193255ba

Begin at the End

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 12:52:29 GMT

When negotiating, people approach the process from many different vantage points. In truth, there are no clear right or wrong approaches. My preference, however, is to always begin with the end in mind.

Traditional negotiation theory stresses understanding your BATNA and WATNA before embarking on a negotiation session. This simply means to have thoroughly assessed your 'best' and 'worst' alternatives to a negotiated arrangement. While we all want to achieve our best alternative, we have to devote equal time to considering the worst possibility. This keeps our minds grounded in reality and logic. I too subscribe to this theory. But I also believe in visualization and the creation of building blocks to bring the vision to life.

When a dispute arises, everyone deserves 24-48 hours to be angry, to grieve, and to thing irrationally. During this time, do not engage with the other party. Nothing good will come from engagement without having clearly thought through the outcome of your words and deeds when you feel highly emotional. After your sound mind returns, begin visualizing how you would prefer to see the dispute resolved. How do you picture negotiating success? Once pictured, it's time to put yourself into the picture!

When I meet with people and discuss the issues before them, I always ask "In a perfect world, how would you like to see this dispute resolved?" Of course, we do not live in a perfect world, and we are not promised to get our every desire. However, knowing what a person desires can help build a framework and approach to negotiations. After discussing the desired end result, ample time should be spent discussing reasonable and acceptable alternatives to this desired end result - aiming to adjust the target to something likely palatable to the other party.

Once you have determined both the desired goal and the acceptable goal, it is time to start negotiating. Beginning with the end in mind, there is no harm in asking for it all! Reach for the perfect end result. As long as that end result doesn't impact the dignity and respect of others, it is fair game (note that hard bargaining negotiators can care less about the dignity of their opposition; I do not subscribe to this style but am aware of it to prepare to adjust to this all-or-nothing approach). Knowing that this desired goal is likely not going to be attainable, you can now start inching towards the acceptable alternative(s) that can hopefully bring the dispute to a just resolution. By beginning with the end in mind, you will have a focused approach to negotiations and have a greater opportunity to reach an optimal conclusion.

Truth is a Defense

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:25:52 GMT

Sometimes we need to tell the truth. You have probably heard it before…truth is a defense to defamation. You have probably heard it before…legal and/or HR says we cannot say anything negative about the departed employee. Both statements make logical sense; both are true in many respects.

While telling the truth is often a valid and strong legal defense to someone who asserts that you have defamed them by saying something negative about them to their new or potentially new employer, defending oneself in a legal action is costly and there are no guarantees. This is why legal and/or HR will generally advise that it is best to say nothing. Only provide dates of employment and make no statements relative to their behavior or performance (or lack thereof).

I generally agree with this cautionary recommendation. It is a conservative and wise approach that can save the employer and its management valuable time and money. This is especially true when the former employee was merely a poor performer or engaged in problematic but not highly offensive bad behaviors. After all, it isn’t your job to help the other company vet their future employees, right?!

This being said, sometimes it is better to throw caution to the wind and sing like a canary. Especially when we know the sage adage that truth is a defense. So, when might truth be a risky but better path than the risk-adverse route of ‘speak not and forever hold your tongue?’ Let me share a story.

One day a former employee approached me with a concern. While the concern involved a current employee that the former employee felt had mistreated her and caused her to resign, it was an aspect of the backstory that piqued my curiosity (note that while the moral of the story will remain intact, I will modify a few of the facts to protect the confidentiality that I owe to the employer). The backstory involved, in part, a colleague of the former employee who had sexually harassed several people under the person’s care and supervision. My first curiosity was whether this colleague was still employed at the company. He was not. My second curiosity was whether an investigation was conducted and the sexual harassment allegations verified. Yes, and yes. My third curiosity was where this person was now working. Through an internet search I quickly learned that this person was working for a nearby institution doing the same work. This suggested to me that it was highly likely that the person was sexually harassing people under his care and supervision at the new place of employment. After all, past performance predicts future performance (or in this case behavior). My final curiosity was whether we fired the person after our investigation. We did not. We let him resign, and we did not provide the new employer with any information related to why he left.

Let me say that I am normally firmly in the camp of letting someone resign in lieu of termination. However, there are a few situations where I do not support this notion. Sexual misconduct is absolutely on the list of situations – and probably number two on the list after workplace physical violence (of course, sexual misconduct sometimes involves physical violence and, as such, can become first on my list of zero-tolerance acts that deserve swift and decisive actions).

In these matters, my advice is to not let them resign. It is a terminable offense, and the person should be terminated. They also should not be given the privilege of a ‘no-comment’ reference to their future employer. The future employer should have knowledge of who they are hiring. To do otherwise is to become almost complicit in any future misconduct committed by the former employee. Yes, speaking the truth to the future employer is risky (at least until we get clear laws providing a safe harbor for being truthful in these troubling scenarios). It may get the company and some of its leaders sued. But what is the alternative? Silence? Simply looking the other way so that a predator can victimize others? There are times when avoiding lawsuits might not be the most prudent path. Indeed, some fights are worth it. Most of them are not worth it and avoidance is ideal. But in situations like acts of violence and sexual misconduct…I would much rather defend a lawsuit than protect someone with malice in their head and heart.

But that’s just me…

Rebuilding Trust

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 16:12:00 GMT

Some goals are elusive and, once attained, they are difficult to maintain. One of the most elusive goals is weight loss. It can take 3 months to lose 10 pounds, and yet it can take a mere 3 days on vacation to gain it all back. How frustrating! Guess what? Departmental culture can sometimes be just as elusive.

Leaders can spend years building trust with their staff, nurturing a collaborative mindset and home-away-from-home feel. Yet all of this goodwill can be burned to the ground in an instant. This is why it is incumbent upon leadership to do their due diligence in monitoring departmental cultures and, when sparks are observed, deploy interventions to prevent an outright fire.

How do we lose built-up goodwill? Favoritism. Nepotism. Sharp tongues. Failing to listen and take advice, assuming the leader always knows best. All of these things chip away at culture and, in the blink of an eye, a well-oiled machine can turn into a fractured unit that continually runs to HR or legal for intervention and leaving the work product and customer satisfaction to suffer.

An age-old tool that is not used nearly enough is the 360-degree feedback tool. Why is it seldom used? Leaders hate it. It invites scrutiny. It calls for not just their supervisors, but also their peers and subordinates, to anonymously grade their paper. It feels invasive, punitive, and a set-up for damaging their reputations. This is the perception. But the reality is that, when done properly, it not only doesn’t signal the beginning of the end of their career, it actually strengthens bonds and rebuilds departmental cohesion and trust. Let me explain.

First, a 360-degree feedback tool should never be used as a punitive tool. Never! It is a tool to identify vulnerabilities that, with proper coaching, can be rectified. All leaders should go through one every few years. Yet most do not. And even those who do go through the process realize that what happens next is perhaps worse than going through the process itself. This is because nothing happens next. The process, once over, is shelved and everything goes on…business as usual. No coaching. No mentoring. No developmental training. Nothing. And this only serves to further deteriorate trust and further destroy the departmental culture.

In order to make the process work, leaders need to be assured that the process will not result in discipline. Direct reports of the leaders going through the process need to be assured that the process will result in a semi-transparent display of training and development geared towards improving departmental culture. I say semi-transparent because, while the results should not be shared, the leadership development that follows should be open and obvious. And the leader should speak positively about the process, the subsequent development, and express thanks to the team for their willingness to share open and honest feedback. This level of vulnerability does not go unnoticed. It shows that you, as the leader, recognize that you are human, that you are not perfect, and that you want to be an even better leader for them. It reflects humility.

And frankly, those who resist this process and are unwilling to go through it are not ready for leadership. They are not leaders. They might be good workers, but they lack the emotional intelligence to rise above the individual contributor lane and excel in the ‘leader of people’ world with which they have been thrust. And frankly, those who resist should be relieved of their managerial responsibilities. This is not punitive, because this has nothing to do with the results of the completed process. This has everything to do with the person’s readiness to lead. As such, if corporate culture matters, and if you have not deployed a 360-degree feedback tool to a handful of leaders every single year, what in the world are you waiting for?!

The Urgency of Workplace Dignity

Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:45:47 GMT

Not too long ago, I thought the year 2020 was one of the worst ever for employees. We had to tackle COVID-induced isolation, discriminatory animus towards the Asian population, and figuring out how to reconfigure laundry rooms, walk-in closets and dining room tables into functional office spaces. I certainly could not have imagined that 2025 would be immensely worse.

Let’s make a quick inventory of some of the highlights of last year:

· Government agency closures and mass layoffs.

· Cancel culture attacks on freedom of speech and association, prompting some employers to terminate employees who publicly said anything remotely negative about political and politically backed figures – regardless of the truth of the statements made.

· The dismantling of DEI and transgender initiatives, with supporters facing lost funding and lawsuits.

· The cancellation of visas and deportation of US-based migrants and immigrants, making it difficult for some institutions to address labor or student shortages where the most viable applicants necessitate a visa.

And we thought the angst related to return-to-office mandates were challenging enough?! The slight indignity related to the rebuke of hybrid and remote work modalities by some employers has given way to political issues bleeding into the workplace and, when coupled with oppressive social media bullying campaigns resulting in those who bring unwanted attention to their company getting pushed out, catastrophic indignities ensue. Sometimes one might wonder whether people realize there are lives being significantly impacted. Or does our society simply not care about the lost jobs equating to lost homes and cars, to medical bills going unpaid, to kids having their education disrupted, to mental health issues rising, and even to the possibility of suicides and homicides. I submit that we need to take this moment very seriously because the stakes are excruciatingly high!

But what should an employer do when confronted with a barrage of hate-laced posts, calls, and emails calling for the termination of one of their employees? Having dealt with these situations in the past and in my capacity as general counsel, my first inclination would be to suggest that we slow down and take a breath. Quick decisions often result in poor decisions. Next, we should take the necessary time to review the facts - all the facts. Exactly what did the employee say? Was it true? With what platform was the message conveyed…social media, Zoom, news article? Could a reasonably prudent person believe the employee has the capacity (real or perceived) to speak on behalf of the employer or legally bind it with their words? Are the right people engaged in the decision-making process regarding the employee (i.e. the chief legal officer, chief human resource officer, chief marketing/communications officer, and perhaps the chief executive officer)? And lastly, if the ultimate decision leans towards disciplining the employee, will the process be carried out in a dignified manner? The last question might be the most important one, and I certainly hope that the ultimate decision rests on a just result and not a knee-jerk reaction out of fear of what the vocal irrationals might do to force an injustice of their liking. Lives are at stake. The time is now for employers to do the right thing.

Cultural Awareness

Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:17:55 GMT

Part of expressing dignity to colleagues and customers involves understanding that we are different and unique beings. Behaviors that might be acceptable or expected in one culture may be quite different in another. This is perfectly understandable and okay. As professionals, we must learn to appreciate differences. Pausing to ascertain before overreacting is crucial. Unfortunately, these ideals are not always exemplified in the workplace.

One day while I was hard at work trying to resolve whatever urgency or emergency was ever-present, I overheard the executive assistant to the president speaking on the phone with the vice president for student affair's executive assistants. She said, "Really?! Oh my goodness! I will lock the doors to the president's office immediately!" Naturally curious, I asked her what was happening. She said that a student was yelling and threatening one of the administrative assistants and that she feared for her life. She also said that the angry student was on his way to the president's office and so she was going to lock the door and call campus safety. I asked her to pause before calling campus safety or locking the door, and to send the student to me instead.

A few minutes later, the student came into the office and was immediately directed to me. The student was visibly upset, and his 6'4" frame was imposing. When I asked him what was wrong, through expressive hand gestures and a distinctive African accent, he loudly explained that he needed to enroll in classes and was having troubles - with which no one seemed willing to assist. I asked him to have a seat while I looked into it for him. After a couple of calls to the registrar and the vice president for student affairs, I was able to get him set up for an appointment where he was ultimately able to resolve his issue. He was immensely grateful.

By taking a moment to listen without a premature fear that this person was here to do me harm, I was able to learn that he simply needed help. While the way he expressed himself could be deemed abrasive in some cultures, in his culture it was expected that you would be loud and expressive to get someone's attention and to ultimately get your needs met. He didn't want to hurt anyone, he simply wanted to be heard and helped. Dignity requires of us a mandate to pause, to attempt to understand the needs of others, and to make an effort to meet those needs - as long as the effort does not compromise our own moral and ethical codes. In this instance, no moral or ethical dilemma was present. What was present was an irrational fear of someone who was different. But if we embrace differences, and if we push ourselves to be more culturally sensitive and aware, the experiences of those we work with or serve will be remarkably better. This is what workplace dignity requires of us.

Stranded Abroad - A Different Perspective

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 13:50:45 GMT

In the last post, I shared a disturbing story about how the Washington Post ownership allegedly laid off journalists while they were abroad, leaving them to their own devices to find a way back home. Pondering on this, it reminds me of a story of an Abbott Laboratories employee who went abroad, albeit the ending was a beautiful display of dignity.

At the time, I was wo rking in human resources for the Ross Products Division of Abbott (now called Abbott Nutrition). The employee in question was traveling abroad on vacation, and upon her attempted return she was detained at the border. While the employee was not a U.S. born or naturalized citizen, she was lawfully admitted in the United States. However, something was purportedly questionable with her paperwork and, as a result, she could not re-enter the country until it was corrected. At this point, it was unclear when, or if, the employee would be able to return to the country - let alone to work or to her family who were still in the states.

We had no obligation to maintain her employment. Indeed, discussions ensued on what to do about the situation. On one hand, the work that needed to be accomplished was important; a long delay in her return would be detrimental to departmental objectives. On the other hand, she was a well-liked and strong employee with whom no one wanted to see depart - especially in this manner. While it was well within Abbott's legal rights to separate the employee and immediately hire a replacement, the department instead took a much more humane and dignified approach and decided to hold her job until she returned. Yes, the workload suffered a bit, but that suffering paled in comparison to what our colleague was enduring. A temporary employee was retained to help move some projects forward, and once she returned about 3-4 months later her family and her job were both eagerly waiting for her.

It is no wonder Abbott is frequently listed as a top employer. While I assume not all divisions within the company are this conscientious, I will forever remember the care, concern, and dignity this particular division and department showed towards this woman during certainly one of the most trying periods in her life! Under the current political climate when the U.S. government is deporting and detaining non-citizens at a record and alarming pace, I hope some companies pause before simply laying off the impacted employees. Instead, think of how you would like to be treated in a similar situation. Ask whether the step of separating the employee is the most dignified option available. Seriously ask...what "real" harm would occur to the company if the workload lagged a bit? I suspect that in most instances, the company will survive. Therefore, be kind!

Stranded Abroad

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 14:27:18 GMT

Amazon has taken an extraordinary step that reduces the reach and influence of the Washington Post, a news publication it acquired a little over a decade ago. About 300 employees, or one-third of its staff, were recently laid off. However, layoffs are nothing new in our profit-first society. It is how certain employees were treated that is shocking.

Some of the journalists who were laid off were abroad at the time of the announcement . Instead of making allowances in the process for how these expatriates would be returned to the US as a part of the downsizing process, it appears that they were merely left to their own devices on how to get back.

A critical component of treating employees with dignity is asking, during the decision-making processes, whether dignity and respect has been considered. A brief pause to think about the impact of "all" employees implicated in the downsized might (or should) have caused a pausing of the process to ensure that the least amount of harm possible occurred. While companies are free to decide who to employee and terminate, within the realm of anti-discrimination laws and other employee protection mechanisms of course, companies should at minimum strive to do as little harm as possible. This is the basic minimum expected of people who appreciate humanity and strive to treat others with dignity and respect.

Did anyone pause to ask the question "what about the people abroad?" Did anyone suggest that the people abroad should, at minimum, have received transportation or the equivalent in additional compensation (outside of any severance equation offered) to help them execute a safe passage back home? If these considerations were not a part of the process, that is shameful. People work hard for their employer. They give their all in order to provide for themselves and their families. The least they can expect in return, besides fair wages is, that when the end of the employment journey is at hand, that the employer will help them transition out with the same dignity and respect with which they were brought into the company. Is that too much to ask?! Unfortunately, and sadly, it seems it might be too much to ask for the owners of the Washington Post...

Lawyer as Advocate or Peacemaker

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:50:58 GMT

Lawyers play a significant, if not oversized, role when it comes to conflicts. People hire attorneys to help them navigate the conflicts, and the attorneys have a legal obligation to fight for the best interests of their clients. They are to be consummate advocates for the betterment of those they represent. Therefore, it should be an unquestioned fact that lawyers are advocates. But what about the peacemaking role? Is it also applicable to them?

Good lawyers care about the dignity of their clients, and part of showing their clients dignity is ensuring that they do not substitute their opinion on how a dispute should resolve for that of their clients. Part of dignity is also giving wise and direct counsel to their clients, letting them know the realistic odds of success in the pending dispute and whether the prospects of settlement might be better. Lawyers, especially in-house counsel, should be concerned about the mental and financial wellbeing of their clients and, as such, sometimes settlement options need to overshadow litigation process. Settlement might be cheaper in the long run, and it might bring harmony back to the workplace as opposed to continual gossip and strife related to an ongoing dispute. Clients need self-determination and, through the efforts of their lawyer, should hopefully get the end result ‘they’ desire – be it through an effective negotiated settlement or taking the matter to a judicial resolution (if a judicial resolution is indeed the best path for the client to receive justice).

Good lawyers advocate well. But the best lawyers spend as much time focused on being an effective advocate as being an effective peacemaker. The best lawyers are simultaneously assessing legal strategy to succeed in court as well as assessing the plausibility of negotiating a successful resolution for the client – putting the landing pad for the conflict on the runway of the client rather than the judge or a “jury of their peers.” Therefore, it stands to reason that the best lawyers spend as much time, through continuing legal education sessions and other mechanisms, learning about litigation strategies as they do alternative dispute resolution strategies. If this is not happening, I challenge my peers to consider this approach. The best dispute is a resolved dispute, and when clients can spend less time fighting and more time doing good work for the common good of society and humanity, we all win.

The Problem or the Person

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:11:13 GMT

When dealing with an employee relations concern, it is easy to look at the people involved. If it is a performance issue, we wonder why the person has decided to underperform, or if the person lacks the skill or education to meet expectations. If it is a conflict between employees, we quickly deduce who is to blame for the breakdown in civility and devise a remedy in accordance with our assessment. This approach makes sense. It works. But is it the best approach?

What if, instead of focusing on the people involved, we focus on the problem instead? When re-reviewing the performance issue, we should reflect on our hiring process. Did the person seem to have the skill and education to perform the job? If yes, did they embellish their resume? Once we deduce the answer to this question is no, we should take an adequate amount of time to determine what is occurring. In conversations with the employee, is it possible to ascertain whether external factors are creating a deterioration in performance? Sometimes, personal issues bleed into the workplace, and an expression of dignity towards employees means giving them a period of time to work through those personal issues such that they can turn around their work performance. Perhaps they are not in the right job. If the employee lacks passion for the work, performance may suffer. Before firing the person, it may be wise to explore whether there is a better seat at the table to maximize their skillset and drive.

When two employees do not get along, what if we change the lens with which everyone views the dispute. It is typical to focus on the behaviors of the people involved, but we might consider looking at the problem instead. If everyone, the disputants and the leaders charged with overseeing the resolution to the dispute, focused their energy on deciphering where the breakdown occurred and how to repair it, the matter might get fixed without anyone in particular being blamed and disciplined for the dispute. For example, in one situation employee A (let’s call her Mary) was having challenges with employee B (let’s call her Beth). Mary felt Beth talked over her in meetings, demeaned the contributions of others, and caused others on the team to shrink and discontinue contributing to meeting dialogue. Beth, in turn, felt that Mary tended to slow down meetings by constantly seeking clarification of points – causing meetings to run long. Without validating the concerns of either party, one potential way to move this forward and towards resolution is for the team leader to take firm control of meetings and ensure everyone gets a chance to contribute, no one talks over someone else, and that meetings always end on time. Adding some slight formalities and overarching rules of engagement to meetings can ameliorate the tensions between the people around the table.

By removing the focus on the people and, instead, attacking the problem, issues can come to effective resolutions. This type of dispute resolution work takes a bit more time, but the end result will likely be more lasting – and create increased morale for all involved. Most importantly, it helps to retain employees. This does not mean that there won't be times when people do need to transition from a position or the company itself, but infusing dignity into the process can help exhaust all other options before coming to the ultimate decision to part ways.

The Risk of Pursuing Dignity

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:41:02 GMT

The pursuit of dignity is a noble one. However, the pursuit doesn’t come risk-free. Hilton Hotels franchisee Everpeak Hospitality learned this lesson when it got caught in a firestorm after one of its clerks stated that the hotel would not book rooms for members of ICE or DHS in their Minneapolis Hampton Inn. Given this scenario is a microcosm of the greater turmoil in the city and state following the ICE shooting and killing of a US Citizen, as well as several other concerning interactions with city motorists, an unbiased observer may be able to understand why the hotel clerk made this declaration. After all, it is fairly common for hotels to employee immigrants at their establishments. Any level of DHS activity questioning the immigration status of their employees (or guests) would create a significant hurdle for employee morale and business revenue.

At the same time, can it be stated for certain that DHS intended to engage in enforcement activity on property grounds? This is an essential question that may not have been – but should have been – asked prior to the refusal of rooms. Without weighing in on the legality of denying accommodations to government officials for essentially political reasons, doing so on the basis of a confirmation that they intended to engage in enforcement activity with the employees and/or guests is a vastly different analysis than if they merely intended to get some rest before engaging in off-property enforcement activity the next day. The essence of good dispute resolution tactics is to ascertain these facts before making a decision that will have consequences for everyone involved. I certainly will not criticize anyone for erring on the side of protecting their employees from what could amount to government overreach, but I will also caution them to have as many facts as possible before making such a decision.

As for Hilton immediately removing the Hampton sign from the building, this swift act seems more geared towards capitulation than understanding and seeking a more moderate resolution to the situation. Of course, I am not privy to the internal discussions between franchisor and franchisee, but I certainly hope this removal was not an act devoid of courage and simply aimed at quieting the noise. One thing many corporations need to focus on is resisting the urge to comply with social media attacks that are more political in nature rather than a true assessment and measured reaction to the true underlying facts. After all, what message does this send to the extremely diverse employee and customer base of this internationally renowned entity? Is it one that maintains their pride in association? I hope for their sake it is, but I am certainly left to wonder…

Dignity Begins Up High

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:36:30 GMT

The best way to infuse dignity into a workplace culture is for it to be modeled by leadership. If leaders do not treat direct reports, customers, and others with dignity, this behavior (or lack thereof) teaches others that it is fine to ignore, look down upon, or even mistreat those around them.

The negative impact of negative behavior is best exemplified by looking at what has recently been reported out of New Jersey. Clark Townships mayor allegedly directed the police to “ keep Black people out of Clark .” According to data provided by state prosecutors, this request for the police to engage in the targeting of motorists of color led to a 3.7x increase in the traffic stops of Black motorists, and a 2.2x increase in the stopping of Hispanic motorists. The improper stops decreased after the mayor was ousted and the Prosecutor’s Office began providing oversight of the police department.

It is incumbent upon institutions to hire and train their seniormost leaders in not only anti-discrimination laws, but also in the merits and benefits of treating others with dignity and respect. It should never be assumed that this understanding is innate, and the leaders will always do the right thing. They are humans after all, with different upbringings and different levels of cultural awareness and sensitivity. Having a robust training protocol in place can help reduce incidents of discrimination as well as microaggressions that only serve to deteriorate employee trust in management and sense of belonging at the organization.

Empathy Leads to Dignity

Sun, 18 Jan 2026 13:02:06 GMT

It is incumbent upon institutional leaders to model dignity-infused behaviors when interacting with colleagues and subordinates. Treating others with dignity and respect, everyone along the hierarchical tree, is a positive expression of care, concern, and respect for those who help make companies successful and a joy to show up to on a daily basis. Leaders who miss the mark should be immediate candidates for coaching. Coaching on the merits of empathy and dignity should typically preclude any disciplinary action – giving them the opportunity to fold into the (desired) culture before making the determination that they are ill-fit for the role or the company.

One day I was watching an old rerun of Scooby Doo wit h my kids, and a hilarious scene caused me to pause and reflect on how we might navigate situations like this in real life. Scooby Doo and friends were chasing after the bad guy and, in an apparently successful effort to escape by jumping in a wagon and flying down a hill the bad guy shouts “So long suckers!” He then realizes that the wagon is about to veer over the edge of a steep cliff, and in desperation he pleads “Save me suckers!”

Two notions immediately struck me as quite interesting. The first notion was that humans sometimes fail to appreciate the value of others until they need help. The second notion is that, even when help is needed, and sometimes when help is actually provided, some people struggle to treat others – even those who save them from impending doom – with dignity. I suppose a bonus notion is that sometimes the trouble that finds people is self-inflicted, and the best way out of trouble is through honesty, integrity, and kindness – even to those who are charged with investigating and resolving the troubling situation. When dignity in process and in treatment occurs, the best possible outcomes usually follow.

The saying is true that, in our career success, we stand on the shoulders of giants. The saying is true that, in our career success, we do not rise based on our efforts alone. Yes, our efforts are a critical component of success. But it also takes champions, allies, advocates, loyal colleagues and team members, and even complimentary customers who collectively propel us forward. The best of us will acknowledge this reality and make it a point to pay homage to those who have helped them along the way. This showing may not necessarily be to those exact people; it may be to the security guard we meet and thank who helps us enter our work facility with ease, and who help keep us safe. It may be by thanking a customer service representative who went a little above and beyond to make a customer’s experience a little better, because when a customer is happy the company wins. These champions of the human race, and the workplace, pause and take the time to appreciate the sometimes-thankless work of others around them. They realize that they have the power to brighten a day and they exercise it freely. They most certainly appreciate that even if they encounter a sucker along the way, how they treat that person might help both of them have a much better day and foster positive attitudes. And of course, the only good suckers at work are those wonderful round candies on a stick that bring so much joy!

The Power of the Apology

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:09:12 GMT

Apologies are hard to give. In the employment context, many view apologizing as a sign of weakness or, worse, a sign of admission of wrong. I submit that when done the right way it is actually a sign of a culturally resilient organization.

The reason why lawyers generally advise against apologies is sound, especially if the situation involves allegations of legal violations. For instance, if an employee suggests that they have been the victim of discrimination by their manager, an apology might seem to suggest that the allegation is true. However, a well-crafted or stated apology will balance avoiding a direct admission of guilt with simultaneously showering care and concern on the offended employee. For instance, in the scenario where the manager has been accused of discriminatory animus, the manager can deny that this was the intention of their action while also acknowledging the feelings of the employee. By using carefully crafted words that express care and concern for the employee's well-being, and by making sure the employee feels heard, the situation can oft-times be diffused without the need for escalation.

During my litigation days I was confronted with a similar situation. An employee was passed over for a promotion and also felt ostracized by the team leader. When the team leader refused to consider the employee's feelings or point-of-view, the employee hired me. As all good lawyers do, I initially sent a strongly worded letter to the employer articulating the legal violations and threatened to sue. I then received a phone call from their attorney asking me what it would take to settle the matter. In consultation with my client, he said all he really wanted was an apology. With that, he would happily drop the matter. Although my initial thought was on the contingent fee agreement we signed and how would I get my 1/3rd fee out of an apology settlement, I followed my client's wishes and presented the proposal. The employer's attorney said she did not think her client would agree to apologizing, and she could not recommend such a resolution, but she would share the proposal. A few days later, she called me and said that she was surprised that her client agreed. They would apologize to my client, and he would drop the case. After receiving a heart-felt apology, I dropped the case and my client still works for the same employer almost twenty years later. While I still have not figured out how to get my 1/3rd fee out of an apology, I was then and continue to be elated that maintaining the dignity of the employee trumped the risk adverse tendencies associated with the fear of an apology becoming an admission of wrongdoing.

Not every situation can be resolved with an apology, but when the parties have meaningful discussions about how to resolve disputes while maintaining the dignity and respect of everyone involved, sometimes we can be pleased and even surprised at how we can find fair, meaningful, and sustaining resolutions to tense and seemingly insurmountable conflicts.

Understand Why

Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:13:07 GMT

Whether mediating, investigating, or serving as an ombudsperson trying to help resolve a dispute, one of the most important things to understand is why. By this I mean, why did the parties do/say what they did?! Understanding motivation can help understand how to ultimately resolve disputes.

One day I was talking to a divorce lawyer, and she was talking about why the work is so challenging (indeed, they tend to have the highest lawyer malpractice insurance rates because their clients are rarely happy - regardless of the outcome). Win, lose or draw, the client has had their world turned upside down. Divorces can turn normally sane and logical people very irrational. It all boils down to our comfort zones being challenged, and our sense of safety and security being threatened.

The same is true for other types of disputes as well - particularly in the workplace. Think about it, perhaps the only area more closely tied to our sense of self and well-being than our families are our careers. When our financial security is threatened, or perhaps our sense of self-determination in our workday impeded or maybe our reputation tarnished, we can sometimes act in very irrational ways. It is incumbent upon the person trying to help resolve the dispute to understand the 'why' behind how the disputing parties arrived at their current conflict, crossroad or impasse.

Asking questions to help ascertain what aspects of life have been threatened can help formulate potential paths to amicably resolving the dispute. Be inquisitive, and do not be quick to pass judgment or proclaim a person guilty simply to close the case. The person may very well be guilty of breaking a policy or behavioral expectation, but that does not necessarily mean they are a bad person in need of sharp discipline. Get to the 'why' first and then make a sound decision on how best to move forward. You may just be surprised how much better of an outcome you can help produce when you pause just long enough to truly understand!

ADR in the Workplace

Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:13:07 GMT

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and the workplace truly do go hand in hand. Indeed, this is where I have centered my career, my scholarship, and my practice.

While some believe that it is unwise to mediate the resolution of a dispute, especially if it entails disclosing facts that could create a tactical advantage, I see it in reverse. Disclosing advantages can help resolve a complaint by managing/lowering the settlement expectations of the opposing party.

Mediation and conciliation in particular also result in a roughly 75% settlement rate - either at the table or shortly thereafter. If you could save a lot of money on legal fees and the unrecoverable hours of key administrators who would otherwise get tied up in discovery responses and depositions, why wouldn't you?!

If you would like to learn more, feel free to peruse some of my scholarship on the topic. I cannot promise it will be a fascinating read and that it will not put you to sleep, but I do believe it will enlighten you - as it did for the tens and tens of people who have already read some of it! Join the enlightened ones!

Dignity Begins Before Day One

Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:13:07 GMT

Workplace culture isn't just a product of what happens in the conference rooms, the Zoom rooms, and at the water cooler. It encompasses everything. All interactions between coworkers throughout their journey together. And yes, it even involves how potential coworkers are treated as well.

Making a Hire
Treating interviewees with dignity and respect provides them with a lens into the workplace culture with which they are aspiring to join. This involves not only expressing enthusiasm for their interest in the position and company, and not only in the questions being asked, but also in how reference checks are conducted.

Expressing Enthusiasm
As the old adage goes, the candidate is interviewing the company as much as the company is interviewing the candidate. Expressing enthusiasm for the candidate entails thanking them for their interest, being truly interested in their background and experiences, and rolling out the red carpet for them when they are on campus by having someone assigned to host their visit. Giving candidates company literature and swag are nice touches as well. But perhaps most importantly, do not "ghost" candidates in the process. While it is hard enough for someone to spend an hour applying for a job only to receive no response from the company outside of an auto-generated email acknowledging receipt of their application, it is enough to cause significant mental anguish when a person actually interviews for the position but then hears nothing else...ever. The least a company can do is let them know when they are no longer deemed a viable candidate.

Quick point: while personal touches are nice, too much of a personal touch can take things in the opposite direction. For example, when I worked as a recruiter, my manager trained me to always call every finalist for a job to either tell them they were hired or they were not selected. Of course, people love receiving the call that they were hired. Receiving the rejection call...not so much! One day I called a lady to reject her. When I told her who I was, I could hear the excitement in her voice. After all, when you are a finalist and get a call, there is only one logical conclusion right?! Wrong! As I proceeded to tell her "thanks but no thanks" I could hear her start to tear up and cry. I felt horrible. In fact, I felt so horrible that I never made another rejection call again, resorting to sending mail or emails while not confessing to my manager that I altered the gameplan. While no one wants to have their relationship broken off by text message or email, when your relationship only amounts to a couple of dates (interviews), expectations should be modified accordingly.

Asking the Right Questions
While it seems like a no-brainer, I have been involved in these conversations long enough that I know it bears repeating: don't ask questions that are discriminatory or highly offensive. Also, don't make decisions based on discriminatory ideology. From recommending that a Jewish candidate check out the holocaust museum while in town, to asking the Hispanic candidate if she is a legal resident, these types of questions are unlawful and can get the company in significant trouble. And some questions are simply head scratchers. For example, once I was asked in an interview if I preferred to be called black or African American. Relevance?! I have also experienced post-interview hiring team discussions where the interviewers openly questioned if a candidate was too old for the job; all they should have been focused in on was the skillset of the candidate!

Reference Checks
Candidates tend to provide references who they know will speak positively about their candidacy. Because of this, it is not uncommon that hiring managers desire to go off-list and check other sources. If this is the company process, it is best to alert the candidate in advance that this may occur. Otherwise, bad things can result. In one scenario, the employer called the candidates supervisor for a reference even though the supervisor was not on the reference list. Three things happened. 1. The candidate did not get the new job. 2. The current supervisor was upset about this because he did not know the candidate was out interviewing and, as a result, fired her. 3. The (former) candidate sued the company that called her supervisor, alleging tortious interference with employment relationships. This resulted in the company paying a significant settlement to make the lawsuit go away. The lesson learned was that treating people with dignity and respect matters not just to current employees, but to potential employees as well. Consider yourself informed!

Sharing is Caring

Sat, 20 Dec 2025 14:59:16 GMT

When the dreaded performance evaluation time approaches, managers and employees alike tend to get nervous. Employees may worry that a less than stellar evaluation means they are not performing or that they may not get a raise or promotion. Employers worry that if they give honest evaluations they may not be liked by their employees - and not even managers want to be ostracized. So, what do you do?

Share anyway.

A caring manager regularly shares expectations and outcomes throughout the year. In fact, a performance evaluation should never come as a surprise. If an employee is surprised at their review, they are either delusional, or the manager failed to provide truthful and timely feedback throughout the year. Usually, it is the latter.

Besides regular feedback, another great way to manage expectations is to tell your direct reports at the earliest possible moment when you are assigned to supervise them how you rate employees. Just like grading bell curves in school, performance evaluations should also skew to the average. Truthfully, few employees will be excellent, especially in all categories. Likewise, few employees will be poor performers. Most will be very good, average, or the most likely selection - just plain ole good. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with being good, or even average for that matter. If employees understand how you plan to rate them early, they will be much less likely to be disappointed when they do not get an excellent evaluation year after year.

Now as an attorney, I must say I have an ulterior motive for giving this advice. Few things are more frustrating than talking to a manager who says they either want to fire an employee or that they justifiably fired the employee and yet all of the (ex)employee's performance evaluations are overwhelmingly positive. This sends a huge mixed signal that does not go over well in court.

Honesty is tough, but managerial courage is essential to good management. We will delve more deeply into managerial courage in an upcoming post. For now, just remember that good is great, and excellent is poor (or something like that)!