Impartial Observer

Allowing an impartial observer (IO) into an interview process is unique and expresses management's commitment to creating a dynamic team.
It's not always easy for employees to express themselves without the feeling of reprisal or repercussion.  Some companies allow employees to have other employees as their witness; although this may be allowed, it is not the optimum solution.  Another employee has an interest in seeing that they retain their own job and are not necessarily concerned with the other person.
Bringing in an outside IO requires a certain amount of trust and many an employer would not recognize the benefits.  But, those who have can boast a greater understanding can be achieved through the process.  Both parties are required to be at their professional best and yet both parties are able to express themselves more freely.
The challenge to this system is that it can sometime appear people are unable to work through issues without outside influence.
Don't misunderstand the power of silent influence, which is achieved just by someone else being in the room. The IO does not become an active participant, but simply by their presence their status appears to serve a purpose - that of witness.  A written report is developed post-interview and a copy is provided to each party, allowing them to examine their own action at a later date. Not all issues can be resolved this way, but, for the level-headed, it can prove to be a 'light-bulb' moment.  When someone realizes how they react under pressure or what they perceive as pressure, it becomes learning experience.
Some of the benefits of an (IO) include;
- the employee can speak their mind without fear of reprisal,
- the manager can rest assured their statements will not be misconstrued,
- the need for a mediator is reduced as each party has an interest in addressing the issues at hand,
- more emphasis is on addressing issues of concern for both sides,
- a mutually respectful resolution to an issue can be reached.
It would be wonderful if we could all interact objectively and fairly, but, this is not the case in most organizations.
Managers become managers for other reasons than their ability to manage human resources and may feel woefully inadequate when it comes to dealing with employees issues.
Employees have a distrust of management in many corporations and find themselves overwhelmed in the management quagmire.
At least two things happen when management and employee interactions fail and a recent post on Bullying will bear witness to this:
1.  Management takes on a 'because I said so' attitude , or  adopt the 'this back and forth is getting us nowhere' approach to meetings with employees.
2.  Employees learn their concerns are not being addressed and/or appreciated and they fail to see management as a resource in the future and they often take on an 'us vs. them' approach.  This will extend to other employees as well, creating a completely toxic work environment.
Neither of these is beneficial and each comes with its own downfalls.  Issues are never resolved and both management and employees feel threatened, undermined and frustrated.
Whatever approach you use, you should be mindful of keeping to the issues at hand and if an employee comes in with the company's code of conduct, don't be dismissive.  If they are taking the time to read the code of conduct, that's a good thing!  And if you are able to stick to the issues and use the company handbooks to illuminate your points, all the better.
Here's to a better future!

Ethical Dilemma

So, I had this discussion with someone this week over the course of a couple of days.  He was in a quandary about the ethics of some of his employees.  Basically, he couldn’t understand why someone he hired after an extensive interview process would attempt to commit unethical acts while employed by him.