Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / High Conflict Workplace Investigations with Guest Host Cherolyn Knapp and Guest Bob Stenhouse
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:05): Welcome to It's All Your Fault, untrue Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and deal with the most challenging human interactions, those with someone who may have a high conflict personality. I'm Megan Hunter, and I'm here with my guest co-host Cheryl Knapp, my usual co-host, bill Eddie is taking a short hiatus, but he will be back in about a month. Uh, bill and I are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California, where we focus on training, consulting, and educational programs and methods, all to do with high conflict. In today's episode, we are talking with our special guest, Bob Stenhouse, on the topic of high conflict in the context of workplace investigations. This will be really fascinating, especially because Cheryl is also a workplace investigator, so they're going to have a lot to talk about. And I wanna thank you she for co-hosting with me today and on this workplace series. Speaker 1 (01:06): Uh, she is a trainer and consultant with us here at the High Conflict Institute, and she treat trains and teaches our new Ways for Work method, which is a 12 hour training, and she does a fantastic job at that. So thank you for joining us as co-host today. Couple of notes to start. If you have a question about a high conflict situation, send it to podcast high conflict institute.com or through our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast, where you'll also find all the show notes and links. Please give us a rate of review and tell your friends, colleagues, or family about us, especially if they're dealing with a high conflict situation. As always, we are very grateful. All right, so I'd like to introduce Bob, who is a Canadian first of all, so welcome you both of you, uh, being from Canada, our neighbors to the north. Speaker 2 (02:04): I was gonna say, we don't have conflict in Canada, Megan. We're all still polite, apparently. Speaker 1 (02:09): That's so nice. I've heard that. I hear you say, I'm sorry a lot . So it must mean everybody's just really easy to get along with. Yeah, those are just the stories we tell ourselves. Aren, that's, well, I think you might be joking since we do get, um, requests for training quite a lot in Canada, . Absolutely. So there must be some conflict happening. Absolutely. Um, so we're really happy to have you here today, Bob. Um, quick introduction. Bob first made his mark as a highly decorated and nationally recognized, serious and organized crime investigator with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which I will hear after referred to as rcmp, um, which is probably familiar to Canadians more than, uh, everyone else. But, uh, Bob's been a pioneer and an innovator and a leader on an elite team of undercover investigators who changed the way cold case homicide investigations were conducted. Speaker 1 (03:03): The techniques developed in the early 1990s were internationally groundbreaking and have come to be known as Mr. Big Investigations, and I bet Bob has some stories he could share with us. on his retirement from the Rrc P Bob brought the same level of determination, innovation, keen insight and emotional intelligence to his role where he conducts workplace investigations and corporate training as a consultant, uh, as a corporate investigations consultant and Alberta Human Rights investigator, in the early two thousands, he provided service excellence to many government agencies, first Nations and corporations in the resolution and mitigation of complex human resource risks. So, welcome Bob. Speaker 2 (03:49): Thank you very much, Megan. It's a pleasure to be here. Speaker 1 (03:52): You bet. All right. So if you would like to just give us a little background about yourself, your work, um, anything you wanna tell us what kinda, and kind of what a workplace investigator is and what, what their role is in Canada. Speaker 2 (04:06): Absolutely. Thanks so much. I've been conducting workplace, uh, regulatory human rights investigations for almost 20 years. After I left the RC m p, um, for 10 of those years, I was the leader of an in-house team, uh, with the largest health authority in Canada, uh, called Alberta Health Services. And to put it into context, we're looking at 110,000 employees across the province of Alberta. So, uh, a massive organization. And, uh, I was part of the, uh, uh, leading the team, uh, responsible for some of the most high, high risk, high complex types of investigations internally. Um, I began my firm in 2018, uh, conducting investigations for, uh, obviously external clients. And I'm a, uh, known as a third party external investigator. Um, we've grown to, from myself, starting by myself in 2018, we've got about, uh, 20, uh, associates conducting investigations across Canada in a variety of, um, organizations, uh, industries, um, everything from small, not-for-profit to multi-million dollar organizations, uh, municipalities, um, first Nations, um, um, you know, every industry that you can really think about. Speaker 2 (05:15): We've, uh, we've actually conducted investigations and we're doing about a hundred investigations a year. Um, and I do all the quality assurance. So I do a lot of reading and a lot of coaching and, um, and a lot of, uh, putting out fires sometimes, um, obviously, uh, metaphorically. And, uh, you know, the big thing about a workplace investigator and what makes a good workplace investigator, um, they have to be impartial. They have to be thorough. Um, they have to be, uh, fair gatherers of information and evidence. And interestingly, what, uh, a lot of people don't, um, maybe necessarily know about this industry is that the workplace investigator is also the adjudicator. So they come to a, a finding. When they do an investigation, they're weighing the evidence. Um, they're, they're assessing it, uh, against what's called the civil standard approved or the balance of probabilities. And they come to a finding, in other words, what's more likely to have occurred, um, in this particular area of conflict. And we've talked about workplace investigations and conflict. Probably 95% of our work is what I call person on person allegations of misconduct. Speaker 3 (06:22): Bob, what kind of allegations are workplace investigators investigating, uh, with your, with your business and just with the investigation community around North America? Speaker 2 (06:33): The, you know, the primary areas, harassment and bullying in the workplace, that seems to be the majority. We also investigate, of course, sexual harassment, sexual violence, sexual assaults, um, and discrimination, um, based on any of the protected human rights grounds. So we investigate, like, as I said, I call all the, I lump those into what I call person on person allegations of misconduct. Yeah, on occasion we'll do fraud theft, uh, those types of investigation. But for the most part, it's the person on person allegations of misconduct. Speaker 3 (07:04): Right. So you're seeing, you're, you and your team are seeing, uh, these allegations that people have been bullied or harassed or discriminated against or sexually harassed. How do people with high conflict personalities show up in those investigations that you and your team are involved in? Speaker 2 (07:23): Um, well, it, it's interesting. They show up oftentimes in the initial complaint, um, where we have complainants, um, identified their allegations. And of course, they're only allegations at that time cuz we have to be open to all possibilities. Um, but they're identifying allegations and behaviors that I would look at to start to say as we, as we examine on a prima faci case or on its face, um, if this is true, what might we be dealing with here? So, as an example, if we have a complainant alleged gaslighting, and most of us are familiar with what that term means, clearly the complainant is because they raised it up in their complaint that I'm being gas lited, I'm being set up to fail, et cetera, et cetera, when we're talking about harassment. And so I, we look at this and we, we evaluate from that prima fashion case, uh, perspective to say, if this is true, um, what might we be dealing with? Speaker 2 (08:16): Always recognizing that the potential exists, that the allegation isn't true. Oftentimes I see as well she, that, um, and you've probably seen this as well, is that someone that we might look at and, um, you know, for lack of a better word, assess or anticipate that they're a high conflict person. They'll try to control the process, the interview times the narrative. Um, they want you to interview them at their time, uh, on their time when it's convenient for them. So there's a narrative control there that we see sometimes. Um, I've had a case where, um, you know, this, uh, I'm a, you know, certainly highly qualified in this field, but she wanted to remove me, um, from the investigation, um, alleging that I wasn't, uh, qualified. And, um, and of course it was alleged that she tried to control everything in her workplace and was bullying to get there, . So, I mean, we might see this and just in the behavior they show up with in the investigation. Speaker 3 (09:18): Sure. Interesting. When it starts to show itself in the interactions with you, isn't Speaker 2 (09:22): It? Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. And I think how they also show up is a, is a significant lack of self-awareness. Um, you know, that there's, there's, they're either not aware whatsoever, uh, on how they are perceived or how they, uh, present to others. Um, and will oftentimes either outright deny or deflect, um, any allegations against them Speaker 1 (09:43): And may not even understand, uh, have, like you said, they don't have any awareness, self-awareness or, or insight into their role in, in, um, the interaction or in the allegation, um, when, you know, in a lot of cases, it, it could be that person that's causing the problem , right? And blaming it on, uh, the other person. And, and that's why many times decision makers get things backwards. So it just underscores the importance of having workplace investigators that are aware of high conflict personalities and human behavior as you and both you and Cheryln are. So, um, what types of challenges do people with high conflict personalities pose for your investigator team? Um, and what do investigators need to do to build rapport with, with anyone they interview to be able to gather the information you would need? Speaker 2 (10:35): Um, well, you know, it's interesting. When I became familiar with the work being done by the High Conflict Institute in doing, um, my research and reading, um, I really, really like the, um, the, the acronym, biff or mnemonic Biff . Um, and I actually, I used a couple of slides on that. I, I highlight the work that's being done at High Conflict insti, um, high Conflict Institute on my courses. Thank you. And, uh, I've got, I've got a, uh, a video with, uh, with Bill, and then I talk about Biff. I, I really believe that it is helpful. Um, the brief aspect of Biff is not to debate. We're, we're not here to debate our process. We're not here to debate how it's going to go. Um, we, we need to inform people. We need to be brief, let them know what's gonna happen. Um, we do this in our initial, uh, letters that we send out to the persons, uh, or the parties, uh, involved in an investigation. Speaker 2 (11:24): We're very, very clear on the process or we're informative. Um, we let them know what's happening and when it will happen. Um, we're firm on our boundaries when someone wants to either delay or wants to set up interviews when it's convenient for them, or wants us to, you know, go down a rabbit trail. Um, so we're firm on our boundaries, our process, our expectations, and always friendly. Um, I really, really believe, I've been doing investigations for 40 years and, um, my, my personality is one that people would say I'm collegial and friendly. Um, that's just naturally who I am. I've seen other investigators, including in my, my former policing years, um, they're rigid, they're cold, they're robotic, they're aggressive, and that just doesn't work. And, um, and so I truly believe that we can rise above, uh, the emotions that might, uh, present themselves in a high conflict situation and, um, and just continue to be who we are. And so I really like the, uh, the, the guidelines identified in the, uh, BIFF acronym. Speaker 3 (12:26): Do your team of investigators ever come to you and say, oh, I am facing a really difficult situation here, uh, like how do I get through this? I'm thinking of situations maybe where y you know, maybe an interviewee. So this could be a complaining party or responding party. A witness almost turns on, on the investigator, uh, and maybe ramps up with some outburst type behavior, or, or conversely shuts down and won't, won't engage. And I'm just curious, when your team comes to you, what kinds of discussions do you have that bring in the high conflict techniques to help work with those folks? Speaker 2 (13:09): Yeah, I mean, I, they're, they're all certainly aware of, um, you know, our, our philosophy and theory on how to deal with high conflict. I mean, they're all seasoned and, and they've been, been around workplaces for a long time. Um, on occasion, when we have those really sticky ones, I'll personally get involved. And so I may, um, I may, um, uh, be a secondary investigator on the interviews, um, so as to be able to intervene if required or, or at least, um, provide a level of support for our investigators, particularly, um, you know, I've had situations where the high conflict person has tried to intimidate, and, uh, and if they've tried to intimidate, then oftentimes I'll, I'll, um, I'll participate in the interview and, uh, and set the appropriate boundaries if necessary. Um, oftentimes it's not necessary. If I'm there, um, for whatever reason, they, they'll, they'll usually, well, kind of minor PS and Qs, but, um, but I, yeah, so we'll, we'll talk about it for sure. Speaker 2 (14:07): Um, you know, and one of the things that I really believe, and I I teach this in the interviewing, is to anticipate, right, to prepare and advance and anticipate. And so if we can prepare in advance and anticipate the type of response we may get, um, it assists us when someone does erupt or when someone does try to intimidate or someone does try to discredit, she, I don't know if you've ever had it where we've had persons that we've found to have engaged in the misconduct, now turn around and try to discredit you as the investigator. Speaker 3 (14:42): Certainly, right? There can be allegations against the investigator that it wasn't fair or, uh, that, you know, the investigator displayed some kind of bias against that. And so, as you say, consistent processes are, are so important, but it can feel really difficult for a person in the investigator's seat when, when they're facing that kind of thing. Now, listen, Bob, you've talked about training. So you mentioned that you're the quality assurance person who oversees reports for, you know, oversees maybe a hundred reports a year, but you also have talked about training. So who do you train? Uh, tell us a bit more about the training you do for investigators. Speaker 2 (15:22): Absolutely. Yeah. Um, I developed a training course when I was with, uh, my former, uh, employer, um, the Health Authority. And, uh, when I launched on my own, I developed, uh, a three day workplace investigations training, um, that is geared primarily to the human resource professional. So I partner with the, uh, chartered professionals in human resources across Western Canada, in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia and Yukon, uh, and developed and, and have developed and delivered those courses for them for, uh, over four years now. I think I'm up to about 35 courses in the four year, um, period. And, um, and as well as some advanced courses, um, that I also have. Um, so we basically, uh, um, you know, begin with the fundamentals of an investigation, um, uh, through the day, the first day, the second day, we look into the, I do a bit of a deep dive in psychological violence, uh, whereas I said, person on person misconduct, and that's your harassment, your bullying, your sexual harassment and violence, your discrimination. Speaker 2 (16:24): And then the last day is interesting, and this is where there's a little bit of a, uh, um, a crossover here that I'm not sure if the mi um, sherlyn, I think you're aware, I'm not sure Megan's aware of the, the, the dark triad or the concept of the dark triad. It's, uh, very, very similar to what's being, um, taught at the High Conflicts Institute. So I have a whole module that I call investigating the dark triad at work, and, uh, much in common with the topics we have today. And that's where I use, um, uh, Bill's, uh, video as well as a couple of, uh, resources, uh, pointing people to the High Conflict Institute. Speaker 1 (16:59): We appreciate that very much, , and I love that you're, you, you've applied Biff in a way that really, I guess we hadn't thought of in the beginning, right? Because we, we, uh, recognized Biff or kind of touted as a way to communicate in, in, um, in writing through email or text messages or letters. But really, it's, it's applicable across the board, whether you're prepping for a, an investigation, you are communicating, verbally, communicating and writing. It can really be useful across the board. So, brief, informative, friendly, and, and firm. You've, you've definitely got that down. So, um, thank you for sharing that with, with your trainees. Um, so what do you hear, speaking of those trainees, do you hear stories from them about high conflict, what you would consider to be high conflict? Because as you, all three of us, um, are very well aware when you're dealing with high conflict, people will often come to us and say, you, I'm sure you've never heard a story like this. This looks really bad, , and, and you're like, I can probably have , the details might be different, but the patterns are the same. So what are you hearing from your trainees? Speaker 2 (18:09): Well, what's really interesting, um, that particular module that I teach on, on, uh, the dark triad, uh, including the high conflict persons, um, it's actually, uh, the module that, uh, garners, um, significant interest and, uh, people share, like, that was my favorite, um, because it's really is I, I, I observe these aha moments, these proverbial aha moments, right? Um, when we talk about those behaviors as Bill identifies, the 95% of us, it just doesn't make sense. And what's interesting, I wanna share a little, uh, interesting tidbit that I teach on, on these anecdotal percentages. Um, so it fits right in, I do an informal poll with our hr, uh, professionals, and I ask them, what percentage of employees take up 80% of your time managing conflict or investigations? And across the board, the average generally comes to about 5%. And so when I hear Bill talk about the, you know, behaving in ways that 95% of us wouldn't behave, and then I co correlate that with the 5% of what people are saying, um, that is causing them a lot of, um, time, energy, effort, and grief in the workplace, it really, really, uh, illustrates, um, this concept. Speaker 3 (19:28): So, Bob, let me conduct an informal poll with you for a moment. Yes. How much of a percent of the cases you deal with through your firm, how much of a percent do you think involves folks who may have high conflict personalities? Speaker 2 (19:43): Oh, that's a great question. Um, I would say informally, anecdotally, 80%. Speaker 3 (19:51): Yeah. Interesting. Right? It's definitely more than half for me. And I, I have a combination practice where I do workplace investigation as well as mediation. And don't you find that like the folks who find themselves in these processes where they're getting investigated for misconduct in a workplace and facing, you know, by the way, the investigation, uh, for the benefit of the folks in, out, the listeners out there who don't live in the world of investigations, as Bob and I, do, you know, the, the outcome of these things might be discipline, which could, you know, could inv involve suspensions, it could involve losing jobs and that kind of thing. So it, the stakes are high, but the folks who find themselves that don't, you find the folks in these processes, a, you know, they're not everybody. They're not like everybody. Speaker 2 (20:41): AB absolutely, Cheryl. And, and I'll, you know, maybe I'll bring it down a little bit to a little bit tighter in terms of, as an example, a sexual harassment case where they're either a, they're not going to, um, I've, I've never had someone fess up and say, yeah, you got me. Um, I did it. I was sexually harassing her. I deserve to be fired. Um, , right? You just don't have that happen. And, um, and so, you know, so I look at, I mean, on occasion, you're gonna get these cases where it really is two people that aren't able to get along, and they're mutually trying to figure it out. They can't make it work. Um, they go to you for mediation, um, and you've got two willing participants. And these investigations, like I said, anecdotally, 80%, um, uh, I generally find that there is one antagonist, and that antagonist at times could be the complainant because, um, you know, maybe there's a, a vexatious complaint, but for the most part, the antagonist being the person that is actually causing harm, um, psychological harm, uh, emotional harm, harm in the workplace, and, um, and oftentimes behaviors that we've been talking about do definitely show up in this. Speaker 1 (21:52): What's kind of fascinating about that, and a, a a a question for you is, do you find that those in the workplace, maybe, that are in, in charge of this and are, are bringing you in to investigate, believe that it's two parties involved in a conflict, that both of them are at fault? And as we know, in high conflict disputes, there's typically one, sometimes both parties have high conflict personalities, but a lot of times it is that one, one individual, but a lot of people get it backwards, and it can be very frustrating to the other individual who does not have a high conflict personality. They're being targeted, they're being blamed, and they, they might have overreacted, which is very typical when we deal with a high conflict individual. Um, so are, do you see that in, in the workplace? Speaker 2 (22:36): Absolutely. And one of the things that I teach as well is, um, some of these folks that we would call high conflict or in the dark triad, um, many of them are master manipulators. Um, they're charming. Um, they're articulate, um, they present a certain way to people in authority, and then the door closes and they present yet a very different way to, maybe it's their staff, maybe it's an individual. Um, and so people are, are, uh, some of our clients are shocked when we come to a finding that, yes, this person who was your rockstar, your shiny penny, um, has actually been engaging in highly destructive behavior that is harming, uh, individuals. And, uh, and the evidence is, is very Speaker 1 (23:19): Strong. And now they're in the news. So, Speaker 2 (23:21): . Yeah. Well, and you know, we just had, we just had a case that, uh, that our team investigated, uh, that was in the news just last week. And, um, and it was a, a massive, um, investigation that we did in a systemic investigation, in a, uh, first re responder environment. And, um, the, um, the, the, the leaders of this particular organization, um, were highly charismatic, friendly, um, those, uh, you know, all of the things that we see and, and so, yeah, I, I think, um, many employers, perhaps even hr, um, professionals can be a little bit naive when it comes to this type of behavior. And I think that you have to really check that potential for naive, um, against, we don't wanna be too cynical , right? Speaker 3 (24:08): Yeah. And this, but that it, something that you said, I think is, is worth sort of highlighting, is that high conflict behavior is often behavior, uh, connected to close relationships, right? So facing out words, a person can appear very charming, very charismatic, put on a very good appearance sort of publicly or in their outer circles. But then as relationships become closer, the, the high conflict type of, uh, perhaps disordered, uh, relationship disordered type behavior starts to come to bear. So I, I want us to talk a little bit about a concept called davo, uh, that, that gets talked a lot about in workplace investigation circles these days. And for the list for the benefit of the listers, Bob and I are both members of the Association of Workplace Investigators, uh, which is a North American, well, in fact, it's a global organization, but it's got, uh, large amounts of members in, uh, in Australia, the US and Canada, uh, sort of like the, the main markets that the High Conflict Institute reaches. And so this concept of DAVO comes up in our meetings and webinars. And so I think it would help to chat about that for a moment. So DAVO stands for Deny Attack, reverse Victim and Offender. And I wonder if you can just talk about that concept for a bit, and what do people who conduct workplace investigations need to know about it? And what links then do we see between Davo Behave behavior by a responding party and, and the kind of information that High Conflict Institute teaches? Speaker 2 (25:53): Uh, you know, how I find it shows up, um, she right from the get-go. And, and as, as I'm sure you do as well, we begin our interviews with a very broad, um, wide open question. Can you tell me what's been going on? Um, that's where I begin. Um, and then it's really interesting to see where, where, let's say the respondent of an allegation that that, um, in inevitably comes, uh, to be a founded allegation, um, that they immediately go to the discrediting of the complainant. And, um, so that's the attack, the attack, the credibility of the complainant. Well, she does this and she does that, and I think she's smoking marijuana. And, and well, you should see the way she dresses. And, um, you know, that took me Speaker 3 (26:38): Sounds like divorce court. Speaker 2 (26:39): Yeah, exactly. Yeah, . Um, and, and so, you know, so right away it's attacking the credibility of the accuser. Um, and then, um, there's this, you, you start to listen very carefully to this element of Poor me. Um, as, uh, as your statement at the High Conflict Institute goes, Megan, it's all your fault. It's all their fault. It's all the, the organization's fault. Um, she's, I'm a victim. Yeah, I'm a victim. I'm a victim. Yeah, she's a narcissist. She's a, this, she's the high conflict person. And so on and so forth. And, and, you know, as we probe the questions, we come to realize that, um, there is very little in the way of acceptance that someone, uh, is behaving inappropriately or, or engaging in misconduct, number one. So they'll deny it either a soft denial or a strong denial. Soft denial, by the way I teach is a, uh, well, I don't think I did that. Speaker 2 (27:31): I don't believe I said that. Um, I don't recall saying that. Um, those are all what we call soft denials. And, um, and so it'll, it'll just come out in the, in, in the interview. I mean, it's very clear when I do my courses, I role play, um, a couple of different characters. And, um, and so I, I start to do davo in my role play. I'm, I say, I'm presenting as a respondent, and I'll role play, and I'll start Tovo and see if the, uh, the learners on my courses pick up on the fact that's exactly what I'm doing. Speaker 3 (28:01): And one of the, uh, uh, defining characteristics that High Conflict Institute talks about in terms of how to identify people with high conflict personalities is targets of blame. And so when you have a responding party who's, who's putting on, or, or rather, I don't even think they put it on, I think they really believe themselves to be victims. Uh, and that, and that they are the victims, and then they, they go into blaming, complaining parties. I think it's really interesting. It's, it's really important for investigators to be able to spot that information and spot that behavior. Do you thank human resources professionals that you teach? Are, are they savvy enough to that, or do you think they sometimes get drawn into that type of behavior? Speaker 2 (28:52): I, I, I think it really, I mean, there's a whole number of factors that depends, right? But, um, certainly the, the senior human resources professionals, they've seen a lot, um, as you know. And so, um, you know, by trial and error, they've learned a few things along the way, and they're, they're a little bit more savvy. Um, oftentimes I find that human resource professionals get into the profession because frankly, they like people. And, um, and so then all of a sudden you have a, a fairly new human resource professional, maybe just came out of a certificate program. They're launched into investigations. And I just put up on LinkedIn today that most of them will tell me that 50% of their time is spent either resolving conflict or investigating, and yet they're not taught that, um, in their, in their workshops or, or in their, uh, certificates or diplomas. So, um, I think that, uh, that, again, you know, that, that, I call it discernments, right? The, the ability to discern human behavior. Um, we cannot be naive. We have to take the blinders off. Um, otherwise we'll be that person that's trick, that's, uh, manipulated, um, that's charmed. And that may impact our biases as we're writing our reports. So that may impact our biases as we're looking at, uh, at coming to findings. Speaker 1 (30:01): I would think you learned and, uh, picked up a lot of that during your years with the, uh, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, . I said the whole thing, uh, in in full form instead of acronym. Yes. Um, but I would think, uh, all of that experience being around people, you get that muscle memory of, um, I've felt this before. I've experienced this before, this behavior, this mismatch of the truth and, and not the truth. And, uh, you know, what, what's going on here? Uh, do you, did, do you feel like you, you gained a lot of that experience through, um, your, your time in there with the police? Speaker 2 (30:36): Absolutely, Megan, and, and I would say not only in dealing with, I mean, I did some very, very high profile homicide, undercover work, organized crime, biker gangs. I mean, I dealt with some really, really high complex and high risk situations. But what's really interesting is that I also experienced it internally. So if you, if you talk to any police officer about post-traumatic stress injury or post-traumatic stress disorder, and they'll tell you, look, I can handle the, the stuff that we see outside the death, the violence, the, the crime. I can deal with that. It's the internal backstabbing and back biting and gossip campaigns and spirit campaigns and jealousies, um, within Speaker 1 (31:13): The workplace, Speaker 2 (31:13): Within the workplace that caused the most pain. It certainly caused my most pain. And, and, uh, and when I crashed my, my career crashed and burned, and I was a whistleblower and, and a whole bunch of other, other stories, Speaker 1 (31:24): Time. Oh, wow. Speaker 2 (31:25): Yeah, yeah. So it's another story for another time. But, um, those are still the nightmares I have about the internal pain caused by people certainly with high conflict, but also people certainly out to destroy others in the workplace. Speaker 1 (31:40): Um, yeah, would love to sit down over a coffee or a glass of wine or something and hear those stories. . Oh, alright. Well, what could we here at HCI do to help educate workplace investigators and, you know, both the US Canada, anywhere in the world on how to navigate situations where there are complainants respondents and witnesses who may be people with high conflict personalities. What's important there? Speaker 2 (32:06): Yeah. It's interesting. Um, Megan, um, I had posted on LinkedIn, uh, last week about, uh, about HCI and, and I, uh, post some links and, um, and I had some people push back. They didn't like, really? Yeah. They didn't like the idea that we may, uh, quote label someone as high call. Right. Yeah. And you've probably heard that a lot. We can't label Sure. And yet sometimes for us to understand really what's going on here. Um, while it's not a label per se, um, it's okay to kind of say, look, th this is the, the evidence, um, bears out that this person has a lot of conflict around them. Um, and whether it be in their interpersonal relationships at home, or whether it be in the workplace, or whether it be in, you know, the sports, uh, area or wherever they interact with others, they, they have churn and conflict that follows 'em wherever they go. Um, we're not all like that , right? Right. And so, um, I think that the, obviously continuing the awareness and, and frankly maybe helping others accept that there's, there's such a thing or that accept the theory Speaker 3 (33:08): And the fact that there are folks who show up in lots and lots of workplace investigations who may have high conflict personalities. I mean, being able to identify that and use HCI i's techniques, helps you build rapport with that person, right? Helps you make sure that the workplace investigation remains unbiased and fair, uh, because you can actually connect with that person and help them tell their story, hopefully, in a way that helps them feel that there was a fair process, uh, you know, win, lose or draw in terms of whatever happens at the end. Speaker 2 (33:43): A absolutely, and I would say that, you know, that one of the things that, um, you know, for an investigator to continue to develop and be a really, uh, competent investigator is that understanding of their own triggers, right? That, uh, high conflict person might push their buttons, and then, um, it could be argued they aren't giving them a fair shake. And so I, I kind of almost laugh it off when I have someone that's trying to control the process, trying to control and engage in darbo, and, you know, blaming others and blaming the organization and blaming human resources and blaming the Prime Minister and blaming the, you know, um, I, you know, I, I kind of smile inwardly at that. I don't, I don't let it hook me. And I think for a workplace investigator, they have to be very aware of their own, uh, triggers and their own hooks that they don't get hooked into, um, some of the manipulative tactics that, uh, that might take place as well. Speaker 3 (34:36): That's right. Because ultimately we have to stay impartial and make sure it's a fair process. That's why we're brought in as external investigators. Uh, if we're external and even the internal, uh, investigators, we must keep it fair. Speaker 2 (34:49): Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 1 (34:50): You know, back to, to the conversation around, um, you know, kind of some pushback around the labels. It's, you know, bill and I just recorded a, uh, an episode of a couple weeks back on, uh, personality disorders. The, the, the elephant in the room, the new elephant in the room, , thank you. So, you know, uh, bill, you know, theorizes that, you know, back, uh, 20 years ago or, or a little bit longer, alcoholism was the elephant in the room. And once people started talking about it, there was, you know, the shame was shed a bit and people could get the help they needed. And I think it's, it's somewhat similar with, with high conflict disputes. We don't want people to be cast in a, a light of, of that they're bad people because all people have good, and, and, you know, positive and negative traits. Speaker 1 (35:42): I do, you do. All three of us do , everyone does. It's just that some have, what I kind of consider a, a relationship disorder. Um, they're driven by something different. It's a different operating system, and most of us just don't know what that is or what the rules of that operating system are. And so once we do, and this is really what we focus on at the institute, is we just have to have an understanding of what those rules are so that we can adapt and provide the best services. So when you're doing that investigation, you can approach it in a Biff way, um, so that you can approach, uh, people with a rapport building, um, beginning and to not make them feel shamed and to give, you know, really allow them to experience a fair process and to, to know that they've been heard, which with the true individual with a high conflict ality, they really struggle with that. Speaker 1 (36:37): They think they're not heard, they don't get a voice. They, even though there's often the loudest voice in the room, they don't think it is. And that's really, is truly their experience. That is truly how they feel. So understanding this, these techniques, I really believe is, is next level if, if you are in hr, if you are in investigations, to have this understanding. And, and I would assume kind of like you were saying, Bob, that you know, people that get into this line of work generally, like people and, and probably crave, uh, studying human behavior. So you kind of go in with some skill, innate skill likely, um, some experiential skill as well. And then having this, you know, more advanced understanding of the high conflict personality of the dark triad, right? Then you start, you can, it, it, it makes you a better investigator. It makes you a better HR person. It makes you, um, it, it helps you help the workplace. Speaker 2 (37:38): Absolutely. Yeah. No, I would absolutely agree with, with the, um, what you've said, Megan, you know, I think that that, again, developing that level of discernment, right? Um, not being, you know, too naive and not being too cynical, I think it's so important, a balanced approach, um, little bit of wisdom, um, I think is really important as well. Speaker 3 (37:56): That's a really nice segue to the last little topic that we were hoping to discuss, which has to do with what happens at the end of the, of an investigation. So you mentioned that, you know, investigators are sort of like adjudicators. We find facts, and then we make determinations about whether somebody's conduct breached the workplace policy or, or other, um, might be state, provincial, or federal laws. But at the end, investigators are usually asked to make recommendations for what might the employer do to remedy the situation. And so what types of recommendations do you and your team or what you teach, uh, in your courses, uh, about how to, how to help employers with how to remediate situations where there may be findings of bullying, harassment, harassing, or discriminatory or behavior or misconduct. Uh, because people with high conflict personality traits, they need jobs too. They have families to support. They, they have lives to live. And so what kind of recommendations can investigators make, uh, to help to sort of help workplaces improve, help workplaces heal from these processes? Speaker 2 (39:05): Yeah, a couple things. Um, so Shely, um, what we do with, uh, with our process is that our investigators don't make investigations or make recommendations. Um, cuz I find sometimes that can just blur the muddy the waters with respect to potential biases or expose us to allegations of bias. But I may as, uh, a consultant, um, engage with our, um, clients and make some recommendations. Um, I I make a very, um, broad, I guess a very high level, uh, recommendation for these types of situations. First and foremost is to hold the person that's engaged in misconduct, accountable, whatever that may look like. Um, and whether that means that they, you know, that they, they, they go through performance, uh, improvement plans, performance management. They have to be held accountable and, and know that this behavior is caused harm and it has to stop. To me, I, I think that to be very clear on that, um, secondly is to make the other person whole, because if anyone's been in the circle of someone, um, that may, uh, fall into, certainly are exhibiting the behaviors of, um, a personality disorder or high conflict, it is painful. Speaker 2 (40:11): Um, I have at the personal level, and I can tell you it is, um, for lack of a better word, crazy making. Um, you question yourself, you ruminate, you, you're, you're in pain. You're, you're lying awake. You're spend 60, 70% of your time trying to figure out how to get away from this. Um, and so they have to be, um, they have to be made whole, um, the persons that have been the target of this behavior, and lastly, put the checks and balances in place to make sure it doesn't continue. If the, the high conflict person continues to behave in high conflict ways that are harming others, then they need to be, uh, disciplined. Uh, either, you know, I always used to have a, when I was in leadership, um, we manage up. Um, so in other words, we bring them to the level of expectation or we manage out. And, and that's how, and I think that that aligns with, uh, with Beth as well. Um, I'll tell you what, I pushed back on my little, my little pet peeve. And I'm a trainer, I'm a corporate trainer. I train thousands, uh, you know, in workplace harassment and bullying prevention and, and, uh, and all kinds of things is training is not the silver bullet. Speaker 3 (41:13): No. Right? You can't just throw anyone in a course and hope that they're gonna figure it all out, gain the insight and improve. Speaker 2 (41:19): Exactly. And, and so, you know, oftentimes I see organizations default, well, we'll send them for training. No, you need to performance manage. You need to set, you need to set, um, proper expectations, hold them accountable. Um, far more effective than training's going to be. I would say if someone's working with me, that's my conflict. Said, look, I will do everything I can to help you improve your behavior towards others, but what I won't do is allow you to continue to behave like that, Speaker 3 (41:48): Right? Which is setting limits, right? That is, that is what h c I teaches is, is ha, is that we have to set limits. And also that people with high conflict personality traits need one-on-one attention. That there is coaching that can, that can help people shift behavior even if they're not gonna learn insight. And that employers can offer that kind of, kind of support to help remediate a situation. Speaker 2 (42:15): I go back to situational leadership, uh, she, and where, uh, you're probably familiar with the, uh, the four quadrants of, uh, the able and willing, um, um, quadrants and I go, you know, basically figure out are they willing and able to change? If they're willing and able, then I would say to organizations, put their resources in. If they're unwilling or unable to change behavior, then you need to make different decisions. Speaker 1 (42:38): Well said, Bob. And we're, we've, this has been a really fascinating, um, time for me. Uh, I'm sure it is for our listeners as well. So thank you so much for being here with us and thank you Cheryl, for co-hosting with me. Um, and we'll be doing a few more workplace mini-series, um, episodes as well. Cheryl Lynn will be along with me. In the meantime, send your questions to podcast high conflict institute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast. And we'd love if you'd leave us a review wherever you listen to your podcast. Until next time, keep learning and practicing the skills, uh, in for, for high conflict interaction, be kind to yourself, be kind to others while we all strive toward the missing peace. It's All Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music, by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins and Ziv Moran. Find the show, show notes and transcripts@truestory.fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app Laos ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.