Category Archives: marginalized youth

How to effectively navigate difficult conversations at work

difficult conversation
Photo by Thomas Kinto on Unsplash

What are difficult conversations?

Difficult conversations are those where a real or imagined fear of addressing a serious matter is equal to or supersedes the issue itself. In the workplace, this could be mediating a conflict between colleagues, confronting allegations of misconduct, placing an employee on leave as a result of an investigation, and involuntary termination. Difficult conversations tremendously impact one or more of a person’s basic needs and can result in shame, embarrassment, feelings of incompetence, or anger. Although these immediate outcomes are all possible, they can be alleviated.

Address difficult conversations as soon as possible

Issues at work grow in scope and scale the longer they go unaddressed. They can even take on a life of their own. Coworkers and even customers and clients can feel rising tensions. This was of particular concern in the group home for youth I oversaw where clients were around 24/7. Residents overheard quarrels and took sides, making matters worse. This created a toxic work environment and derailed the program’s purpose. Immediately addressing issues minimizes this risk. It also builds employee trust. A quick and prudent intervention shows that management is both confident and competent in maintaining a harmonious, safe, and ethical workplace. It supports and validates those who live and breath your mission.

Document, document, document

Difficult conversations are usually preceded by one or more notable events worthy of documentation. Hindsight is 20/20. The trick is to have 20/20 foresight. The way to facilitate difficult conversations is to sense potential personnel issues before they reach critical mass. Address and document precursors. Take the warning signs seriously. It is imperative to document supervisions and warnings. Documentation provides evidence to support an impending difficult conversation. All parties should sign all documented conversations. Signatures acknowledge that a conversation took place.

Have a policy on staff conduct

Explicit rules and expectations on employee conduct and how personnel issues are addressed send a clear message that attitude and behavior matter to the organization and are enforced. My management and leadership experience was with unionized staff. Most managers shudder at the mention of a union. HR and the union helped me resolve personnel matters in accordance with a set of rules. Yes, I sometimes could not terminate unfit employees sooner than desired. At the same time, all employees felt safe knowing that there were clear procedures.

Be fair

There is nothing more important than when employees feel that they have been fairly treated. It reached the point where even my union steward felt I was sometimes too lenient. This was to my advantage. I have had the unfortunate task of involuntarily terminating staff and not one resulted in a grievance. On the contrary, most resulted in a parting handshake with no hard feelings. Some even thanked me for the opportunity as they walked out the door. Staff knew that if they were being let go–except in cases of gross misconduct where termination was immediate–that any of the following had previously occurred: supervision, previous warnings, EAP referral, corrective action, and collaboration between the union steward and management. In other words, there were no surprises and therefore little for management to fear.

Bring in a 3rd party

Include a 3rd party or observer when conducting difficult conversations. In my case, it was the union steward and my assistant director. As a manager I was not in the union, however, the union steward protected me as much as the employee. He became a trusted advisor in handling personnel issues. A 3rd party is recommended for several reasons. First, there is a witness in case of future litigation. Second is professionalism. The meeting can be debriefed and reviewed. The third is safety. If one is having difficulty advancing the conversation the other can take the lead role. In the event of a complete communication breakdown, the 3rd party can mediate or stop the meeting. In general, we are more likely to be on good behavior when we know there are witnesses.

It isn’t personal, it’s about the company

Leaders or managers who stand behind a clear purpose or mission have an easier time addressing difficult conversations because it is not personal. It’s about the company’s purpose. Having an overarching focus on something greater than the individual parties involved puts the matter at hand into perspective. It depersonalizes the situation. In my case, the program I led was responsible for the care and welfare of 20 at-risk youth. The program was situated in the middle of a residential area with friendly but wary neighbors. Trust was everything. All staff knew that any safety or security breach or conduct violation warranted a potentially difficult discussion. Employees were dedicated and passionate about helping young people. The program was well respected by the funding source, the company, and competing NGOs. Employees enjoyed working there as was evidenced by a staff retention rate 3 times higher than the national average.

More tips on handling difficult conversations

For additional practical tips on handling difficult conversations check out articles from Psychology Today and Forbes.

About the author

Jean-Pierre is a Human Systems Expert, Process Facilitator, Youth Specialist, and Speaker. He optimizes employee engagement and leadership potential by counseling leaders and enhancing group dynamics. He is the creator of the EPIC Model of development and the author of What You Can Learn from Your Teenager: Lessons in Parenting and Personal Growth.

 

Relationship: How the word undermines itself

Relationship
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Relationships define who we are

Relationships are vital to human existence. They take on numerous forms in families and partnerships and exist in all systems. We are essentially in some degree of relationship with somebody at any point in time. Much of how we define ourselves and others is through relationships.

Here is an example: I am a mother, wife, sister, vegetarian, painter, swimmer, and writer. Some of these categories describe what the person does. However, all identify her as someone similar to others. At least one other person is like her in some way and sometimes that has more meaning than the activity or classification itself. We even conceptualize and make decisions about experiences and objects with one another, whether buying a consumer product or deciding where to go on holiday.

Hierarchical relationships can lead to injustices

Human relationships can be hierarchal and have certain responsibilities associated with each person or group involved. The level of hierarchy and degree of responsibility is subjective. Outside influences such as culture, race, gender, or tradition usually have a significant influence on this decision as well.

Look at the definition of relationship by Oxford Dictionary. Complications can arise with definition 1.2 which reads as follows:

“The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other.” 

Herein lies the potential for maltreatment between individuals and groups. How one party regards the other will influence how that party behaves towards the other. Likewise, how one party is being treated by the other will influence how it regards that party. Here are some examples of relationships where hierarchies do or may exist:

parent-child              teacher-student               employer-employee     doctor-patient          prison guard-prisoner             clerk-customer              wealthy-poor          educated-non-educated      

With real or perceived hierarchy, either party can easily lose sight that both are human and have shared needs. By putting aside how they are perceived through title and status, each is better able to see the other as a person. This makes the obvious visible. Perceived or real abuse of power quickly diminishes the ability and need to relate and understand one another as humans.

Relationships are first and foremost human

We often forget that our most basic relationship to one another is human to human. We tend to make it relational by making it title to title, status to status, or label to label. Forgetting this simple fact puts any individual and group relationship at risk of unjust treatment. Our humanness always exists in any relationship regardless of the nature of the relationship.

A new word like humanship or personship needs to replace the second part of definition 1.2–how we behave towards each other–to help remind everyone that our most fundamental connection is human to human. This is necessary to minimize unhealthy and harmful relationships. How are you humanly treating the other person in the relationship is the more important question. This question minimizes the harmful impact of real or perceived abuses of hierarchy. It can help stop the abuse of power or the mistreatment of others in dysfunctional relationships.

For example, a wealthy person may feel superior to someone of lower economic status, purely because of the definition of the relationship, which differentiates between the amount of accumulated wealth and purchasing power ability. The definition of the relationship alone points out differences of status which can influence unjust attitudes and treatment of one another. Another example could be a school principal seeing her role as more important to the janitor due to the differences in job title, position on an organizational chart, and responsibilities. In both cases, the relationship does not diminish the fact that each person has their value in the system.

Limit the definition of the word relationship

The word relationship should just describe how two people or groups are connected and not describe attitudes and behaviors towards each other. Why? Because of the differing roles and duties—more so when hierarchy exists—inherent in relationships can diminish one’s ability to regard and treat the other as a person. One can be easily consumed by how the roles in the relationship should be played out according to societal norms, disregarding the human element. Let’s revisit some previous examples by replacing the word “relationship” with the words humanship/personship to describe how one regards and behaves towards the other.

Using humanship/personship to clarify humanness

My relationship to Mary is that she is unemployed and begging. I pass by her each day on my way to work. What is your personship to Mary? My personship to Mary is one of acknowledgment and concern as she is a person with the same human needs as me. I greet her and occasionally give her some change.

What is your relationship to John? John is our school janitor. How is your humanship like with John? My humanship to John is appreciative and respectful. His contribution to the school’s maintenance and cleanliness is imperative in creating a positive learning environment. I tell him that often.

For the sake of all relationships, the word we use to define how individuals and groups regard and treat one another needs to stress commonalities and humanness and not denote differences or hierarchy. The word relationship, by its definition, undermines that goal as people and groups are in numerous forms of relationships where differences, not similarities, are highlighted. The words personship or humanship keeps our fundamental connection to one another as person to person or human to human. This helps improve any relationship by ensuring positive regard and proper treatment of one another regardless of the relationship. Using either personship or humanship removes the hierarchical status inherent in most relationships and with it superior attitudes and behavior that may arise.

We are always behaving to fulfill shared basic human needs regardless of the relationship we are in when doing so. Next time you are asked “What is your relationship like with …..?” begin your answer with “My personship/humanship with….” Notice if there is a difference in how you conceptualized the relationship. How did your attitude and behaviors change toward the person or group?

Basic needs bind us all regardless of our relationship to one another
Basic needs bind us all regardless of our relationship to one another

Why are teens drawn to ISIS?

How the public perceives teens after having joined ISIS gives invaluable clues as to why they may have joined in the first place.

The media and the world are asking why teens of the western world would leave their cozy homes to join the ranks of ISIS and aid them. This phenomenon is occurring in numerous westernized countries: United States, Norway, Australia, France, and Austria. I am examining the case of two female teens from Austria, Samra (left) and Sabina (right), who both left Austria in April 2014 to join ISIS.

Samra and Sabina both left Austria in April 2014 to join ISIS

According to media sources, Samra and Sabina are children of Bosnian immigrants raised in Vienna. Stories of teens fleeing westernized countries to assist ISIS are mainly immigrants or children of immigrant families of Muslim faith. Some also convert to Islam prior to going. Considering the extensive and prolonged war between US-led coalitions and the Middle East, how accepted and integrated are youth and families of Muslim faith living as expats, refugees, and asylees in westernizing countries?

Having worked with teens in conflict with the law for more than a decade, I am naturally drawn to media attention given to teens. Unfortunately, the press teens receive is usually negative, perpetuating harmful teen stereotypes. Here is yet another example of how public criticism on teens choosing to aid ISIS further alienates marginalized youth.

Articles on teens joining ISIS had little insight into my first question. I then became curious about the comments readers were making about teens joining ISIS and particularly about Samra and Sabina. Would the comments be of concern and understanding or hatred and retribution? To my dismay, I was saddened, shocked, and even disturbed by what I read. Some words and expressions are explicit and I apologize, however, I wanted you to read what could be the underlying issue at hand.

Samra and Sabina were described as “weak minded, creatures, dim-witted, unsophisticated, stupid little girls, stupid cows, little Evil/nasty bitches, and dirty little whores”. One female commentator went as far as calling them a “stupid pair of TWATS and brain dead whores.” Another commentator hoped “they returned to Austria in body bags”, while another posted, “kill them and their offspring.” Some blamed the parents and even wanted them prosecuted for aiding terrorists. The hatred in these comments was palpable.

After reading about a hundred or so such comments, I began to feel disenchanted until I saw this post that confirmed my belief about the first question and reconfirmed my sanity and belief in humankind.

“What was happening in their lives before they left their homes? How could they have become so disenchanted with their lives at such a young age, that leaving all and everyone they know was seen as a better life? Questions must be raised at how no one noticed such a change in them. Was there no one talking or taking notice of them. It seems that the only time they felt special to anyone was when fed the ISIS way of thoughts. How very sad for society today. There are probably many young people who are easy meat ready to be converted with empty promises because they have nothing else in their lives to live for.”

This reader was able—with compassion and care— to see root causes of their decisions and trying to take ownership, versus being a detached judge, angry jury, and at times stone-cold executioner. She was looking for a proactive social answer, not a reactive and punitive one. She raises several pertinent questions and the question I had was:  Were these girls and other teens who joined ISIS already disenchanted beforehand, feeling the same and being treated the same as the comments made about them after they joined ISIS? Before engaging with ISIS who was:

Reaching out to them?

Talking to them?

Noticing them?

Making them feel like they belonged?

Making them feel valued and worthy?

Only others (i.e. family, peers, neighborhoods, communities, schools, agencies, and businesses) can answer these fundamental questions. Was society’s response sufficient enough in addressing these existential needs? That is uncertain, however, ISIS was there to fill this void for them.

Extreme groups take advantage of those who feel extremely unaccepted, unloved, and misunderstood because they are desperately seeking extreme ways to satisfy prolonged unmet basic needs. The basic needs of belonging and power (feeling worthwhile to self and others) are very much present in adolescents. If teens cannot find socially responsible outlets to have their basic needs met, then they are vulnerable to extreme and radical groups. ISIS is not the only radical group out there looking for people who are desperately finding a place and purpose.

This happened regularly with the young men I worked with who were either gang involved or seeking gang involvement. They looked to these groups to belong, to feel loved, and purposeful. Some did it for survival (selling drugs and stealing). Many were minorities, immigrants, or children of immigrants living in less than desirable neighborhoods.

Being a “somebody” regardless of how it manifests, is far more desirable than being a “nobody”. Similarly, negative attention is better than no attention. Being neglected, dehumanized, discriminated against, and degraded is severely damaging to one’s sense of self and can have equally damaging repercussions, which brings us back to the public’s comments about Samra and Sabina.

Presuming both are alive and reasonably well (there are rumors of one being dead), how do these comments help marginalized teens— who only later see the gravity of their decision—feel included, wanted, and purposeful? They don’t.

Social workers and Austrian Muslims have joined together to “dereadicalize” young people who have been to Syria, or having thoughts of fighting with ISIS. The goal is to connect them and their families with community agencies and resources to discourage them from extremism. You can read more at www.thelocal.at.

This is a good first step, however, the real impact in helping teens like Samra and Sabina starts with us. What kind of daily interactions are marginalized youth having with you, neighbors, teachers, law enforcement, passersby, peers, and store clerks? Are we, as a community, adequately addressing the 5 questions above, or are we passively and actively inviting and letting extremists do so?

We blame ISIS or other radical and harmful groups consisting of hundreds and even thousands of brainwashing youth, but when a young person decides to join the ranks of any anti-social group we are quick to punish the individual—even the parents—but no one else. If a community of extremists can be blamed for taking advantage of impressionable and alienated youth, why are the communities from which these young people come also not blamed in part for creating an environment that pushes them to seek out, engage with, and ultimately join radical groups?
end356_()