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