The following describes and explains these four workplace toxins with a view to helping people better understand why they are problematic and identify them when they occur. While I will allude in passing to ways of avoiding and dealing with these toxins, my purpose in this post is simply to help people understand what they are and why they are problematic. A discussion of techniques that can be used to avoid and deal with them will be for later posts.

A FEW WORDS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE FOUR WORKPLACE TOXINS

The workplace toxins are based on the work of John Gottman, a psychologist at the University of Washington who studied relationships between spouses for over two decades. Gottman discovered patterns of behaviour between spouses that he could use with over 90% accuracy to predict which relationships would not survive.  BLAME, DEFENSIVENESS, STONEWALLING and CONTEMPT were among Gottman’s indicators of what destroys relationships between spouses. He saw their presence as so pernicious that he called them the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”.

While Gottman’s research was on relationships between spouses, there is no doubt that the “Four Horsemen” destroy relationships in workplaces just as effectively as they do between spouses, and that their presence is toxic to respectful and productive problem solving in workplaces. As such, they are toxic to productivity.

BLAME

In the workplace it is often necessary or useful to talk about “what happened”. Understanding what happened in a particular instance can provide information about what needs to be done in the future to make things better. If, for example, a package was not delivered to a client on time, there may be a need to discuss the matter with a view to repairing the situation and/or ensuring that the problem does not recur. One of the challenges of having conversations about what happened is that they can easily slide into BLAME. When that happens, the conversation can stop being about figuring out what happened and making things better for the future. It can instead spiral out of control and become toxic to important workplace relationships and to finding solutions to what happened.

BLAME is characterised by the following:

• It is an attack on another typically with the intent, or at the very least the impact, of making the other appear to have acted wrongly. It may or may not be paired with an intent to make the attacker appear to have been in the right.
• In BLAME, there is more focus on accusing about the past than on understanding what happened in the past. Typically, the proponent has already made up his or her mind about what happened or at the very least is biased about it. As such, BLAME is inefficient at getting to the bottom of what actually contributed to the problem by focusing attention on who was wrong rather than on discovering the causal factors that were at play in the problem’s genesis. In the example of a late delivery to a client, there may be systemic factors at play such as stressed timelines, issues relating to poor training of delivery personnel and problems with how deliveries are being scheduled and assigned. But all of that can get lost in the act of trying to assign BLAME to the particular driver who was late in making the delivery.
• In BLAME, the focus is on the past (who was right or wrong then) rather than on the future – as such it dwells on things that cannot be changed (the past) and takes attention from fixing things (in the future).
• BLAME encourages the person on which it is focussed to be less forthright and even dishonest about what actually happened. This makes it much more difficult to determine what actually happened so that the problem may be fixed.
• The attacker may resort to BLAME as a result of a perceived need for self-preservation as, for example, when he or she feels threatened or attacked.

There are situations in the workplace where BLAME needs to be assigned. Where someone needs to be held accountable for their actions to ensure that they will recognise a problem and change their behaviour (for example, where someone is not taking their job seriously and the imposition of discipline would be motivating and appropriate), it may be necessary to assign BLAME. However, the challenge of ensuring that things work better in the future is almost always much more important than assigning BLAME for what happened in the past, and a focus on BLAMING typically distracts all involved from the real task at hand: fixing things so that they work better and the team becomes more productive in the future. Moreover, BLAME can undermine workplace relationships in a way that counterbalances much of the perceived benefits that it generates.

Rather than seeking to assign BLAME it is typically much more effective to focus on mapping out the contribution system – those things that contributed to the problem occurring in the first place with a view to addressing them. Such a focus on understanding what contributed to the problem so that things can be changed and the problem avoided in the future is almost always at least initially a much more powerful strategy than assigning BLAME. If after mapping the contribution system, it becomes apparent that BLAME does need to be assigned for the purpose of modifying someone’s behaviour (i.e., when discipline is appropriate and helpful), that can be done in a constructive way after the problem has been properly analysed and understood.

DEFENSIVENESS

DEFENSIVENESS is another toxin that tends to rear its ugly head in workplace conversations about what happened. When people are BLAMED or feel there is a potential for being BLAMED in a workplace conversation about what happened, they can feel vulnerable or attacked, and this can lead them to become DEFENSIVE.  As in the case of BLAME, DEFENSIVNESS can shift the focus away from understanding the problem so as to avoid it in the future because it is focussed more on mounting a defence than on fixing the problem. DEFENSIVENESS also harms relationships by perpetuating disputes.

DEFENSIVENESS is characterised by the following:

• Denials of responsibility, making excuses or cross-blaming (meeting BLAME with BLAME). In the example of the late delivery, there may be a denial by the driver that the delivery was late or an allegation that management has been overworking delivery personnel and not allowing them to take their breaks.
• The focus is on defending an attack or perceived attack and on preserving one’s sense of identity, integrity and/or of having been right.
• The focus is also typically on the past (who was right or wrong in the past) rather than on the future – as such, like BLAME, DEFENSIVENESS dwells on things that cannot be changed (the past).
• Again, as in the case of BLAME, the priority is not with fixing things for the future, i.e., with trying to understand what contributed to the problem that occurred in the past to try to find ways of ensuring that things are better in the future – the priority is with ensuring that the proponent is not seen as being in the wrong for what happened in the past.
• Persons being DEFENSIVE tend to feel threatened and defend out of a perceived need for self-preservation.

DEFENSIVENESS makes it more difficult for both its user and others in the workplace to appreciate the true causes of problems and it harms relationships by encouraging people to perpetuate attacks against each other.

STONEWALLING

If someone feels that they are not being successful at protecting themselves, their identity and/or their interests, especially over time and in the face of BLAME, they may withdraw, i.e., they may STONEWALL.

STONEWALLING is characterised by the following:

• Non-responsiveness such as silence, monosyllabic responses, changing the subject or multitasking (for example, working on a Blackberry during a conversation or meeting).
• There is a withdrawal or retreat from conflict and a failure to engage in attempts at dispute resolution.
• The STONEWALLER sees engaging as pointless, or at the very least considers that the benefits of engaging do not outweigh the personal risks of becoming engaged.
• The focus in on protecting one’s self by disengaging rather than on making the workplace better. There is an abandonment of hope and responsibility for fixing the workplace or problems in it.

The STONEWALLER sees keeping his or her head down and investing in alternatives to dealing with the situation (for example, applying for another position or simply biding his or her time) as better than investing in the workplace or the particular relationship that is being STONEWALLED.

CONTEMPT

Sometimes, especially in situations where BLAME, DEFENSIVENESS and STONEWALLING have occurred repeatedly, the build-up of pain, anger and/or distress can boil over into CONTEMPT. 

CONTEMPT is characterised by the following:

• The communication of profound and emotional disrespect for another through such things as ridicule, name calling, sarcasm and disrespectful body language (for example, eye rolling).
• The intent is to convey that the intended target of the CONTEMPT is or should be seen as worthless and/or despised.
• The proponent usually feels valued, justified, vindicated or excused by being CONTEMPTUOUS.
• CONTEMPT may be expressed in the absence of its target, such as where one employee is CONTEMPTUOUS of a manager in a private discussion with another employee, or its venom may be delivered directly to its intended target.

Gottman’s research shows that people caught up in CONTEMPT actually experience physiological changes as a result of it. In other words, CONTEMPT is not only bad for the workplace, it is bad for people’s health.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM IS THE FIRST STEP

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are alive and well in far too many workplaces. People BLAME, become DEFENSIVE, STONEWALL and become CONTEMPTUOUS without recognising the full impact of these toxins. As they permeate workplace relationships and destroy them, these workplace toxins undermine issue resolution and this in turn perpetuates problems and encourages them to spiral out of control. The ultimate result can be sick workplaces and a loss of productivity.

There are approaches that make it possible for the members of a workplace team to talk about what happened or what will happen without resorting to these toxins. In future posts on communication in the workplace I will set out ideas on how to communicate in ways that avoid workplace toxins, focus the team on problem solving, and help build respectful and productive workplace relationships.

• Why the element is important;
• What investigators should do in relation to it; and,
• How they should do it.

CONCORDANCE – YOUR INSURANCE

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Effective investigators take measures to maximise CONCORDANCE between the conclusions of the investigation and the events being investigated. In workplace investigations, there are typically at least four versions of the truth:

• what actually happened;
• one side’s version of what happened;
• the other side’s version of what happened; and,
• at the end of the investigation, the investigator’s conclusions about what happened.

Those four versions are rarely the same. 

Investigators work as historians, or a kind of archaeologist, to rebuild what happened in the past based on EVIDENCE available in the present. Rebuilding the past from EVIDENCE in the present is extremely challenging. It is highly unlikely that dinosaurs looked exactly as we see them in museums today. What we see in museums is an approximation of what existed in the past built on the EVIDENCE we have available to us in the present. It is impossible to build a perfect reconstruction of the past in the present.

Effective workplace investigators strive to reconstruct and reflect in their conclusions a version of what happened that CONCORDS as best as possible with what actually happened in real life.  Doing that is a safeguard against making mistakes and being caught off guard with inaccurate conclusions. It also contributes to constructing a fairer and more respectful workplace by making it more likely that people in the workplace will consider the results of investigations to be fair and accurate.

There are many pressures that can distort CONCORDANCE between the investigation’s conclusions and the historical truth of what actually happened. These include the following:

PARTY/WITNESS PARTISANSHIP:  In addition to the raw challenge of rebuilding the past from EVIDENCE in the present, workplace investigators face the difficulty of having to reconstruct events in the shadow of conflict – in circumstances where there is a dispute about what happened. Most times workplace investigators rebuild the past while each side and the witnesses bombard them with what can be radically different versions of what happened. This serves to distort things, and is a challenge to CONCORDANCE.

INVESTIGATOR PARTISANSHIP: To make things even more difficult, the person investigating may face pressure to bend the facts to favour one or the other party. For example, a manager conducting an investigation into the actions of a problematic employee might feel pressure or a tendency to want to rebuild a version of what happened that is favourable to the employer. This pressure or tendency to take a partisan view of the facts may further threaten CONCORDANCE.

PRECONCEPTIONS: Very often the person conducting a workplace investigation (for example, a manager or a labour relations officer) will know the parties involved and have preconceptions of what might have actually happened. This raises a tendency to want to base the investigation’s conclusions on preconceptions rather than on the EVIDENCE. This can further harm CONCORDANCE.

PRESSURE TO STOP LOOKING:  Investigating workplace wrongdoing is hard and time consuming work. In most cases, there are strong pressures to stop looking and conclude the investigation as soon as possible. This can push busy managers and others conducting investigations to stop before all the EVIDENCE is in and enough pieces of the puzzle are available to provide a decent chance of CONCORDANCE.

LITIGATION: Most workplace investigations operate in the shadow of actual or potential litigation, in the sense that the parties may at some point find themselves having to prove or disprove the facts being investigated in front of an arbitrator, a judge or some other third party decision maker. This creates a tendency to want to focus on finding EVIDENCE that supports whatever side of the litigation the investigator feels aligned with. This can harm CONCORDANCE, and worse, actually prejudice one’s position in litigation by preventing the investigation from uncovering EVIDENCE harmful to the case. When facing litigation, it is as important to find the harmful EVIDENCE as it is to find that which supports your case. CONCORDANCE puts you in a better position to conduct effective litigation.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

EMBRACE YOUR FALLIBILITY: Investigations are challenging work and it is easy to make a mistake. Start with the fear that you will get it wrong and adopt the mindset that you are fighting to get is as right as possible. Accept that CONCORDANCE is a real challenge and that your version of the truth will never be perfect. Make your goal minimizing how imperfect your conclusions will be.

RECOGNIZE THE PARTISANSHIP OF THE PARTIES (AND OF SOME WITNESSES) AND ACCOUNT FOR IT: Know that people will be focussed on defending their point of view and that they will distort the past. This is normal! Do not overreact. Evaluate the reliability of what people say in the context of their partisanship.

ACCEPT YOUR OWN PARTISANSHIP AND GUARD AGAINST IT: Do not believe in the myth of your neutrality. We all have preconceptions and most people who conduct workplace investigations are employees of one side or the other (the employer or the union). Focus on your partisanship, understand how your own natural biases open you up to making mistakes and guard against this.

UNDERSTAND AND GUARD AGAINST THE PRESSURES TO STOP SEARCHING FOR MORE EVIDENCE: Appreciate that you may at various points during the investigation feel the urge to go no further. When you feel that pressure become critical and assess whether you should objectively go further, or whether you really do have enough to reach reliable conclusions. Realise that workplace investigations take time. A poorly concluded investigation can lead to wasteful and unnecessary litigation that can easily sap more time, energy and resources than what would have been expended on a well conducted investigation.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

Rely on other Six Elements (see below for an explanation of STANDARDS, THEORIES, TARGETS, EVIDENCE AND PROCESS) and strive for CONCORDANCE:

• Know and focus on the STANDARDS;
• Construct and constantly revise your perception of the THEORIES of the parties;
• Compile and constantly revise your list of TARGETS;
• Constantly seek to shower each TARGET with as much EVIDENCE as you can find;
• Constantly measure how well the EVIDENCE irrigates each of your TARGETS;
• Identify dry TARGETS and seek sources of EVIDENCE from which they might be irrigated;
• Constantly challenge the reliability of the EVIDENCE; and,
• Construct and implement an effective PROCESS.

STANDARDS – YOUR COMPASS

WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT

Throughout the investigation you need direction – you need to know where to focus your efforts. Knowing the applicable STANDARDS of fairness that the ultimate decision maker(s) will use to implement the results of the investigation helps give you that direction. Consider them your compass.

Workplace investigations collect and organize EVIDENCE to help decision makers such as managers, arbitrators, hearing officers, judges, etc… render informed decisions. For a workplace investigator to know what EVIDENCE to search for, he or she needs to know the STANDARDS of fairness that will be applied by and influence the decision maker(s). Those STANDARDS of fairness include the following:

• In a unionised workplace, the collective agreement (the vision of fairness that the employer and the union have negotiated);
• Legislation (what the legislature has deemed to be fair);
• How arbitrators have interpreted collective agreements (what arbitrators have deemed to be fair);
• How judges have interpreted the law as it applies to the workplace (what judges have deemed to be fair);
• Employer policies and procedures (what the employer has deemed to be fair); and,
• Fair play and what is needed to make the workplace function properly (community and workplace STANDARDS of what is fair).

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

Figure out what the STANDARDS are before starting the investigation. As the investigation proceeds and EVIDENCE is collected, revise and get more information about the relevant STANDARDS to make sure you understand them and how they apply to the case.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

At the outset, research the STANDARDS that might influence the decision maker(s). Consult:

• Your labour relations advisors;
• The relevant parts of the collective agreement;
• Applicable internal employer policies and guidelines;
• Any relevant legislation (for example, human rights legislation);
• The arbitral jurisprudence; and/or,
• Legal counsel.

Put together a list of the relevant STANDARDS. As the investigation proceeds and you collect more EVIDENCE, constantly challenge yourself to determine whether your information about the STANDARDS is complete and if necessary dig deeper to better understand of the relevant STANDARDS.

THEORIES – THE BASES TO COVER

WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT

Before the decision maker (manager, arbitrator, judge etc…), each party (for example, the employee disciplined and the employer) will advance a THEORY of why he, she or it is correct and ought to benefit from a favourable decision. These THEORIES help identify the EVIDENCE that needs to be TARGETED by the investigation. 

For example, a complainant in a harassment case might advance the following THEORY:

My manager has been harassing me by preventing me from exercising my right to take breaks and have flexible working hours because she hates people of my racial heritage. Other people who are not of my heritage are given preferential treatment for their breaks and are granted flexible hours.

The respondent’s THEORY in the same case might be:

I have nothing against people of his race. I have not harassed him in any way. The reason I have been limiting his breaks and his access to more flexible hours is because he has been taking longer breaks than are allowed by the collective agreement and we do not have enough staff to cover client demand at the times he wants to not be in the office.

Knowing each of these THEORIES helps the investigator understand what EVIDENCE needs to be TARGETED to complete the investigation. An investigation that does not cover all of the EVIDENCE needed to reasonably prove or disprove all of the THEORIES that might properly be advanced before the ultimate decision maker(s) will be incomplete.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

At the time of the investigation the parties or one of them may not yet have reflected on and clearly established their THEORY. It can be left up to the investigator to correctly discern the THEORIES the parties are likely to be in a position to advance by the time the case gets to a decision maker. A good investigator should:

• Determine the THEORY each side is advancing and is reasonably likely to be in a position to advance before the decision maker(s);
• Make sure the TARGETS cover the ground of these THEORIES (see below) so that all the relevant EVIDENCE is collected;
• Constantly reassess and where necessary revise his or her vision of the THEORIES as new information is obtained in the investigation; and,
• Refer back to the THEORIES throughout the investigation and make sure they have been covered.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

A party’s THEORY is the underlying reason he, she or it can properly advance for why a right thinking reasonable person (i.e., the decision maker(s)) with knowledge of the STANDARDS and the facts should render a decision in his, her or its favour.

To determine the THEORIES, put yourself in the shoes of each party. Reflect on the STANDARDS and on the facts and force yourself to answer in one short paragraph the question: If I was that party, why should I believe that I will win in front of the decision maker(s)? Write down each party’s THEORY or potential THEORIES. Reassess your view of each side’s THEORY as the investigation proceeds and, if necessary, revise.

TARGETS – WHAT YOU ARE AIMING TO IRRIGATE

WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT

TARGETS are those things that each side needs to prove to establish its THEORY and disprove the opposing side’s THEORY in front of the decision maker(s). Think of THEORIES as the high level idea that is being advanced and the TARGETS as those bits and pieces that need to be proven to establish the THEORIES.

Lets return to the example of the manager that states that she was not racially motivated in her actions of limiting an employee’s breaks and his access to more flexible hours – she claims that she was trying to prevent the complainant from taking longer breaks than are allowed by the collective agreement and that the complainant wanted to exercise his right to flexible hours to be away from work at times when there was not enough staff to cover client demands. After researching the appropriate STANDARDS (for example, what the collective agreement has to say on the length of breaks and flexible hours) and reflecting on the THEORIES, some of the TARGETS might include (this list is not meant to be exhaustive) the following:

• EVIDENCE that establishes the length of the breaks that the complainant has been taking;
• EVIDENCE that establishes the times at which the complainant wants to be away from the office in accordance with his request for more flexible hours;
• EVIDENCE that establishes the demand for client services at the times that the complainant wants to be out of the office;
• EVIDENCE that establishes the staff available to satisfy the demand for client services at the times that the complainant wants to be out of the office;
• EVIDENCE of the level and standards of service the employer has set for the workplace (number of employees required by the employer to meet a particular level of demand for client services);
• EVIDENCE that establishes the length of breaks given to employees that are not of the complainant’s racial heritage;
• EVIDENCE that establishes the flexible hours granted to employees that are not of the complainant’s racial heritage; and,
• EVIDENCE that establishes behaviour by the manager that would indicate that she has or does not have a prejudice towards the complainant and/or his racial heritage.

Knowing the TARGETS allows you to know what EVIDENCE you need to find.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

Generate a list of the relevant TARGETS. Where necessary, revise your list of TARGETS as you learn more in the course of the investigation.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

Put yourself in the shoes of each party, focus on the STANDARDS, the facts and that party’s THEORY, and ask yourself what that party needs to prove to win before the decision maker(s). List those things!

EVIDENCE – WATER FOR IRRIGATING TARGETS

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

Supposition or conjecture has or should have no value before a decision maker(s). What counts is EVIDENCE. The basic rule: without EVIDENCE of it, IT DOES NOT EXIST no matter how convinced you might be that you have it right!

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

Collect ALL of the admissible EVIDENCE that is relevant to each of the TARGETS. Guard against looking only for EVIDENCE that is favourable to your constituency. Find the damaging EVIDENCE as well to inform your decision and so that you do not get surprised by it down the road.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

Look for and explore sources of:

• Testimonial EVIDENCE – witnesses; 
• Documentary EVIDENCE – documents; and,
• Real EVIDENCE – things that might be put to the decision maker(s) (for example, a surveillance video showing an altercation in the workplace).

Collect and preserve any EVIDENCE that is relevant to a TARGET.

PLANNING – BEING STRATEGIC

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT

To achieve goals one must be strategic and have a plan. Effective investigators try to ensure that their conclusions are as complete and accurate as they can make them. To achieve that goal you have to be strategic and you have to plan.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

The steps are:

• Prepare;
• Collect;
• Preserve;
• Evaluate/re-evaluate; and,
• Then conclude.

HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT

PREPARE: When the file hits your desk, assess what it tells you about the STANDARDS, THEORIES, TARGETS and EVIDENCE. Before going further, as best you can, do the research you need to get a preliminary idea of what the STANDARDS, THEORIES, TARGETS and potential EVIDENCE might be. Ask whether this is a case that is worthy of investigation and if there are ways of resolving it other than through an investigation. Consider the impact of the investigation on the workplace.

COLLECT: Decide who needs to be interviewed first – in the case of an investigation conducted by the employer this typically will be the complainant. Decide when you will interview the person being complained about – do you want to interview them immediately after the complainant or do you need to interview others first (for example, if the meeting with the complainant reveals new allegations by other complainants). Next interview the other witnesses on each side in a logical order. When interviewing witnesses be mindful of any right they might have to be accompanied by an advisor (for example, a union representative). With regard to witness interviews consider the following template:

• Ground rules (for example, confidentiality and the use to which the witness’ EVIDENCE could be put to);
• Storytelling (letting the witness tell their story in an uninterrupted way);
• Questions to clarify and obtain further EVIDENCE;
• Preservation of EVIDENCE (having the witness sign a statement); and,
• Next steps – explaining to the witness what will happen next.

After interviewing the witnesses, consider re-interviewing the parties (the complainant and the person who is complained about) and any other witness that needs to be re-interviewed as a result of new information you learned. Re-interviewing the complainant and/or the person complained of can be a good way to test the EVIDENCE you have collected and your conclusions.

PRESERVE: Preserve the EVIDENCE you collect. For example, consider having the witnesses sign statements.

EVALUATE/RE-EVALUATE: Ensure that the EVIDENCE collected is reliable and admissible. Constantly re-evaluate to determine if your view of the STANDARDS, the THEORIES and the TARGETS is complete. Critically assess how well the EVIDENCE irrigates each of the TARGETS.

CONCLUDE: Consider who will have the burden of proof before the decision maker(s) and whether that burden has been met. Let the EVIDENCE drive the conclusions – if it is not established by the EVIDENCE, it does not exist! Guard against concluding before all the EVIDENCE is in. Put your conclusions in the format required by the process you are involved in (a letter, a report etc…). Communicate your findings to the parties and the decision maker(s).

FINAL WORD

There is of course much more that needs to be said about making workplace investigations effective. That said, these six elements (CONCORDANCE, STANDARDS, THEORIES, TARGETS, EVIDENCE and PROCESS) are a beginning and a template upon which to build.

I will provide more guidance in future posts.

NOTE:To make sure that readers of future posts have a basis upon which to understand more advanced negotiation approaches, issues and techniques, I have decided to start my posts on negotiation with an introduction to negotiation theory. The introduction (which is in large part based on the concepts advanced by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton in their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In) is divided into four posts: this first post will deal with the role of competition and cooperation in negotiation, the second will cover the role of alternatives and interests, the third will focus on options, legitimacy, relationship, communication and commitment, and the last will cover the concepts of goals, process and strategy. My hope for this introduction is to give readers a good foundation upon which to understand other ideas I will share in later posts.

Understanding negotiation theory begins with the realisation and for some the acceptance, that all negotiation involves competition and cooperation. Negotiation involves competition in the sense that there are very often limited resources or options available to satisfy the needs at play between of the parties, and both sides want the best result for themselves. As such, the parties to a negotiation typically compete for a limited “pie”. That said, negotiation involves cooperation in the sense that it is a consensual process that depends on a measure of cooperation and consensus to work. Meeting with the other side, talking to the other side, making concessions, sharing information, and ultimately agreeing with the other side, involves cooperation.

Being effective in negotiation involves learning how to balance competition and cooperation in a way that makes sense; inserting enough competition in the negotiation, so that you get a good result for yourself and prevent others from taking advantage of you. However, it also involves inserting enough cooperation to ensure that necessary information gets exchanged, that options for settlement get generated, that valuable relationships are not destroyed, and that all sides push forward to a resolution as quickly and as economically as is reasonable.

EXTREMES: NEGOTIATION STYLES THAT DO NOT SUFFICIENTLY MIX COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

The need to balance competition and cooperation is easily understood when one considers the impact of being too competitive or too cooperative in negotiation; something readily apparent when one reflects on the following two extreme styles negotiation that do not sufficiently mix competition and cooperation:

COMPETITIVE BARGAINING: At the extreme of almost pure competition, there is the style of negotiation sometimes labelled “competitive bargaining”. Competitive bargainers see the negotiation as a purely competitive process in which they are going to win, and you are going to lose. They tend to make extreme and unreasonable demands and are very slow to move. They typically try to intimidate, mislead and outmanoeuvre the other negotiator in their effort to get the best possible deal. Competitive bargainers often have a table-pounding take-it-or-leave-it negotiation approach. They see negotiation as a game of winners and losers, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure they win and you lose.

COOPERATIVE BARGAINING:At the other extreme of almost pure cooperation, there is the polar opposite style sometimes referred to as “cooperative bargaining”. Cooperative bargainers are overly focussed on cooperation and seek to drain all competition out of the negotiation process. They tend to overvalue any relationship they have with the other side, their need to avoid conflict, and their need to reach agreement. Because of that, they tend to make concessions in negotiation that objectively are unnecessary and that do not make sense. They typically do this to satisfy their exaggerated perception of the value of getting a deal, safeguarding the relationship, and/or avoiding conflict. Cooperative bargainers are often more focussed on the other side’s needs in the negotiation than on their own. They tend to take naive or pie-in-the-sky approaches to resolving disputes, and have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved, and of how the negotiation process should unfold.

If one maps out the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these extreme styles of negotiation, the role of competition and cooperation in negotiation becomes more evident, as does the risk of being overly competitive or overly cooperative in negotiations.

BEING OVERLY COMPETITIVE IN NEGOTIATION:  ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

The advantages of competitive bargaining for those who use it (i.e., the advantages that can flow from a focus on competition in negotiation) include the following:

• Competitive bargainers are typically perceived as tough by their constituency (those they represent), and often by the other side.
• They tend to strive for the best possible immediate financial result. If they get a deal, it will most often be one that is financially beneficial for them or those they represent, at least in the short term.
• They are perceived as difficult to manipulate.
• They have a tendency to not get caught up in the other side’s emotions or in any sympathy towards the other side. This can serve to help them strive for better results.
• They tend to be well focussed on their goals.
• They have a tendency to feel like they are in control of the negotiation, and to project confidence. This can be intimidating to the other side and unbalance it.
• In comparison with other more complex approaches, competitive bargaining can be a very simple negotiation style to implement. It requires little preparation.
• It can be a very effective negotiation style against a weak negotiator.

That said, competitive bargaining has disadvantages for those who use it. These disadvantages, which flow from its overemphasis on competition, and its minimization of cooperation, include the following:

• Competitive bargainers have a tendency to jeopardize and destroy important relationships.
• They can fail to get a deal where a deal would otherwise have been possible. This happens at least in part because their overly aggressive and competitive approach pushes the other side to not want to participate in the negotiation and sets up barriers to reaching agreement.
• Competitive bargainers often miss out on creative options and opportunities for joint gains. This flows from their focus on financial gain to the exclusion of other benefits that can be achieved in negotiation, their take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and their perception that there is a need for there to be a winner and a loser in the negotiation.
• Because the other side sometimes resents the result or feels cheated, the deal, if one is reached, may not be as durable as would otherwise be the case.
• Competitive bargainers create a lack of trust in the negotiation process, which can slow it down or stall it.
• If two competitive bargainers negotiate one with the other, it can take more time and resources to get to a deal, and make it much more difficult to reach agreement because both sides will be slow to compromise and will fear leaving too much on the table.
• By holding their cards too close to their vest, competitive bargainers tend to stifle the exchange of information. To achieve durable resolutions quickly and effectively, the parties often have to exchange information. By stifling the flow of information, competitive bargainers can sometimes stall the negotiation or direct it towards settlements that do not reflect the reality of all the facts.

So while there are clear advantages to being competitive in negotiation, bleaching cooperation out of the process and being overly and indiscriminately competitive has clear disadvantages.

BEING OVERLY COOPERATIVE IN NEGOTIATION:  ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Cooperative bargaining illustrates the benefits of cooperation in negotiation all the while making evident the disadvantages of being overly cooperative and of not harnessing the benefits of competition.

The advantages that cooperative bargainers gain from their focus on cooperation include the following:

• Cooperative bargainers tend to foster better relationships with the other side during the negotiation. They can often use the benefits of this (such as the trust it builds with the other side) to smooth the negotiation process.
• When cooperative bargainers negotiate one with the other, they will tend to generate creative options, cut deals that better meet the needs of both sides and come to more durable resolutions.
• There will usually be a deal when a cooperative bargainer is involved.
• In the short term, they have a tendency to build their relationship with the other side (if there is one) outside of the negotiation.
• They tend to enhance communication and the flow of information. In many negotiations, a settlement is not possible unless the parties exchange information. Cooperative bargainers often enhance the negotiation process by facilitating the exchange of information. 
• Cooperative bargaining can sometimes lead to a quicker result.

The disadvantages associated with cooperative bargaining for those that use, i.e., the disadvantages of being overly cooperative in negotiation, include the following:

• Cooperative bargainers are vulnerable to being manipulated, especially by competitive bargainers.
• They often make concessions that objectively do not make sense and agree to bad deals.
• They have difficulty walking away from the table when that is what they should do.
• They develop a reputation for being “soft”. This can make people that they represent lose faith in them.
• They can get caught up in emotions, as opposed to focusing on the facts and the issues.
• Their focus on making negotiations fair can lead to overly complex and lengthy negotiation processes.
• Over the long term cooperative bargainers can have a tendency to destroy relationships. Rather than negotiate for what they need from the other party to make the relationship work, they have a tendency to repeatedly give in and not have their needs met, especially if the other person in the relationship is a competitive bargainer. Over time giving up and giving in results in a relationship where the cooperative bargainer is not having his or her needs satisfied. You can be in a relationship where your needs are not being met for only so long. At some point, the cooperative bargainer typically sours, and explodes out of the relationship.

It is therefore plain that while cooperation plays a necessary role in negotiation, bleaching competition out of the process and being overly cooperative has clear disadvantages.

THE NEED TO BALANCE COMPETITION AND COOPERATION IN NEGOTIATION

Effective negotiation involves avoiding the disadvantages of being overly competitive (competitive bargaining), and those of being overly cooperative (cooperative bargaining) while finding ways of harnessing the advantages of both competition and cooperation. To achieve this effective negotiators mix competition and cooperation in proportions that make sense; putting enough competition in the negotiation to ensure that they achieve a good result for themselves, and making sure that others do not take advantage of them, all the while inserting enough cooperation to ensure that information flows, options are found, a deal is reached quickly and effectively, and important relationships are not damaged.

In my next post on negotiation, I will begin discussing a roadmap for mixing competition and cooperation in negotiation in proportions that make sense: the Ten Elements of Effective Negotiation.

What follows is based largely on the fine work of Team Coaching International, and their Team Diagnostic Assessment, which I see as an excellent measurement of whether teams, and for that matter workplaces, are functioning as they should.

MANAGING BOTH THE BUSINESS AND THE PEOPLE SIDE OF PRODUCTIVITY

Workplaces, and the teams in them, exist to produce results. Whatever produces results in a sustainable way is good. Whatever harms sustainable production is bad.

To maximize productivity in a sustainable way, workers (I include managers in the term “workers”) in modern workplaces need to have the means to produce, and they need to have relationships among them that allow them to work together effectively. Consider a team tasked with producing a new software solution. Without proper business resources like computers, a place to work, expertise, leadership etc…, those involved will not have the means to produce. But having the means to produce does not guaranty productivity. If those involved in developing the software have terrible relationships such that they spend more time mired in conflict than they do collaborating and sharing ideas, their effectiveness at producing results will be compromised.

There are two sides to sustaining workplace productivity in a modern economy:

• Managing the hard cold BUSINESS SIDE of making workplaces productive so that workers have the MEANS to produce; and,
• Managing the HUMAN OR PEOPLE SIDE of making workplaces productive so that workers jell together in WORKING RELATIONSHIPS that make them more effective as a team.

Over time, a failure to attend to either side of making workplaces work compromises productivity.

PRODUCTIVITY STRENGTHS: MANAGING THE BUSINESS SIDE OF MAKING WORKPLACES MORE PRODUCTIVE

The folks at Team Coaching International have come up with great criteria for measuring how well teams have managed the business side of making themselves more productive. In their view, an ideal team that has taken care of maximizing the business side of production has learned to capitalise on the following seven “Productivity Strengths”:

1. RESOURCES: Those in the workplace request, obtain and manage sufficient resources, expertise and training to achieve their objectives.
2. ALIGNMENT: Resources have been appropriately marshalled so as to maximize returns. People are assigned roles that capitalise on their strengths. Nobody’s strengths are being squandered and nobody is in a role that does not reflect their abilities. Roles, including leadership roles are properly defined, exercised, assigned and respected.
3. GOALS AND STRATEGIES: There are clear and challenging objectives and priorities, as well as good strategies for achieving them. There is no ambiguity about where to aim efforts either individually or collectively.
4. LEADERSHIP: Leaders exercise constructive, appropriate and effective leadership approaches and styles, and address systemic and non-systemic issues that impact productivity and the achievement of goals. By their behaviour and style, the leaders generate respect and buy-in to their actions and decisions, and the goals that have been set. Leaders focus on both the business and the people side of making the workplace productive.
5. ACCOUNTABILITY: All, including the leaders, are actively held accountable for their actions and results. Nobody is getting a free ride. All believe in holding everybody accountable, are active in supporting accountability, and understand the importance of it. Everybody knows that when accountability suffers, the workplace suffers.
6. PROACTIVITY: Nobody waits until problems or issues arise before dealing with them. Challenges are anticipated and dealt with as early as possible. All are effective and flexible at addressing and embracing opportunities for positive change, and the advancement of assigned goals.
7. DECISION MAKING: The workplace enjoys clear, nimble, decisive and effective decision making. Decisions are made in a constructive and respectful way. Leaders base their decisions on objective criteria applied to relevant information. The leaders do not shrink from the responsibility of making decisions. The manner in which decisions are made leads to durable and respected results.

POSITIVITY STRENGTHS: MANAGING THE PEOPLE SIDE OF MAKING WORKPLACES MORE PRODUCTIVE

It is dangerous to speak of workplaces or teams running like well oiled machines. Machines are made up of inorganic parts that have no rights and no free will, that behave in easily predictable ways, and that are relatively easily replaced and fixed. Workplaces, and the teams in them, are made up of infinitely more complex, independent, free thinking, and difficult to predict and control human beings which have rights and which usually cannot easily be changed. Trying to manage a workplace, and the teams in them, the way one would manage a machine and its parts is doomed to failure. Maximising productivity in a modern workplace requires an approach that deals with the “people side” of making workplaces more productive.

To work more effectively together, people must be motivated and have good working relationships. From the time we banded together to hunt mastodons, to our efforts at putting together an orbiting space station, we humans have achieved greater and better results, when those engaged in the pursuit were motivated, trusted each other, communicated effectively, and otherwise had well functioning working relationships. This “people side” of making workplaces and the teams in them produce is vital to sustainable efficiency and productivity in a modern economy.

I will have much to say about the “people side” of making workplaces more productive in future posts. For now, I limit myself to talking about what a well functioning workplace looks like so that readers have a clear vision of what workplaces and teams in them should strive to achieve.

Again, I am indebted to the folks at Team Coaching International. In their Team Diagnostic Assessment, they use the following seven “Positivity Strengths” to measure how effective teams are at managing the people side of productivity:

1. TRUST: Those in the workplace believe that they are and will be treated fairly. They feel they can count on and rely on others in the workplace, including their leaders.
2. CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION: People do not avoid conflict. There is a culture of dealing with conflict rather than forcing it under the table. People embrace and seek out the healthy expression of different views and perspectives in ways that are constructive. Feedback is given in a constructive way. Disputes are resolved quickly, effectively and with durable outcomes.
3. OPTIMISM: All are forward thinking and enthusiastic about achieving their goals. They are confident in their ability to achieve goals. Cynicism, pessimism, helplessness and dwelling in the past are minimized.
4. RESPECT: There is genuine regard for all, their points of view and their roles, including leadership roles. All feel their contribution is valued. Nobody feels abused, exploited, manipulated or treated unfairly.
5. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Clear, productive and constructive communications are favoured and practiced over less effective, destructive or wasteful approaches. People listen to each other and they send clear, concise and constructive messages in ways that are able to be heard by their intended recipients. Communications take into consideration the “human element” of dealing with others.
6. CAMARADERIE: People enjoy being in the workplace and working with their colleagues. Nobody feels intimidated or taken for granted. There is healthy empathy, playfulness and humour within the workplace.
7. VALUES DIVERSITY: The workplace seeks out, values and capitalizes on all available helpful ideas, perspectives, personalities, approaches and strengths. All, including leaders, are curious, open-minded and truly open to persuasion rather than simply pretending to listen. They collect ideas from those that can contribute and value those ideas. People get to be heard when they should be heard and better trust decisions because legitimate input is valued and taken into consideration.

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF BUILDING PRODUCTIVITY AND POSITIVITY STRENGTHS IN WORKPLACES AND ON TEAMS

Building something that is successful usually starts with a vision of what one intends to build and how one measures success.

The seven Productivity Strengths and the seven Positivity Strengths provide a good picture of what an ideal workplace and team looks like, and are a good benchmark of what workplaces, and the teams in them, should strive to achieve to be as productive as they can be.

Armed with this vision, I will in future posts explain approaches and techniques for building Productivity and Positivity Strengths in workplaces and on teams.