Workplace Investigations: Effective Conflict Management Pays Off Now... AND Later

This post is authored by Laurie Zeligson, Blue Mesa Group Coach and Consultant. 

Laurie has spent 25 years helping businesses and their employees do the right thing. An experienced employment law attorney and human resources professional based out of our offices in New York, NY, Laurie consults on all types of workplace issues ranging from discrimination and harassment to ethics, compliance programs and policy development. Click here to read her full bio.

We can’t prevent conflict in the workplace. But, we can prevent it from drawing attention and momentum away from the critical missions of our organizations. 

Whether a conflict results from a claim of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, misconduct or favoritism, organizations must address these concerns in a timely, compassionate and sensitive manner. Certainly, treating each employee with dignity and respect is a core value of most employers; however, it's easy to disengage from that value in the face of conflict. With so much at stake, organizations and individuals can take an unnecessarily aggressive or defensive posture. Of course, this heightens the conflict, undermines employee morale and productivity and opens the door to legal action.  That's why workplace investigations conducted by a neutral third party are a wise investment. 

Case Study: Communication Breakdown

Situation 
Here's a classic example of workplace conflict about to spin unnecessarily out of control. 


I was asked to conduct an investigation into claims of discrimination and harassment in a suburban medical practice. In a nutshell, the staff had divided itself into two conflicting bodies: Latina employees and Caucasian employees. Latina employees generally chose to communicate with each other in Spanish, and Caucasians took offense. The Latinas alleged, among other things, that the Caucasians made derogatory comments about their speaking Spanish in the workplace and their national origin, and they treated the Latina staff members with hostility and disrespect. Meanwhile, the Caucasian staff members believed the Latinas spoke in Spanish because they didn't like the Caucasian employees and were deriding them. The staff was not a team, they were hostile, uncommunicative cliques.


Findings
During the investigation, two issues came to light: (1) while the organization valued open communication, there was no agreement about whether or not speaking Spanish supported or hindered this core value, and (2) because the Caucasian employees didn’t understand Spanish, they thought the Latina employees were "talking about them." So, they responded to what they perceived as hostility with hostility. This behavior led to the opposite of their agreed upon value of open communication: of course, this also led to workplace tension and a lack of cooperation among the employees.


Actions

As I shared my findings with the Medical Director, I told him that I had asked members of both groups how they thought these issues could be addressed: every staff member suggested that the parties needed to confront each other and discuss their concerns. When I suggested that it would be important for the Medical Director to lead his staff through this discussion, his response surprised me. He backed away from his leadership role and told me that he didn’t feel comfortable doing that. Then, he asked me if I could take care of it. He wanted a “fix” right away.


I'm sure, if we had more time, with some coaching, he would have been able to do it. But, in this situation, I honored his request. Drawing upon my mediation skills, I met with the entire staff. Each employee had an opportunity to air her concerns directly to her colleagues. And yes, due to the fact that the discussion became quite impassioned, part of my role was acting as a referee.

Outcomes

At the conclusion of the meeting, the group acknowledged and understood how each "side" viewed the issues raised by the other. The team agreed to put the past behind them and move forward, communicating in a more congenial way. The group also came up with concrete ideas on how they would alter their conduct and how they would resolve their disputes in the future. 

• Together, they agreed to greet each other in a more respectful, less hostile way, and even included the simple step of committing to saying “Good Morning” to each other. 
• It was agreed that the use of Spanish would be curtailed in the workplace unless necessary to deal with patients or in private conversations. 
• Many of these employees had worked with each other for years; they didn’t like the fact that a schism had developed so that the world of their workplace was viewed as Latinas vs. Caucasians. They pledged to work out any differences that might arise in the future without the intervention of the Medical Director – or a third party. To do that, they contracted with each other to address issues directly with the party with whom there was a concern and, if necessary, seek the assistance of a co-worker to facilitate a discussion.

Though the Medical Director did not participate in the group meeting, he was pleased that his staff had a forum within which to express their concerns. He was also impressed by their openness and desire to rebuild relationships with each other. Toward that end, he committed to making himself available to his staff and to following up with them to track their progress.

Not all investigations lend themselves to this kind of resolution. But this case highlights how addressing conflict by conducting an impartial investigation doesn't just fix this one situation -- it can uncover systemic problems in the organization. When you invite an impartial third party to investigate a conflict, you can get to the heart of the specific conflict AND you can identify the deeper source of the problem. During the investigative and resolution process, you rebuild trust and prove your leadership credibility, competency and commitment to conflict resolution. That means great things for your organization's bottom line. And, long-term, you and your organization will benefit even further. Once a workplace investigation cracks open an unseen yet fundamental issue, and once you choose how to effectively repair it, you diminish the chance that your organization will face such a conflict again.