Three assessment criteria for resolving a protracted leadership conflict

Recently I came across a case in which three assessment criteria played a crucial role in resolving a long-standing leadership conflict. At TechSolutions BV, a medium-sized technology company, tensions arose within the Software Development department over a long period of time. Several employees had filed complaints about their manager, Mark Jansen, over a long period of time. The core of these complaints concerned three main points: intimidating behavior, belittling employees during team meetings and creating an unsafe working atmosphere. Several of the employees had requested a transfer to another department out of dissatisfaction. Because the problems had been going on for a long time, Mark had had several conversations with an internal coach last year. However, two complaints recently emerged again. Management decided to start a process in which three assessment criteria played a central role.

The leadership conflict

The TechSolutions management was troubled by the situation. Mark's claims and those of the employees were diametrically opposed. Mark vehemently denied that he had made such statements and accused the complaining employees of having behaved unprofessionally. He emphasized that the department was performing well and achieving its goals despite everything. They felt it was very important to resolve the situation in the short term in order to restore calm and also prevent staff from leaving. At the same time, they wanted to give Mark a fair chance and not to accuse him falsely.

Goal

In order to resolve the situation, director Linda de Vries and HR manager Sophie Bakker were given the task of talking to Mark and five employees involved. Their goal was to get a clear picture of the events and the experiences of all parties. Based on these conversations, they had to give advice on how to resolve the situation.

Approach: three assessment criteria

Linda and Sophie realized that they could not ask Mark to prove his innocence. In their conversations with him, they therefore wanted to gain insight into three assessment criteria:

1. Self-reflection: To what extent did Mark acknowledge his own contribution to the situation? To gain insight into this, they asked questions such as: “Are there things that you now think: I could have done that differently?
2. Problem recognition: To what extent did Mark show that he found the situation unpleasant, not only for himself but also for the employees concerned and the organization? To get to the bottom of this, they asked questions such as: “Can you imagine what these employees have put forward?”, “Are you worried about the situation in the team?”
3. Improvement motivation: To what extent did Mark demonstrate willingness and motivation to change his attitude and behavior and to actively contribute to a solution? To gain insight into this, they asked questions such as: “What steps would you like to take to restore relationships and prevent future problems?”

Findings

During the interviews with the employees, consistent stories emerged about Mark's authoritarian style and lack of respect for their professional input. Employees gave examples of times when Mark had belittled them during team meetings and intimidated them with threatening remarks. All employees experienced the interviews with Linda and Sophie as pleasant and constructive and agreed with the interview reports.

The conversation with Mark, however, went differently. He continued to deny that there were any problems and blamed the employees, who according to him distorted reality, could not handle criticism and had a lack of work ethic. He showed little to no self-reflection and in no comment showed that he had understanding or empathy for the employees. Moreover, he reacted defensively and accusingly, also towards Linda and Sophie, despite their neutral attitude. For example, he demanded a written apology for a formulation in the invitation email for the conversation that in his opinion was incorrect.

Advice

All conversations were recorded and shared with the people involved. While the employees agreed with the content, Mark demanded that additional sentences with his own comments be added to his report before he would sign. Based on the findings, Linda and Sophie wrote a report to the management in which they recommended that Mark be relieved of his position with immediate effect. Their conclusions were based on the three assessment criteria:

• Self-reflection: None of Mark’s comments showed any insight into his own role in the situation. For example, he never made comments like, “Maybe I could have handled it differently.”
• Problem recognition: He did not acknowledge that there was a problem that affected others. Not once did he express something like, “I regret the whole situation.”
• Improvement motivation: He showed no willingness to change his behavior, but instead made demands such as: “I demand a written apology before I am willing to talk to [departed employee] again.”

They concluded that there was no confidence in the damaged relationships being repaired and that similar problems were likely to recur in the future if Mark were to remain in charge.

Follow-up

The management decided to follow the advice and relieve Mark of his function. With this decision they hoped to improve the working atmosphere within the department and at the same time send a clear signal about the importance of respectful and professional behavior within TechSolutions BV.

Mark decided to challenge this decision in court. However, in the lawsuit, the judge ruled in favor of TechSolutions BV. The judge determined that the management had followed a carefully designed and objective process. The decision-making was well-founded and clearly communicated to all parties involved. Furthermore, the final decision was considered balanced and appropriate, given the seriousness of the situation and the impact on the working atmosphere within the organization.