“Did you get a free coffee yesterday?”, the owner asked my wife. “No , why?”, she replied. As she brewed a fresh and free coffee, the owner told Donna she had noticed she didn’t drink her breakfast coffee on Sunday. We had left before she could ask why not. She was genuinely curious about why that coffee had been left untouched by one of her regular customers. She listened to Donna’s feedback, asked great questions, and listened some more.

On its own, that’s pretty cool. But it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure many of us have had experiences of giving feedback, only for nothing to change. At that coffee shop, action is guaranteed - like when the lids on takeaway cups kept coming off and the owner had a new supplier the following day - she makes it safe to speak, she listens and she acts.

Safety in this case is created by 4 things:

1. She has a track record of being open to feedback and genuine enquiry. She always receives feedback without judgement, justification, blame or excuses. She simply listens.

2. The free coffee is a way of saying “I know you were not happy with our product. I know we did something different and less good”. She is creating an invitation to talk about it by acknowledging the problem and making a gesture of good faith.

3. She separates the people from the problem. It’s all about the best possible coffee. It’s not about an argument or lynching baristas.

4. She acts which lets people know the feedback is heard and valued.

By comparison, a coaching client is currently being asked to give feedback about a team member. The process is not transparent. The intent is not transparent. There's a history of issues raised being ignored or not acted on. There’s a history of people being treated differently because they gave feedback. Not surprisingly, she doesn’t feel safe to give feedback.

How do you personally seek and encourage feedback?

How do you make it safe for others to seek it and give it?

What action do you take as a result?

And if you are in Midland, check out New Ritual cafe. The coffee is great.

The Dark Side

Psychological Safety (PS) is confidence that you won’t be embarrassed, rejected or punished (by boss or team) for speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and providing feedback. 

So far we’ve seen that Musk encourages all of these, especially in the development of the products his companies create. It is far from a perfect picture however. Let's look at Musk’s behaviour which reduces PS. BTW, few (If any) of us  are perfect in this regard. This is intended to provoke reflection.

• “You’re an idiot” - Musk will often use language like this. It damages PS  by  directly attacking a person, rather than an open conversation about the problem. It also doesn't give any suggestion or support for improvement.

• “Your resignation will be accepted” - When people push back on timeframes, safety or variability of an idea/solution, Musk resorts to ordering them to do it while threatening their job. There are examples of this making teams go further/faster than they thought possible, but they don’t feel safe. This kind of behaviour leads to people covering things up, rather than telling the full story. Arguably, it was precisely the same behaviour that caused the Challenger space shuttle explosion.

• Ignoring sound advice - Musk puts arbitrary time frames on delivery that are often completely unobtainable. He has a litany of promised features behind him that have been confidently announced and not achieved. Parts of his team acknowledge that this has pushed them further/faster, however there is also chaos in the wake. I like Gilbert Enoka’s (former All Black’s Mindset coach) approach to this. He says targets need to be out of reach but not out of sight. When we can’t conceive it being achievable, a target can demotivate. If it’s too easy it won’t motivate us either. Musk could maintain the relentless drive for innovation and progress while making it more safe (and fun) by setting better gaps. It would do a lot for the believability of his promises too.

How do you personally create or contribute to the PS of your working environment? Are your behaviours net positive or negative?

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaacson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Hidden Resistance

Over the years of being involved in many organisational change initiatives, there has always been resistance. Some of the reasons for resistance are obvious and easily addressed. Some are more subtle, hidden away in places we don’t often consider. In my experience, locating and addressing hidden resistance has a much greater effect on progressing change, than adding further force.

One hidden source of resistance is that the status quo serves some or all of the people in some way. It doesn't necessarily need to be positive - the old adage about the devil you know exists for a reason! Asking and answering the question “How does the current situation serve me/us/them?” will give some insight. Here are a few examples I have encountered.

• Ian had been one of the major people involved in creating the current system. He was quick to admit that it no longer served the organisation and it was time to move on, but he also had an emotional attachment to it. It was hard to let it go without feeling that his original work was somehow substandard. He also felt that people pushing the change were not listening to his depth of experience. How could you address this with Ian?

• Lorraine knew her team and their circumstances very well. She manually ran an excellent roster of many people and never missed a beat. As the organisation grew, rostering was being brought into a central function, which gave capacity to better manage overtime hours, use people’s skills and availability across a larger spread of the organisation's work and allow staff to easily see their rosters and request changes. Lorraine was concerned about losing control of the excellent relationships she had with her staff and clients. She was also concerned about learning a computer based system, and was resolutely sticking to her paper based one, slowing the whole project down. How could you assist Lorainne with that situation?

• The whole of A Shift had a reputation for quickly solving the problems that the current system caused (usually many a day). They relished their reputation and the edgy excitement of solving problems ‘on the fly’. An A Shift supervisor said, "the new system will mean less problems, and our work immediately becomes more mundane and boring.” A Shift was significantly blocking progress on the new system and as a result getting even more problems to solve. How would you work with A Shift?

In each of these situations, once the reasons for resistance were heard, understood and addressed, the people involved became avid supporters of the changes being made. Trying to force them toward the new systems would have resulted in them being casualties of change, or the resistance being driven more underground.

Lead like the Pool Guy

Andy the pool guy delivered a spa to our place this week. It took 2 of us to assist him with unloading and moving into its new home. Andy was a great example of effective leadership. The spa was heavy, and mishandling could easily have broken it, or hurt one of us. Every time we were about to change position, Andy gave us a ‘just in time’ brief about what was about to happen. It was smooth and low stress. He would say things like, “the trolley is about to kick away from us, but it wont go any further”, and “put one hand here like this, and the other one under here”. He was using his experience and knowledge to guide the process. He took responsibility for both the results and the people involved, he isolated the potential problem areas and made sure it was in hand before we moved, he consistently added calm clarity.

Great work Andy! How can you lead more like Andy in some of your work?

Work Both Ways

I worked with a team with some of the best scores I have ever seen for psychological safety. It wasn't surprising. The team focusses on it in everything they do. Despite the scores, their biggest opportunity for improvement was feedback. They give and receive plenty. They value it. They care about each other as well as the result. These are all ingredients for a great feedback culture. Almost all of them said the quality of feedback was the challenge.

To give quality feedback work in 2 directions at once. Down into detail and up into context. Specific, actionable detail is feedback gold. If it's not specific enough it's difficult to act on. The master stroke is to link to a bigger contextual frame. Context makes feedback useful across everything you do, rather than just the immediate situation.

I love working with teams to develop great feedback skills. Done well feedback is a superpower for teams. Done poorly it can tear them apart.

How does your team score on feedback?

Problem Solving

I’ve been thinking a lot about problem solving. A useful starting point is to know the nature of the problem you are trying to resolve. Is it simple, complicated, or complex?

I recently started bringing a 1992 Honda Goldwing back to life. There’s been lots of problem solving. I had to chase down why the headlights weren’t working. This is an example of a simple problem… It’s a closed system, and while there are a number of potential failure points, they are predictable and simple to rectify (that doesn’t necessarily equate to easy).

Photo by Knak

For a simple problem the best approach is a logical sequence to find which part of the system is failing, then find the exact location, and then fix that. In the case of the headlights there were 3 breakdown points. It took a while to find and rectify them all. The problem was compounded because the relatively simple headlight circuit ‘lives’ in a complicated motorcycle system, so the first job was to discover if it was a complicated problem (involving multiple failures across multiple interconnected systems). In that case, it would still be a matter of systematically testing and unravelling until the base issue was discovered.

In a number of coaching sessions recently we’ve been looking at complex problems. Complexity is when there are many factors involved, some may be causal (or maybe not). Often there are multiple overlapping causes and no easy solution. An example was conflict between 2 highly experienced leaders. Both their jobs and teams are “mission critical” for their organisation. Both teams are also critical to each other’s success. BUT the actual outcomes each team is tasked to achieve are somewhat contradictory.

The ideal progression for one team causes real world problems for the other and vice versa. There is no simple answer for these leaders. For both, a key piece in improving their working relationship was acknowledging that none of it was personal. If they saw each other's actions as intentionally hostile, it was no good.

They are working on a better understanding of what the genuinely non-negotiable parts of their roles are and being unambiguous with each other. The problems they face are complex. Their current understanding of each other’s roles helps them navigate the complexity more effectively and position both teams for the greatest success.

What are some of the problems you are currently facing? What category do they fit in?

Order from Chaos - 5 Lessons from a Day with an Elite Response Team

I recently had the privilege of spending the day with a professional emergency response team in their training environment. They are tasked with entering highly dynamic and unpredictable environments, often with minimal information. The situations they face evolve rapidly. One of the stand out aspects of their work was their ability to create order in the midst of chaos. I wondered what lessons could be learned that apply to everyday leadership and business. While the physical risk for most of us is much lower, we certainly face chaotic and unpredictable situations, often with minimal information and evolving dynamics.

Lesson 1 - Inject Clarity

I’m rapidly forming a view that the number one job of leaders in an uncertain world is clarity. The team added clarity in a number of ways. Excellent communication that focussed on what was known and what they were going to do. This included quality questions that highlighted gaps and potential misunderstandings. Ultra clear roles and responsibilities. Everyone knew exactly what they were responsible for. Clear decision making so that when the inevitable decisions on the fly needed to be made the whole team knew where their decision making lines were. Clearly defined start, end, decision, and potential disruption points. Discipline to focus the above on known information or useful speculation. The team stayed well away from the potential rabbit holes of ineffective ‘what if’. 

Lesson 2 - Debrief

After the action stopped, the whole team paused for review. What went well, what could have been improved, what lessons could they adopt for the future? Notable in this process was a strong expectation that people would highlight potential improvement. There was little consideration of position or ego in the process. All input was matter of fact and welcome.

Lesson 3 - BYO Feedback

Part of what made the debrief effective was people providing their own feedback for places they could have done better or had messed something up. They weren’t attempting to blame others or circumstances for anything. And they certainly weren’t waiting to see if someone else noticed. Actively reflecting on your own performance makes it easier and safer for others to give you feedback.

Lesson 4 - Hone your skill

The combination of clarity, practice and debriefing had the team constantly honing their collective skill. Individuals were doing the same. Whatever it is you do, keep practising and refining. Be the best you can be. When chaos lands you know your capability and can deliver without hesitation.

Lesson 5 - Control for Innovation

The team took active control of all elements they could. How they moved, how they communicated, how they decided, who was responsible for what, staying fed/hydrated/rested so they were ready to go, flawless maintenance and front loading, testing systems and gear and much more. The discipline and tight control of elements they could control created a strong core of certainty within chaotic and uncertain environments. It allowed them to quickly adapt and innovate when they needed to.

In what ways can you incorporate these lessons into your work/leadership? What additional insights would you add?

Do They Know

All she was doing was requesting some leave. Leave she was owed, no special requests. And yet days had gone by with no action. She told me, I’m waiting for the right moment. Her boss had to be approached when he was in ‘the right mood’ or otherwise the reaction could be unpredictable. Really? For leave?

I’ve had a few conversations like these lately where people are tiptoeing around colleagues, and people up and down the line. And we are all human - bad days where we are not operating at our best, or as our best self are going to happen from time to time.

But one of the best things leaders and teams can do for each other is consistency. We can’t predict all the things that will happen in our workplace. Ideally though how we will respond should be really predictable. And it should instil confidence not fear. Our behaviour to each other is one of the elements we can control and enables teams to build a sense of certainty regardless of the situation and workload.

If as a leader you are feeling a bit frayed at the edges, it might be time to reset. For teams, it's well worth a conversation to establish how we will be, regardless of what we have to do.

A bit of ‘No’ makes a better ‘Yes’

Saying 'Yes' means we are agreeing to something.

We say 'Yes' many times a day. What are some of the things you say 'Yes' to on a typical day? Note them down.

We say 'Yes' for a variety of reasons:

• It’s part of our job

• We can add value

• Moving towards goals and objectives

• Opportunity to do something we enjoy

• Obligation

• Feeling pressured

• No alternatives

• Repercussions if I say “No”

'Yes' implies a commitment. Each commitment we make occupies time and energetic space. Even if we will never deliver, it occupies time and thought. Sometimes we add guilt or anxiety as well. Consider the cost of that commitment (especially if delivery will be difficult) as well as the cost/benefit of saying 'Yes'. Sometimes ‘No’ would be a better response:

• If we say ‘No’ sometimes, it makes our 'Yes' more valuable.

• It makes it more likely that when we do say 'Yes', we will deliver.

• We avoid commitments that we are not willing to keep

Are there times you said 'Yes', but should have said 'No’? What was the cost/impact? Should you be saying ‘No’ more often? What would it take to do that?

Clarity is often missing in our agreements. The clearer you can be about what you are saying 'Yes' (or no) to, the higher the quality of your 'Yes'. Eg. I’ll get back to you soon is less clear than I’ll get back to you by COB. Clear agreements set clear expectations and are easier to deliver and/or manage.

Clarity = tangible agreements

Have you ever said 'Yes' when timing, quality, scope, responsibility, resources (or other details} were unclear? What impact does lack of clarity have on you, your team and others?

For this week, focus on improving the quality of your ‘'Yes'’. When asking others for a ‘'Yes'’, be clearer about what you are asking.

Expedient?

How much pressure are you under to get things done?

Many leaders are experiencing increasing transactional cadence. The rate that things pop into the “to-do’ list is intense. It has us asking ourselves what the most expedient way to deal with each item is. I reckon it’s the wrong question. The quickest way to a result sometimes creates second or third order consequences that consume more time, energy and resources than a little more initial effort might have.

In my front yard right now there’s a large messy hole. The team that installed soak wells and paving did a great job. It looked awesome. But through winter there’s been issues with drainage. Today they dug part of it up to find the problem. A quick compaction job to finish the original job, rather than return another day, left a hollow air space under a pipe. The pipe slumped into the hole and no longer ran freely. It will be a full day to fix, and a fair bit of mess to clean up afterwards.

Some of the leaders I work with are either doing similar, or people in their teams are.

Sending a text rather than meeting about a critical tweak got things moving immediately, but the team is now redoing a heap of work because it was misunderstood.

Assuming someone had been included in a major project briefing, rather than directly checking now has a team buried in contentious stakeholder management, because residents were not informed of a major project nearby.

A customer issue has escalated to a major complaint and standoff after a rushed approach to finding out what the real issue was.

A colleague's motivation has dropped because she wasn’t included in the celebration of a piece of work she majorly contributed too.

These are all examples of time, energy and resource waste because something was done in what appeared to be the expedient way, only to cause more consequences. Most of them could have been avoided with a bit more though before rushing to the desired end point.

Sometimes we have to slow down to go faster. It’s a lesson I find myself learning more often than I’d like. How about you? Where could you slow down to go faster?

The Missing Link

One of the teams I’ve been working with has a great feedback culture. They ask for it and give it. They clearly valued feedback and made it part of how they work together. They also give lots of positive feedback, and often pause to self-reflect - sometimes giving themselves feedback about something they could improve.

And yet all of them said the same thing. The feedback they received was hard to use.

Actionable detail is the missing link. Feedback is more valuable if it is actionable. The more specific the better.

“You did a great job today” is feedback, but not useful. “You did a great job today. The specialist information you brought to the meeting, and the way you broke it down for non specialists really helped our colleagues understand what was needed. You left them with a clear path for action too. Thank you and keep it up.” is much more useful.

“I need you to step up” is feedback that’s not useful. “When we met on site today, you hung in the background and didn’t raise any of the issues you have previously highlighted. Could you take a more active role in leading the project. Next time could you bring the issues up for discussion and guide the resolution. I can offer support if you need a hand to prep.”

If you’d like a tool for giving more useful feedback, let me know and I’ll send it through.

5.6:1

Years ago I saw this research by Losada and friends which says the highest performing teams give almost 6 times more positive than negative feedback. How these numbers were derived has copped lots of scrutiny and criticism, but I reckon that completely misses the point.

The ‘work’ of making a team excel, is in alignment. The clearer our shared expectations of things like behaviour, standards, targets, the more likely we can achieve them. Lack of clarity burns time, energy and resources. Knowing what a great job looks like and why is way more important than what substandard looks like.

Positive feedback clearly sends a message that we care about each other and value the good stuff. We’ve all experienced places where people only seem to speak up if there is a problem or a criticism - and never seem to notice people’s good work.

I reckon most of us have room to improve when it comes to this ratio. I know I do. And rather than focus on the number - focus on clarity. “Is what we tell each other about performance clear enough that we can take action on it? Do we emphasise good work more than things we need to improve?” Those are effective questions. P.S the same ideas work well in our personal relationships too.

Next week we’ll talk more about the clarity and quality of feedback.

Socks and Psychological Safety

One of the most embarrassing moments I’ve had as an adult happened a number of years ago when I bought some new socks (that wasn’t the embarrassing bit). I left them sitting on our kitchen bench for many days. One day, I was short of socks, so I went to the bench to find them. They weren’t there. I assumed my dear wife had cleared them up and put them somewhere. I asked her where they were and she said she had no idea. Then it got embarrassing - I got cranky and started asking her how the hell she could forget where she had put them when she had clearly moved them. It wasn’t my finest hour, and at the time I found it really hard to let it go. Some time later it got even more embarrassing when I found the socks and discovered that it was me who had moved them, and me who had forgotten where. It took a while to repair our relationship after I had acted so poorly.

I was thinking of this incident recently when working with a team who have some fractures in their team culture right now because people aren’t behaving at their best. Like me back then, they have been treating each other in less than ideal ways. It’s pretty human to want to avoid admitting and taking responsibility when we haven’t behaved at our best. It’s also pretty human to want to fire back, rather than extend grace and forgiveness when people treat you poorly (even more so if there’s zero justification for it). It can take a team quickly in a downward spiral where defensiveness, blame, and sniping become the new norm. It gets in the way of both productive effectiveness and team cohesiveness.

One simple principle is “Play the problem, not the person.”

Chunking Up

When I was working in the disability service sector, I was asked to get involved with a family whose services were not going well. More particularly, the mother of a young adult we were supporting did not think they were going well. She had made a number of complaints. I was told “they are a problem family” and warned that I would not be likely to get a reasonable response from mum. I was appreciative of the warning, but I reckon it wasn’t particularly helpful, as it predisposed me to an adversarial conversation. A few people before me had been in vigorous arguments with her about the service and not reached any suitable solutions. Mostly the interactions led to more complaints.

When I first met mum she was angry about a lot of things. She was entirely justified about a number of them. The volume of things she was unhappy about was big and some of the things were not solvable, so I chunked up. Chunking up is moving away from detail toward principle. If you go far enough, you eventually find territory where instead of arguing 2 sides, you both agree. For that mum and me it was that we both cared about high quality of life for her son.

Chunking up to a point of agreement allows two (or more) people to get away from adversarial positions and start on the same side. If you can find a bigger principle that is true for both and connect about that, then it’s easier to work back down into the details. Look at the details through the principle. “Does (detail) contribute or erode higher quality of life?” is a more useful conversation than arguing head to head over details. It becomes easier to see what is important to both parties, what should be fought for, and what should be compromised.

It took a number of sessions, immediate actions on some stuff that wasn’t great, more proactive changes and compromises for both of us, before everyone was satisfied with the service.

Where could you chunk up for a more effective conversation?

Inviting Response

An Executive leader recently noticed something in one of my workshops. He asked “When someone in the room asks a question or makes a comment, you seem to either agree or say something positive before commenting or answering, even if you don't agree with them. Is that deliberate?”

I love this kind of question from someone who is simultaneously engaging with content, plus observing the detail of what is happening in the room. That’s a useful skill to cultivate. And his observation was spot on. Some of the things I might say are:

• That’s a really interesting story, thanks for sharing it.

• Thanks for your question.

• Tell me more about…

• I can see how (reflect observation) would be potentially challenging in your context.

• Thanks for your insights.

• Thanks for your thoughtful response.

• I see, help me understand more about the impact of that.

Even when I strongly disagree with a perspective, it’s rare that I will immediately take an oppositional perspective without exploring further. For leaders, whatever the context, we have an overweighted share of creating (or damaging) psychological safety. I want people to interact, ask, challenge, respond. If I immediately disagree with them, or take a black and white opposing view, I immediately degrade the likelihood that others will speak or ask anything. Inviting dialogue can be challenging when we directly disagree, but if we shut people down, it doesn’t change their point of view. It shuts the gate on open participation, driving the real conversation underground and out of view.

How do you encourage open dialogue in your context? How do you handle contentious perspectives?

Thanks Paul for the thought provoking observation and question.

Chunking up

Feedback

How’s feedback working in your team?

When I ask teams about improving how well they work together, feedback almost always shows up in the conversation. Most teams tell me there is not enough feedback, or that it’s low quality. Ideally feedback is clear and specific enough that you can do something useful with it. In effective teams (ones where there are competent people and not much in the way of toxic behaviour), getting better at feedback is a great way to level up. But while a lot of us would like more (or better) feedback, hardly anyone gets excited about giving it. We shy away from it, concerned about negative reactions or hurting people’s feelings.

One of the best ways I know to change that dynamic is to start giving people clear and useful feedback about the great work they are doing as well as the stuff that needs improving. You’ll build a culture where feedback feels safe, and people feel valued whatever the nature of feedback you are giving.

Teams that nail this have a ratio of about 5X more positive feedback than corrective feedback.

What do you reckon the ratio is in your team?

The Gap

Some Aussie front line workers colourfully describe the office as ‘Bullshit Castle’. The castle might be HQ in another city, or the supervisors office. When they tell me more, the story is always about directives issued with no operational perspective. In the same organisations, leaders are often looking back the other way with low confidence about how business is being done on the front line. Clarity is low. Frustration (and/or scepticism) is high. Do-overs are frequent. It’s hard to get a complete picture of what's going on, because trust is like unicorn horn!

There’s a continuum at play. At one end, I reckon just about every organisation experiences some mild form of the above. It doesn’t cause major issues, but it slows everything down. At the other end there are highly toxic environments where people rarely bring their best and collaborative work is non-existent.

Where does your organisation sit on the continuum? Whether you have a vast icy wilderness to cross, or already great pathways, enhancing psychological safety will move you in the right direction.

I’d love to hear what’s working for you, and where the frustrations are.

What it Takes

I was invited to observe a team meeting today as part of work building on their already robust psychological safety. Four significant elements of how they work together really stood out.

1. Recognition - All sorts of things were recognised. New hires, project milestones, people’s skill and contribution, a recent big push on a project involving lots of extra time and covering for people who are away. No rose coloured glasses here though. Fatigue, mental health, a significant safety incident, concerns about links between HQ and operations were also openly discussed. There was ample celebration, but also deep dives into real and significant issues that deserved attention.

2. Up for the challenge - Several times people raised challenges to decisions, processes, people. The challengers spoke openly and directly. No one took offence. More often than not their challenge was met with open and curious questions seeking to understand their perspective more fully. Contributions were welcomed and explored.

3. Marking the Boundaries - At every opportunity people shared information, purpose, backstory, decision making parameters, reasoning and more (often as part of the challenge conversations). Everybody contributed to a more complete team view of what was happening, what was expected and what value they could add.

4. People took responsibility - When action was required someone put their hand up to own it. Timelines and detail were given. Follow up was arranged. Lots was getting done. People volunteered for this responsibility without prompting. It seemed expected and normal.

This team is quite a contrast to some others I have worked in and with. The kinds of contributions made by every individual in this meeting are often nowhere to be seen. One way traffic from the ‘chair’ coupled with defensive conversation and lack of accountability are more often the picture.

If you could pick one of the points above to focus on with your team, which would it be?

If you’d like to discuss building psychological safety in your team or organisation, let's have a chat.

Leading Voices

Quality leaders are able to share strongly held opinions, backed by quality information. When they do it well, there’s also an acknowledgement of other perspectives and an invitation to a deeper conversation. Done well, it provides both Psychological Safety to enter the discussion and also a clear direction from the leader. Psychological Safety does not mean watered down leadership, or the lack of robust debate.

Australia is on the verge of an historic vote on the Voice to Parliament. There are a range of strongly held perspectives on this. Unfortunately, a lot of the discussion is polarised and adversarial rather than as described above. This from Braden Hill is a great example of excellent leadership as described above. What do you think? How could you emulate this kind of leadership in your roles?

A Cautionary Tale

I was called in to facilitate a discussion between six team members from a settlement agency in a small open plan office. On a daily basis, they relied on each other for information, and to ensure timely settlements took place.

As with any workplace, there were a number of characters who would be unlikely to have much to do with each other outside work. Over the course of about two years, what started as a minor issue escalated to a full-blown investigation into bullying allegations. The heightened state of friction and tension in the office was causing significant performance issues, both individually and across the whole business. Balls were being dropped, and financial penalties were being applied due to non-delivery. The business was not dealing particularly well with the issue, and there was even the possibility of a massive escalation of the original complaint.

There were two issues that had once been minor, and had been allowed to escalate to the stage where they threatened work effectiveness, performance, peoples’ health, and the very company itself. The first was a personality clash that was exaggerated by the open plan office environment and sloppy personal and organisational management. Two people would spend large amounts of time talking about social situations and their personal lives. The kinds of conversations we all have over coffee, a meal or after work. The fact that it was during work time and in an open workspace had another colleague attempting to join the conversation. The others didn’t want to include her in the conversation. So far this is a minor issue.

Over time she felt increasingly excluded and marginalised from the conversations. She tried harder to join them. The other two increasingly shunned her and eventually escalated their behaviour to the point that a bullying and harassment complaint was made and the subsequent investigation found that they had not treated their colleague appropriately. Going forward there was considerable and difficult work required to repair the fractured relationships to the point that they could work effectively together again. Success would now require significant commitment, effort and willing participation from all parties.

In parallel, the person who eventually made the bullying complaint had several genuine performance issues with her work. Her manager had not dealt with these, and they too had escalated until the situation was untenable.

But the time I was involved, it was pretty much impossible for the manager to deal with any of the performance issues, without them being seen as an extension of the bullying the woman was experiencing. It seemed unlikely that the various players could find a space to move on from the issues. Their demeanour and attitudes suggested they would just continue to escalate their part in the drama.

Both issues could have been easily dealt with when they were hotspots or small tears. Like many in the face of tension, friction or conflict, the manager and others had avoided the issue for so long it had become largely unsalvageable.

The manager (and others) could have taken action to clarify expectations, set the bar, and catch it early. They could have:

• Addressed the issue of excessive social chat in the open plan work environment, especially when the conversations were not intended to be shared with everyone. Simply leaving these conversations for a morning coffee break or lunch would have made the issue disappear before it got traction.

• Addressed the performance issues as soon as they were noticed - initially by asking if the person needed support or clarification of their role, and ultimately through formal performance management if needed.

• Had a whole team conversation about expectations and behaviour in the open plan environment which would have enabled the team to set and monitor their own benchmarks for healthy ways of working together and getting the job done, as in the next case study.