As a mediator and confidant it is difficult to describe my experiences in detail due to the confidentiality. I have decided to share not only my knowledge, but also my experiences. The experienced are based on real stories. I have changed details often, so they cannot be traced back to an individual situation.
Employer is also responsible at the Christmas party or company trips
Employers are responsible by law for the (social) safety of their employees. That is known to most people. But, I can imagine not everyone realises that that also includes activities organised by the company, like a Christmas party.
In an article in the newspaper NRC, of December 2022, this is discussed in more detail. In my opinion, the article takes too short an approach that an employer must start an investigation as soon as a complaint is filed. In a well working system, where a confidant is involved, it can still go in different directions. It can end up with an investigation, and possibly with the termination of the culprit. But, as is being mentioned in the article, often the victim is being looked upon with the complaint, and that will lead to extra tension. Often, the victims are not looking for the termination of the culprit. In that case, other solutions are better, where a confidant can give advice, and the victim remains in control.
Specifically on preventing transgressive behaviour at Christmas parties, the article does provide useful tips:
– Watch the alcohol consumption
– As an employer, keep in mind that you are a role model, and possibly make some agreements within the board or team of managers who stays sober.
– If something goes wrong, act fast. De Ruiter: "When something happens at a Christmas party, often a lot of colleagues know about it. As an employer you have to make sure to act fast. For example, by calling a taxi to bring someone home if they drank too much.
– Adress any compaints immediately: "Not acting will only lead to more turmoil"
My personal experience with intimidation and the abuse of power
Recent studies show that harassment and abuse of power at universities are not incidents, but structural flaws of an inherently unequal system. Once upon a time, as an AiO, I was also part of the university world and personally experienced harassment and abuse of power. It is very sad to read that nothing has changed since then.
I had a meeting with the dean, the head of the faculty. I had been working for two years, my research was going well at DAF, KLM and NS. The companies were enthusiastic about my work, and were looking forward to the results of my research.
Only things were not going well between the first supervisor, the professor, and me. He was derogatory, his feedback was downright humiliating. Talking about it with him only mad things worse. After contemplating for a while, and with a knot in my stomach, I dared to raise it with the faculty board, as I had no confidence that I could complete a successful desertation with that professor.
In the meantime, I had found a research group at the UvA. Plans were made to "move" my research to the UvA. In the meeting with the dean we would finally make arrangements for my transfer. I was looking forward to it!
The dean and I introduce ourselves to each other, as we do not know each other. The man immediately pounces and says on a stern tone: "I will be clear immediately", I don't notice anything, am still elated. "You have not been functioning for the past 2 years, we are going to stop your research". Huh? Did I hear that right? Wha... that is not fair... And DAF, KLM, NS? The plans with the UvA?"
"There have been no performance reviews, there is nothing on paper, but from now on we are going to build a file. And I'm sure that will give enough reason to fire you."
What a blow. Tears run down my face when I am back in my room. Luckily, one of my colleagues is a good friend (even still) that consoles me. Enough for today, we cycle back home together.
I did not know how to continue, who to turn to. I wanted to fight, it was not fair, I never could handle injustice well! I could have used someone like a confidant back then, like I am now. After asking around, it soon became clear: I was not going to win this power struggle, and if I did, it would most likely have a toll on my own mental health, and cost a lot of time and energy. I chose for myself, and luckily I had a job right after where I could rebuild my confidence in myself and others.
In may of 2022, an article in "de Groene" was published, about transgressive behavior in science. That the lack of social safety on universities is not just a disaster for the involved individuals, like me back then, but also for the whole world of science is also mentioned in the article: The Netherlands is missing out on innovations and views this way, because people do not feel free to talk. An intractible system that desperately needs change.
How is the psychosocial safety in your organisation?
The term 'psychosocial safety' might sound a bit abstract, but take a look at how its going by using the following statements:
– In our organisation, we feel confident to say something if an inappropriate comment is being made.
– If a colleague mentions that it is not going well with them, that signal is handled in a serious manner in our organisation.
– In our organisation, there is room for critical feedback towards executives, management and the board.
– If someone in our organisation is being bullied, discriminated or (sexually) intimidated, colleagues will intervene.
Not sure if the statements are completely true for your organisation? Then there is most likely something that can be done when it comes to social and psychological safety. In addition, do you lack a code of conduct, rules or protocols in case of incidents of transgrassional or non-integrated behaviour. Then you most likely also do not have a confidant, internally or externally, or not professionally invested in that role. A conversation with an external confidant can be a great first sstep to improve the psychosocial safety in your organisation.
Confidant as a professional
'Frans is our confidant, because everyone was venting with him anyway, so we just formalised it. He does not need any education, because he knows very well how to listen.'
'Our financial-director is the confidant in our organisation. Very easy, then we immediately gave input within management about misconduc.t'
'Our HR-employee is our confidant. They were doing all the 'people-things' anyways, so the role of confidant was quite fitting.'
‘'We do not need a confidant. We are such a small organisation, that people can always vent with anyone.'
Since I became a confidant, I have encountered countless 'confidants' in organisations. 'Confidants' because the people in the beforementioned examples cannot (partly) fulfill their role of confidant well. Often the image is that a confidant is nothing more than a listening ear for people that want to talk to someone from time to time. However, a professional Confidant is much more than that. I contribute actively to the social safety in an organisation by advising management, raising awareness with employees, and if I am a listening ear, I will advice about directions for solutions and I will follow the case until it is solved.
The escalation-ladder of Glasl in practice
During the mediation meeting, the tensions rose. I saw the jaws of one of the directors tighten, the other director crossed his arms and turned away. The employee was getting more spots in his neck, and his wife was shifting restlessly in her chair. All reasonableness seemed gone. I decided to call a time-out, or a 'caucus' as we call it, to see what was really going on. A caucus means a mediator will talk with both parties seperately, and then together again.
The escalation-ladder of Glasl draws an image of how a conflict can escalate, and what the behavior of the involved will look like. The model can be applied to all conflicts, from the kitchen table to international conflicts. The lowest (or highest, most escalated) step is the 'together into the abyss'. The truth does no longer matters, neither does reasonableness, and everything is allowed to eliminate the other. In this mediation it was during the intake clear already that we had passed the first two steps of the ladder. Too much was damaged already to be able to solve it together. During the intake meetings the directors were open and honest about the pain they felt due to the worsened relationship. This gave me the confidence that mediation was possible. However, later it turned out that on the side of the directors, the lowest step was reached.
During the time-out, in the conversation with the directors, one of the two immediately shouted: "Never, will I ever admit anything to this man, even if it becomes my bankruptcy!". He even stood up and made large hand gestures. Friendly and gesturing towards the chair I asked him what happened during the intake meeting. They appeared to have descented down the ladder together, and strengthened each other in the hardening of the conflict. They had decided that they were not going to move, at any cost, even at the cost of the company's survival. Of course I expressed my surprise at the changed attitude and tried to have them have the conversation with me, as it remains to be seen what a judge would think. However, there was no turning the tide; the men wanted to go to court. And in fact, they were mostly in the mediation so that they had ‘ticked the box’ and could at least tell the judge that they had tried. There was nothing else to do, I decided to stop the mediation because I saw no way to bring it to a successful conclusion.
If a conflict has escalated thus far, mediation would not have much effect, too much is damaged then and there is no willingness to get out of the situation. Possible ‘solutions’ to the conflict are then to bring in a judge or arbitrator or therapy... And therapy may always be necessary when a conflict has escalated to this point.
Mediator is kindergarten teacher...?
I thought you would be like a kindergarten teacher that would say 'shake each others hands, and then everything is okay again'. And I had decided beforehand that I would not shake his hand, if you would ask me to do so. But, now I would actually kind of like to shake his hand.
That is the end of a mediation from a few years ago. Two colleagues had been fighting with each other for a while. Or, you cannot really call it a fight, they were ignoring each other, during breaks they would turn their backs to each other, conversations died down if the other person entered, and sometimes a comment was made. The director had enough. After a failed attempt to bring the colleagues together, he asked for my help.
During the intake it became clear to me already that both of them made a lot of assumptions about the intention of the other. In addition, there appears to be a lot of unspoken old pain. One of the colleagues has also had a rather tense private situation for years, so that awkward remarks sometimes pop up at work, which are meant to be funny, but are not experienced as such by everyone. He is willing to explain this to the other during the joint meeting.
The mediation is very tense at first, then emotional and in the end, a relaxed smile appears on the faces of both men. They will not become friends, but the chill is out of the air and there is more understanding for each other. They have become aware of their own (incorrect) assumptions about the other person's intentions. And they end up shaking hands with each other, while I of course never ask for that!
Tip: if you catch yourself thinking about another person's bad intention, immediately ask yourself the question: can I be sure that is the other person's intention? Or is that an assumption?
Proposal for settlement agreement
During the intake interview, tears spring to his eyes as he talks about how offended he is by his employer. He has been ill for some time, partly due to the conflict at work. His employer offered him a settlement agreement some time ago. That is why he is so offended.'Forreal, I have been trying my best for this company for 245 year, and this is what I get?'.
I see it more often. There is apparently a belief among some employers that you are at a disadvantage when you are the first one to do an offer, and therefore you should start as low as possible. That may be true if you are negotiating the price of a car, but it works differently with a settlement agreement proposal. For an employee, such a proposal represents recognition and appreciation for his efforts, which has an emotional charge. If the offer is then disproportionately low, a conflict arises or escalates. Often, I have been used as a mediator only at that stage. I am convinced that it saves a lot of time, energy and ultimately money if the first proposal is a reasonable one right from the start. Of course, you can still negotiate about it together afterwards, but you can often work it out, in which case a mediator is less likely to be needed.