|
Individual Case Studies - Managing group disputes
North Cumbria Primary Care Trust
The client sought support to overcome a breakdown in partnership working between North Cumbria PCT management and staff side (trade union) representatives.
Each party works under intense pressure and constraints of an internal and external nature. Government policy for change and restructuring is creating a climate of uncertainty and stress for staff in the organisation. Both management and staff side agreed that it is vital that they work together in a constructive manner in order to address future challenges. There existed a willingness to have a frank exchange of views, to learn from past mistakes and to look forward to improving the working relationship.
It was agreed that a meeting facilitated by an independent and external agency would be the first step in addressing the problem.
Management and staff side had met in formal meetings but neither side viewed the meetings as effective or very constructive. Relationships between both sides had deteriorated. The degree to which staff side could be involved in decision-making processes was not clear with resulting confusion and mismatch of expectations on both sides.
The client was only able to set aside 3 hours for a facilitated meeting between staff side and management. Therefore, to maximize the potential of this precious time, the mediator telephone key players on each side prior to the meeting. During this conversation, she listened to each party's account, reflected it and established expectations for the joint meeting. The mediator asked that both parties agree on a spokesperson for each side, and on the order of speaking.
The joint meeting was to be a group session with 3 members of management in attendance and 9 staff side representatives. Both parties were at ease with the unequal number distribution. Before the face-to-face meeting, the mediator sent an outline plan for the session to both of the key players and stated that it could be shared with all participants.
This preparatory work was invaluable in preparing the ground for the joint session. In addition, attention was paid to participants' comfort e.g. ensuring lunch and refreshments were available.
The group worked in plenary in hearing issues, and for exploration of those issues. Then the group divided into subgroups of 3 to consider means of moving forward and proposing solutions. This approach proved extremely effective as it enabled all participants, even the quieter ones, to engage actively with the process. Three participants had to leave early but were able to relay their ideas via the remaining members of their subgroup.
A frank exchange of views, being listened to, acknowledgement of feelings and of misunderstandings, all ensured that the first steps had been made to improving relationships among the participants. Staff side and management recognised the need for improved communication channels, in particular for the development of informal means of interaction. Time needs to be given to develop relationships, to understand each other's roles and to appreciate each other's perspectives, if misunderstandings are to be dealt with quickly and effectively. Both sides agreed that they did not expect 'an easy ride', and that with difficult decisions to be made, they expect to be challenged.
Even those who stated that they had been skeptical or negative when entering the session left saying that it had been very worthwhile and constructive.
|
