomeStep 1 - Inquiry
• Go on a voyage of discovery, be curious, pretend you know nothing and try and learn as much as possible about the person and their point of view.
• Watch their body language, what are they ‘really’ saying?
• Let them talk until they’re finished and DON’T INTERRUPT!
• Don’t take things personally• Wait your turn to speak.
June 7 2010
Stage 2 – 4 Steps to a Good OutcomeStep 2 - Acknowledgement
• Show that you have heard and understood• Explain back or summarise what you think
they’re really going for.• Recognise and respect their position.• Acknowledge whatever you can including
your own defensiveness if it comes up.• Acknowledgement is not agreement – don’t
confuse the two!
June 7 2010
Stage 2 – 4 Steps to a Good OutcomeStep 3 - Advocacy
• When you sense that they’ve expressed all they want to say (make sure you check..), its your turn to speak.
• What can you see from your perspective that they’ve missed?
• Help by clarifying your position without minimising theirs.
June 7 2010
Stage 2 – 4 Steps to a Good OutcomeStep 4 – Problem-Solving
• Now you’re ready to build solutions• Ask them what they think might work, find
something you like together and build on it.• If the conversation becomes adversarial,
switch back to Step 1 – Inquiry.• Ask for their point of view – this creates
safety and encourages them to engage.• Don’t sit on a principle, adjust your
attitude to achieve a positive outcome.
June 7 2010
Stage 3 – Practice, practice, practice!• A successful outcome will depend on 2 things,
how you behave and what you say.• Acknowledge both your own & their emotional
energy and feelings and direct it towards a useful purpose.
• Remember the objective of why you set out to have the conversation in the first place & return to it at difficult moments.
• Don’t take verbal attacks personally or react.• Don’t assume they can or will see things from
your view – sometimes you simply need to agree to differ and accept that’s OK.
• Practice the conversation before you go ‘live’
June 7 2010
Next time, you’ll be
prepared, so you won’t be collecting any more scars!
June 7 2010
Next time, you will be
prepared so you will make
progress!
June 7 2010
Next time, you will know
where to start and be
confident about what you can and can’t say!
June 7 2010
Good luck! and
don’t forget to practice!
June 7 2010
…and finally, a couple of
interesting cases…
June 7 2010
Novak v Phones 4 U Ltd
Comments made by employees about another employee on Facebook can amount to continuing acts of discrimination.
Mr Novak had a disability as a result of an accident at work. A number of colleagues made fun of him & made comments on Facebook over a period of 6 months. As a result he brought claims of disability, race discrimination, harassment & victimisation. The EAT decided that the 2 sets of FB comments were linked as one continuous act and that there was clearly a connection in terms of individuals, subject matter and timing. They concluded that he did could have a claim for discrimination.
June 7 2010
Novak v Phones 4 U Ltd
The case is worth noting for 2 reasons:
1. It serves as a reminder that comments made by employees about other employees on social media sites can form basis of discrimination claims and in these cases, the employer can be held liable for the acts of its employees.
2. If there is a series of postings, they are likely to be considered part of a continuing act and an employee will then be able to bring a claim within 3 months of the last act, which is particularly relevant for social media cases where comments will go backwards and forwards and might be made over a long period of time.
June 7 2010
Bancroft v Interserve
Is it reasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee if asked to do so by a client or customer? Bancroft had raised concerns that hostel staff left sharp knives in the sink and smoked when passing through the kitchen, which led to a difficult relationship with the Manager, Mr Laughton. Mr Laughton raised a variety of minor matters with Interserve about Bancroft’s conduct with the intention of getting Interserve to discipline him, but no disciplinary action was ever taken. Later, another member of hostel staff complained about Bancroft and he was suspended and ultimately issued with a final written warning.
Meanwhile, Mr Laughton wrote to the Home Office demanding that Bancroft not be allowed to return to the hostel regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing as there had been a breakdown in the relationship. The Home Office invoked their right to request his removal.
June 7 2010
Bancroft v Interserve
As a result, Bancroft was suspended again, but no efforts were made by Interserve to persuade the Home Office to change its mind and was advised by HR to take no action other than to accept the request for Bancroft’s removal.
They tried to redeploy Bancroft, but he refused as it would have meant a 30 mile journey and lower wages due to working less hours.
The EAT disagreed with the ET and said that Interserve should have taken steps earlier to try and resolve the issues before events that led to his dismissal. The case was remitted to the ET to make further findings of fact and reach a conclusion on the fairness in the light of those facts.
The case is a timely reminder that an employer cannot simply dismiss at the behest of a third party without first taking all reasonable steps to seek to mitigate the injustice caused to the employee and to make sure it picks up and deals with problems as they arise rather than wait until it all comes crashing down.
June 7 2010
Dec 13 2010
Change Partner Consultancy
Providing tailoredHR, Payroll &
Legal Practice Management services
Advice and guidance for Employees to resolve workplace disputes
www.changepartner.co.uk01202 377270