1. Managing Workplace Conflict at DOI: A shared responsibility
Presented by Elena Gonzalez, Director
Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution
For more information, go to our website at
Or call us at

2. Presentation Objectives:
Introduction to CADR office
Evolution of Dispute Resolution in the workplace
Integrated Conflict Management Approach at DOI
Where have we been?
Where are we going?
Why?

3. Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution
Established in October 2001
Under Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, reporting to Scott Cameron, DAS for Performance, Accountability and Human Resources
CADR carries out the Department’s responsibilities under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996:
Director is the Dispute Resolution Specialist for DOI
Responsible for implementation of DOI’s ADR Policy
Broad policy since 1994 encouraging use of early consensus-building, ADR and negotiated rulemaking in all areas of DOI’s work
Independent internal resource and coordinating point for development and implementation of alternative dispute resolution systems

4. CADR’s vision:
To integrate the use of collaborative problem-solving and ADR processes into our daily operations so conflicts and disputes are prevented and resolved at the earliest opportunity and at the lowest possible level, whenever practicable.
Promote a culture where adversarial adjudications and litigation are used when appropriate and necessary, but not as the default method of resolving problems.
ADR processes are important in all areas of our work, but our focus today is on workplace issues.

5. What is ADR? ADR = Alternative dispute resolution.
Traditional method of dispute resolution is formal adjudication of rights such as court lititgation or administrative adjudication.
Simplest definition: The term ADR refers to a spectrum of dispute resolution processes other than the traditional methods of formal adjudication, which can be used to informally prevent, manage and resolve conflicts.
Most common ADR process is mediation.
In general, ADR processes are more flexible, more creative, and less adversarial than adjudication. Parties keep more control over the process and the resolution. You match the process to the problem.

6. Evolution of Dispute Resolution to Conflict Management
Organizations generally move through four phases in addressing conflict:
Phase 1: Absence of Defined Organizational Dispute Resolution Processes (Power based methods - often lose-lose)
Phase 2: Rights based methods, e.g. Grievance Processes and Adjudication of complaints – argue positions and rights and get a decision (often win-lose)
Phase 3: Interest based methods, e.g. problem-solving approaches - parties work together to resolve disputes by focusing on their underlying interests, and seeking mutually acceptable resolutions, e.g. joint problem-solving or mediation (can be win-win)
Phase 4: Integrated Conflict Management Systems – provides options for all types of problems and all people

7. Effective Integrated conflict management systems:
Recognize conflict is inevitable, better for organization to surface concerns and address them constructively – unresolved conflict reduces morale and productivity and leads to disputes
A systematic approach to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts
Coordinate options and structures across areas and functions
Integrate effective conflict management into the organization’s daily operations
Build in preventive methods to address sources of conflicts e.g access to reliable information, communication, education
Create a culture that welcomes concerns and constructive dissent and encourages informal resolution at the earliest opportunity and the lowest possible level through direct negotiation – focuses on problem-solving and reduces the need to frame problem as a violation of a legal right
Provide multiple access points and multiple options for addressing all types of problems for all people in the workplace – both rights based and interest based options should be available
Is understandable to all, flexible and user friendly

8. EEO CADR Human Resources Solicitor’s Office EAP Union Supervisor IG
Listen
Provide Information
Help reframe issues and develop options
Refer
Coach
Mediate
Solicitor’s Office
EAP
Here’s a different visual – my attempt to create the web that we were trying to create as an example of an ICMS – it has to be more than separate and sometime competing programs – it needs to communicate between and with each other.
Bethesda Naval Hospital recently created the position of Organization Ombuds/Mediator to deal with a variety of issues:
workplace concerns
Patient care issues
95% of her work is with patient care issues, because that is directly related to the mission of the hospital
NIH’s ombuds deals primarily with disputes between research scientists that left unresolved, seriously affect the agency’s mission
Union
Supervisor IG

9. Spectrum of Conflict Management Options
Outcome prediction
Facilitated
mediation
conciliation
group processes
informal go-between
Fact-Finding
No outcome
prediction
Advisory
Problem Solving
interest based negotiation
interest based advocacy
conflict coaching
developing options
generating solutions
Hybrids
Preventive
open door policy
interest based training
education
communication
union/management councils
ombudsperson
Med/Arb
Mandatory
Options
Expedited
Processes
neutral evaluation
complaint investigation
listening
referring
giving and receiving information
system change
leadership
performance evaluation
all- party support
rewards
upward feedback
Rights
neutral adjudication
appeals channels
©PDG Personnel Direction Group Inc.
With acknowledgement to C. Costantino,
and C. Sickles Merchant

10. History of Workplace ADR in DOI - same four phases
Rights based methods – grievance, eeo complaints, etc.
In 2000, Department rolled out two ADR programs-mediation focus: CORE (Personnel program) and EEO PLUS (EEO program) to supplement complaint processes.
Each program provided bureaus with different guidance, standards, operating procedures, forms, training requirements, sources of neutrals, promotional materials, tracking and evaluation systems.
During ADR review in 2001, found inconsistent and uneven implementation from bureau to bureau and between geographic regions and offices.
Heard concerns about confusion, lack of resources to support operation of both programs, lack of coordination, different standards, guidance and operating procedures.
No independent resource responsible for coordinating alternative dispute resolution options.

11. Moving to a more integrated approach
CADR office charged to develop and coordinate implementation of one unified ADR system involving HR, EEO, SOL, OIG, and all bureaus
Move from competing ADR programs to a model of shared responsibility for managing conflict in the workplace – desire for one comprehensive system for addressing workplace concerns that is available to all employees for all types of issues and includes multiple options for addressing concerns
reduce administrative redundancy, improve employee satisfaction and customer service, reduce the direct and indirect costs associated with unresolved conflicts and adjudication of disputes, increase and improve use of interest based options and rights based options
CADR established a design team involving all stakeholders to build an integrated conflict management system - easily accessible to all DOI employees through multiple access points to address any employment concern at the earliest opportunity and the lowest possible level

12. Why offer more options ?
To be effective, organization needs interest based and rights based approaches to resolving disputes.
Rights based processes are necessary and most appropriate option for seeking redress of a violation of law or unfair treatment
-some employees prefer this method of resolution
Options for preventing or using Interest based processes are:
-More flexible and allow parties more control over process/outcome
-more informal, can be used early, at lowest level
-faster and less expensive
-more effective solutions with less damage to workplace relationships
-allow for more creative solutions that may not be available through rights-based processes
-parties may be more satisfied with process and outcome - more committed to agreement reached

13. More benefits of multiple options . .
-may provide redress for issues that don’t fit well in actionable category (not every issue fits into a rights based process)
-reduce burden on rights based processes and allow rights based systems to function more efficiently for those who use them
-provide ways for employees to come forward with information about problems such as safety, drug and alcohol abuse, theft, potential violence, management concerns, problems with organizational structure or procedures, without fear of being swept into an adversarial process
-foster skills that enhance teamwork and reinforce positive organizational values

14. Continued . . .
-help reduce turf battles within the organization and respect diversity
-provides avenues to surface employment related issues that destroy morale and reduce productivity if left unresolved

15. Design of InterioResolutioNetwork (IRN)
Assessment Phase-review and inquiry
Leadership Commitment to new approach
Workplace design team formed, trained together and reached consensus on all key issues to design a model for an integrated conflict management system for DOI-tailored
Model presented to an executive committee and to bureau leadership and approved
Implementation of IRN and transition from CORE and EEO Plus

16. IRN – Key components
Understandable and easy to use – one coordinated system with links between resources
Employees will be able to access consistent information on options available to them and make informed choices on how to address any problem
Multiple access points – through supervisor, HR, EEO, SOL,OIG, EAP, CADR, Bureau ADR contacts, website
Available to all employees (supervisors, managers, staff members, professionals)
Includes all types of problems and concerns, even if they don’t fit within a complaint process
Multiple options available/match the approach to the problem
Establishes easy access to assistance and qualified third party neutrals, if needed

17. Next Steps Implementation and transition phase
CADR to convene a national implementation team
plans to be developed by January with all stakeholders engaged
Phased roll-out by bureaus, and SOL and OS together ( over months)
When implemented, the IRN will replace CORE and EEO PLUS programs and CADR office will be the central coordinating point

18. What is happening now?
Pre-launch activity:
Fill workplace coordinator position in CADR- vacancy announcement closes on Sept. 30
Identifying implementation team members
Drafting new DM Chapter on IRN and SOP handbook
Roster of qualified internal neutrals and access to external neutrals
Orientation program - CD Rom being developed to introduce IRN.
Developing communication tools and promotional materials for use by all
Planning training to support IRN implementation
For more information, go to our website at
Developing electronic tracking and evaluation systems with EEO and HR
Including IRN in revised administrative grievance procedures

19. Keys to Success
Systems’ success is a shared responsibility – all of us working together: employees, managers, eeo counselors, attorneys, union reps, hr specialists
Constant communication and coordination between all components at Departmental level and with bureaus
Must be willing to experiment, monitor results, solicit honest feedback, and make adjustments as we learn – continuous improvement
Value communication, education and training
Must all communicate a consistent message about the kind of workplace we are committed to at DOI

20. None of us is as smart as all of us.
Japanese proverb.