Managing Conflicts in your role as a volunteer by Tamworth Borough Council

A toolkit for resident groups and housing associations (or housing association landlords)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION TOOLKIT

Compas@TPAS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2007

CONTENT Foreword Raphael Runco – Deputy Housing Ombudsman

Background - Why resolving disputes is so important How the toolkit came together How to use it

Introduction to dispute resolution What it is and what causes it

Preventing disputes – how to stop disputes before they start! Using the Case Studies Case Study One Case Study Two Case Study Three

Lessons learned

Potential issues arising form the case studies

What makes good practice? Early planning What are the benefits of spotting disputes early?

Toolkit for preventing disputes

Tools to help assess 'where you are' 13 Health Check Effective Group Assessment Analysing resident involvement against Housing Corporation expectations Measuring our performance – the what, why, how report Tools to help avoid dispute Coaching – the TGROW technique Building a resolution agreement

Tools to help make decisions 24 Analysing risk Simple scoring – a technique to help choose between different projects Tools to help gather your thoughts Brainstorming Metaplan Mind Mapping

Descending into conflict – the downside of disputes! Case Study One (part two) Case Study Two (part two) Case Study Three (part two)

Lessons learned

Potential issues arising from the case studies

What makes good practice? Key skills in managing and preventing disputes Reflective listening Empathy Reframing Exploring through questions Feedback Building common ground Facilitated agreement

Toolkit for dealing with disputes Dispute styles Conflict questionnaire

Resolving disputes – or how to move things forward when they get stuck! Case Study One (part three) Case Study Two (part three) Case Study Three (part three)

Lessons learnt Potential issues arising form the case studies

What makes good practice? Managing disputes – how to do it Checklist for a healthy debate

Toolkit for managing destructive disputes Five stages of dispute management Resolving entrenched dispute How can mediation help? Moving the situation on – different approaches Mediation – yes or no?

Conclusion – prevention is better than cure

Signpost

FOREWORD This toolkit is for anyone who may have to deal with conflict in social housing, either as a party to a dispute or as someone supporting the search for a solution. It has been designed to help people understand why, sometimes, there is conflict between providers and consumers of housing services â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but it does not stop there. The toolkit, significantly, gives examples of disputes and how they can be resolved, and provides easy-to-follow tips on how best to manage the inevitable tensions in the sometimes fragile relationship between landlords and residents. Above all, the toolkit is a practical guide arranged with the purpose of emphasising dispute resolution at every step. Landlords and residents face new challenges and a certain degree of uncertainty following the most intense period of scrutiny of social housing in many decades. They must move forward working together, within a conciliatory framework. I welcome the toolkit's realistic and workable advice when things go wrong.

Rafael Runco Deputy Housing Ombudsman

BACKGROUND Why resolving disputes is so important Housing associations and resident groups can spend time, effort and resources trying to resolve disputes. Vast amounts of time can be spent trying to get each side to understand the problem, take action or to listen! Situations can escalate, become expensive and destructive. This toolkit has been designed to be used by housing associations and groups to help prevent and resolve disputes.

How the toolkit came together Compas@TPAS with advice from the Housing Corporation formed a steering group of experienced individuals from a variety of housing backgrounds, including resident representatives. The steering group provided guidance on the approach and content of a toolkit to help housing associations and residents understand and manage disputes . A number of real case studies are included which illustrate different aspects of disputes, how they start and how they can become expensive and time consuming if not dealt with in a timely fashion.

How to use it The toolkit should be used as an artist would use his pallet, to mix and match colours to meet their requirements. It will question and challenge the reader to identify problems arising from the case studies and give guidance on how to overcome them. The toolkit provides tools to be used at all stages of a dispute: â&#x20AC;˘To prevent dispute starting â&#x20AC;˘To regain control if dispute has already occurred â&#x20AC;˘To deal with dispute if things have got really bad Some tools may seem more suitable for housing association landlords, others may seem more suitable for residents. However, every dispute is different, so use what works for you. This toolkit also contains a guide to a variety of helpful website links and contact addresses for organisations giving further information and advice.

INTRODUCTION TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION - what it is and what causes it In your life the sun is shining, everything is going well. Then something happens. It might be sudden, it might be gradual. But one day you wake up and realise everything has changed. It's like someone changed the rules and didn't tell you. You can't work out what's happened or why. Previous good relationships turn frosty and events start to spiral out of control.

STOP! This book can help you identify when disputes become negative. It offers tips, tools and techniques to help assess the situation and plan ways forward. If in dispute, we also include tips, tools and techniques to help manage and resolve the situation. Do try them out – see what works and let us know! The aim is to build a win-win situation. Housing associations want to provide a first class housing service – and residents want to receive great service. Sometimes disputes occur when the needs of others clash with our needs. Very often no malice or disruption is intended – it just happens. Housing associations and residents have similar dislikes such as: What housing associations don’t like is being

What residents don’t like is being

Treated as if they’re the enemy

Automatically told they’re ‘wrong’

Told they don’t care

Criticised for having views

Shouted at or abused

Talked down to

Expected to ‘drop everything’ to respond

Ignored

Expected to solve everything instantly

Given the run around

Residents need a good service that meets their changing needs and is value for money. As the Tenant Involvement Commission's* report What Tenants Want comments, residents want housing associations to 'get the basics right' and 'go the extra mile'. They want to be treated and valued as partners in developing this approach. Housing associations need to provide a good service that meets residents' changing needs and is value for money. They want to get the basics right and go the extra mile. They want to be treated and valued as professionals in developing this approach. It's important to note that although both housing associations and residents want the same outcome, they approach this from their differing perspectives – provider and receiver. It is this dynamic that makes resident involvement such an essential business activity. Without both perspectives there is always only half a story.

The Housing Corporation's involvement policy helps housing associations and residents to achieve this. It emphasises the 'business' reasons for resident involvement, and highlights ten 'building blocks' for effective involvement. The chapter on 'Building Better Involvement' takes this further by suggesting ways for high performing associations to demonstrate commitment to resident involvement by embedding resident involvement into their culture. *Set up by the National Housing Federation

By exploring good practice and working together in a respectful way, many tensions can be avoided. “If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem” (Jidda Krishnamurti, Indian guru, 1895-1986) Wise words indeed! To prevent conflict occurring, we need to understand why it might occur in the first place. Disputes happen when we decide how we see the world is different from how others see it. This is not necessarily bad. Disputes can encourage productive discussions and result in better decisions. But if it stops us working well together and affects relationships and results, the time has come to act! What is the difference between 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' disputes?

Healthy disputes

Unhealthy disputes

Listen first, talk second

Only interested in giving own views

Considers the value of everyone's input

Not willing to consider others' views

Willing to amend own view in the light of others' suggestions

Speaks as if there is only one possible course of action

Asks questions to encourage others to elaborate on their thoughts

Uses aggression

Builds on ideas and looks for common ground

Argues against others' views and tries to 'score points’

We can see that gaining positive communication skills helps avoid disputes becoming negative. Negative disputes start when we: •Insist our way is the only way •Won't change •Allow communication to break down •Misuse power •Get involved in personal clashes The next sections will look at these ideas and how to overcome them.

PREVENTING DISPUTES - how to stop disputes before they start! Using the Case Studies When reading these case studies please remember that “General Hindsight wins all his battles”. We were given enormous amounts of cooperation from housing associations, residents and associated agencies. All these people if armed with hindsight would do things very differently. Since we do not have hindsight we hope you will learn some key lessons from the experiences of people in these case studies, trying to do their very best. Each study comes in two parts. At the end of each part we ask you to put yourself in their place and ask “how would I have dealt with the situation?”

Case Study One Case Study One has some 13,000 properties. Although resident involvement follows a largely traditional approach, it also allows for informal groups to form. One such informal group was formed at the instigation of local councillors to add impetus to a particular estate of 350 houses. Not long after, a murder occurred on the estate. The whole community was shocked and a meeting was held, attended by senior members of local government, police, the housing association and key agencies. The community was fully involved in this meeting and it was well attended. Feelings were running high on the estate and there were rumours the housing association had been lax in its allocations policy. The meeting was originally scheduled to discuss estate improvements but was hijacked on a wave of emotion following the murder. Following the meeting the housing association decided to support the community by providing the new community group with a house on the estate as a base for community development. The house they gave to the group was the house where the murder occurred. None of the informal group had received any training or development in how to conduct meetings, present facts, manage finance or facilities, or deal with agencies and the key elements of community law etc.

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions What was the risk to the housing association?

What was the risk to the informal group?

What do you think happened next?

Case Study Two Case Study Two is a relatively new housing association forming early in 2006 to receive around 6,000 local authority stock. Once the decision was taken by residents to pursue the housing association option, the Council relied heavily on the residents' forum to take a pro-active role with councillors and residents in promoting and supporting the move to a housing association. The forum felt involved with the process and that their input was valued. They worked hard to make sure clear information was presented and understood.

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions Everything in this case study seems hunky dory. But this section is about 'preventing' conflict. So â&#x20AC;Ś What was the risk to the housing association?

What was the risk to the residents' forum?

What do you think happened next?

Case Study Three Case Study Three has almost 4000 properties. Resident involvement follows a largely traditional approach, which includes a residents group that looks at Best Value, as well as a Sheltered Housing group. One such group comprising some strong characters, decided that they wished to form an 'umbrella' group, taking all other groups under their control, with them taking the leading pivotal role. They wanted unconditional access to the data-base (for mail shots etc), wanted to control the budget (ÂŁ25K +) with no strings attached and wanted to control the newsletter, without reference to the housing association and without the housing association's input. There was nothing in their constitution that indicated that they needed to work with their landlord, no documentation or formats in place to suggest how resident associations should run and no written procedures in place for dealing with disciplinary issues within residents groups. 9

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions What was the risk to the housing association?

What was the risk to the residents' association?

What do you think happened next?

As you can see, the starting point for conflict in each case study is different. In some cases, the starting point is so subtle, you don't even realise its there! It is interesting to note that not one example exists of deliberate conflict development! But are there signs that can be picked up – danger points flashing before our eyes that could potentially lead to a conflict situation developing?

LESSONS LEARNED Potential issues arising from the case studies Here are some of the issues identified: • Consequences not thought through • Protocol/procedures not followed • Meetings not managed effectively • Creating exceptions and ignoring agreed procedures. • Relationship between residents and the housing association has no formal agreement • Not agreeing expectations • No training and support for new roles • Making 'assumptions' • No procedures for changing the status quo/relationships • No written guidelines explaining how groups will work (constitution/terms of reference – including guidelines around funding) or deal with challenging situations (code of conduct, grievance procedure, dispute resolution) You may have identified other issues. When these situations start, it is important to act to avoid disputes getting out of hand. The earlier you act the better! Groups, whether composed of residents or housing association/residents combined, need to decide what they want to achieve each year and develop a plan to help them do this. They need to liaise with other agencies where relevant to ensure plans are supported and achievable. Monitoring progress and having an 'annual health check' once a year will show how well the group works together to meet goals. This means checking that they have met their goals (or understanding why they have not) and collecting together the evidence to show that this has happened. Thinking through their approach (what worked and what didn't – and why), keeping a record of lessons learned and useful information such as local funders, will help groups to plan and perform more effectively next year. When thinking about their approach, groups should consider how well they communicated and worked together as a group as well as their practical approach to completing tasks. This toolkit has some useful exercises that can help with this process. 10

Housing associations must embed resident involvement into their business culture. This ensures a 'resident involvement focus' across the association. To avoid disputes, associations should work with residents to develop an approach that follows the standards in the Housing Corporation's Involvement Policy and Audit Commission's Key Lines of Enquiry expectations as a minimum. Reports, such as the Tenant Involvement Commission's What Tenants Want, should also be considered.

WHAT MAKES GOOD PRACTICE? Early planning: When residents and housing associations start working together they rarely plan for chaos! They focus on the vision of what they want achieved. Maybe everything will be fine …or maybe it won't! Remember that although both housing associations and residents may want the same outcome ( a good service), they both look at this from a different perspective – that of provider and receiver. It is this dynamic which, if not linked to effective communication practices, can lead to disputes occurring. Not building preventative strategies for coping with disputes means if they start they can get out of control. With no 'rules' to control them, disputes can grow and destroy good work. Plan early to deal with disputes before they start by: •Identifying risk – on all sides •Thinking things through clearly •Having a policy on how you will handle 'exemptions' to the usual guidelines •Stopping things before they get out of hand •Developing good management/decision-making habits •Developing clear plans •decide what you want to achieve – you may want to involve the housing association in early discussions •think about how you can evidence this •divide into small tasks •check the skills/resources available •think about the extra skills/resources needed •develop a plan showing how to meet your goals, with checks built in at critical points •share this with all key organisations involved in the plans •keep focused on goals •Deciding how best to communicate – with each other, housing association, community, other key organisations •Building training and support to help achieve goals •Including key skills (negotiation, dealing with conflict, decision-making etc) •Developing and agreeing ground rules for working together - and writing these down This should include discussions around what to do if: •confusion develops around goals •disagreements start •meetings make little progress •people start get frustrated or dissatisfied •disputes occur between the group and other organisations 11

•conflict develops around leadership/chairing skills •Taking time to assess the group's performance and skill at working together. Ask what is : •working for us? •helping us be effective? •getting in the way? •stopping us from being effective? •Getting feedback from others (housing association, other groups, community members etc) on how they think you perform. Is their view different from your own? •Checking procedures. Key actions include: o Producing a good resolution dispute process jointly between housing associations and residents which is well promoted, simple to use and clear to understand o Carry out trial runs to see if it works, before it is used in anger •Training in dispute awareness so everyone knows how situations escalate and how to deal with things before a crisis starts •Encouraging the use of less formal methods to reduce disputes – such as coaching, mentoring, facilitated agreement etc Examples of constitutions, grievance procedures, dispute resolution processes etc can be found on the TPAS web site www.tpas.org.uk

What are the benefits of spotting disputes early? Spotting disputes early will: • Prevent escalation and bad feeling increasing • Reduce risks of: o people falling out o 'stand off' o bad PR • Encourage awareness and shared responsibility • Build skills - tolerance, listening and empathy • Improve working relationships. Its OK to disagree

TOOLKIT FOR PREVENTING DISPUTES This toolkit contains checklists, questionnaires, surveys and techniques to help you prevent disputes. Some of them may be familiar to you (we hope so), if not, please give them a try – they do work!

TOOLS TO HELP YOU ASSESS 'WHERE YOU ARE’ Health Check It is useful to compare ourselves with how others see us. Try the following exercise: •As a group, first complete the 'how we see ourselves' form •Then complete the 'how others see us' form as though you were another group looking in at you. Getting another group (or even the housing association) to complete this for you would be even better! •Compare the different views. What do you learn from it? •What would happen if the housing association completed the 'how we see ourselves' form and residents commented on them?

How others see us

How we see ourselves

Strong

Developing

Strong

Weak

Friendly

Business like

Tough

Energetic

United

Supportive

Organised

Relaxed

Sociable

Representative

Intelligent

Committed

Experienced

Developing

Weak

Effective group assessment This tool will help you think about how well you work as a group. Score how well you think you are doing on a scale of 1 to 7 (where 7 is the highest). Circle the number you feel most describes your group's performance against the following key measures.

1. Goals 1

No goals

The group understands and agrees the goals

2. Skills 1

The skills of group members are not recognised and/or used

The skills of group members are fully recognised and used

3. Trust and Dispute Resolution 1

There is little trust among the group and disputes start

There is a high degree of trust among group members and dispute is dealt with openly and honestly

4. Procedures 1

There are few procedures to guide the group

There are effective procedures which the group supports and uses

5. Communication 1

Communication between group members is closed and guarded

Communication between group members is open and honest

6. Problem Solving/Decision Making 1

The group has no agreed approach to problem solving and decision making

The group has well established approaches to problem solving and decision making

7. Creativity 1

The group always uses the same approach

The group experiments with different ways of doing things

8. Review 1

The group does not review how well it is doing

The group often reviews how well it is doing

Have a look at your scores. What does it say about your group? What changes do you need to make to be more effective as a group? Why not get an independent person to assess your group using this exercise? Do you learn anything new?

Analysing resident involvement against Housing Corporation expectations Looking at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of your resident involvement performance helps you assess how well you are performing and how you can improve. This exercise focuses specifically on the Housing Corporation's 'basic building blocks of effective involvement' but could be adapted to meet any set of guidelines. This exercise is written from a housing association perspective but could be used by residents as part of a review of resident involvement.

Strengths For each statement below, put a tick in the appropriate column

We make sure people have equal opportunities to take part in involvement and take active steps to engage with under-represented and vulnerable groups We give feedback on our performance, how we compare with other housing associations and actions we are taking to improve We give feedback about how involvement has brought about change

We give feedback on complaints, lessons learned and changes made

We have a range of involvement activities, developed with residents, that allows them to be involved on their terms

We have negotiated terms of reference for involvement activities with residents We have properly resourced capacity building and training to support activities which create and support an 'involvement' culture We develop ways with residents to help them negotiate service targets, influence decision making, hold the association to account and bring about organisational change at a central and local level We develop mechanisms with residents and/or communities to help them influence investment in and the design of affordable homes We consider, with residents, the value for money of involvement activities Total number of ticks 16

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Weaknesses For each statement below, put a tick in the appropriate column

We have no clear plan for meeting the Housing Corporation's 'basic building blocks' of effective involvement We lack strategic, managerial and/or front line expertise to meet these expectations Our internal systems (communications, query tracking, admin support etc) do not support meeting these expectations We have a poor track record in implementing effective involvement We lack the finance to resource involvement activities effectively We fail to promote the value of resident involvement and the positive changes it can make

We are rigid in our approach to resourcing involvement

We produce less than effective results from involvement activities We struggle to demonstrate the impact of involvement activities Involvement activities do not represent value for money Total number of ticks

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Opportunities For each statement below, put a tick in the appropriate column

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Maybe

Yes

There are other customer groups we could reach There are new activities we could consider There are opportunities to link with other housing associations to provide activities (training etc) to help achieve economies of scale We could improve our rating with the Housing Corporation/Audit Commission There are opportunities to develop in-house expertise To 'sell' to other housing associations We could help meet local authority sustainable communities targets We could develop effective internal and external communications We could become - and promote ourselves as - an 'exemplar' organisation Total number of ticks

Threats For each statement below, put a tick in the appropriate column

Constant improvement from competitors shifts the baseline ever upwards Changes in regulation (resident involvement in self regulation etc) Residents do not believe our desire for effective involvement is genuine Residents needs are changing away from our current expertise Residents expectations move faster than our ability to deliver Demographic changes impact on our ability to deliver effective involvement Our technology does not support effective involvement Business plan restrictions affect our ability to deliver Total number of ticks

Interpreting your findings Strengths and weaknesses: a)

Give yourself 1 point for each tick under 'disagree'

Give yourself 2 points for each tick under 'neither agree nor disagree'

Give yourself 3 points for each tick under 'agree’

Opportunities and threats: a)

Give yourself 1 point for each tick under 'no'

Give yourself 2 points for each tick under 'maybe'

Give yourself 3 points for each tick under 'yes’

Add your scores for each individual section – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Strengths

………………

Weaknesses

………………

Opportunities

………………

Threats

………………

Now add together your scores for strengths and opportunities. Total strengths add total opportunities =

Next add together your scores for weaknesses and threats. Total weaknesses add total threats =

To get your strategic base line figure you deduct the total weaknesses and threats figure from your total strengths and opportunities. Total strengths plus opportunities

……………… minus

Total weaknesses and threats

………………

= Strategic baseline

………………

By repeating this exercise every few months you can track your progress in achieving compliance with Housing Corporation resident involvement requirements against opportunities and threats facing your organisation. This tool can be adapted for other uses. Thinking about your group's strengths, weaknesses and the opportunities and threats facing them can help you plan more effectively for your future. Focusing on a heading like 'how well we perform' or 'how well we make decisions' can yield very useful suggestions for improvement.

Measuring our performance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what, why, how report This exercise can help assess performance standards or the effectiveness of new practices. It can be useful as part of a resident involvement review. Below is an example. You can develop your own.

Topic: Improving local communities Should be

Actual

Constraints

(desired performance)

(existing performance)

(reasons for the gap)

Local area groups working with Area Housing Teams to develop a protocol on how to involve the community in assessing, planning and developing improvements to the local community

Performance sketchy. Area Teams A and C working well. Area Teams B and D performing below standard. Both Area Teams and residents report frustration

Area Teams B and D report difficulty in recruiting residents to work with them and engaging the community. Residents report teams as unhelpful, dictatorial and unwilling to work with them

Recommendations (action to close the gap)

Review of resident involvement approach to check for resourcing issues etc Area Teams/residents joint setting of targets for developing resident involvement activities in areas B and D Mentoring for staff/residents from Area Teams A and C staff/active residents

TOOLS TO HELP AVOID DISPUTES Coaching – the TGROW technique Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice. A coaching technique called TGROW can help you take control of your destiny - useful in both avoiding and resolving dispute situations. The TGROW procedure gives a framework to a discussion which otherwise might simply become a pleasant chat (at best) or descend into dispute (at worst). It is best to use an experienced coach to facilitate the group through this process. The name comes from the first letter of each step: •Theme •Goal •Reality •Options and •Wrap-up Theme The first thing the group needs to do is identify the theme – the topic they want to focus on. This stops the session rambling into other areas and fogging the main issue. If the group identifies more than one theme, they should prioritise the order so they can focus on one theme at each session. Goal Having decided on the theme for the session, the next step is to define: •what goal, if achieved, would resolve the issue •what difference this would make •how long it will take to achieve this It is critical that participants articulate a clear, measurable and specific goal at this point. Reality Once the group has agreed a clear goal, the next step is to examine the factors which might impact on this goal. This could include looking at: •where the group currently is in achieving their goal •how great their concern is that this issue is resolved •who else might be affected by the issue identified •how much control participants have to solve the issue •what action they have taken so far •what resources they might need (training, support, time, money etc) and how they might acquire these It is important at this stage not to hide from any uncomfortable aspects. Options Now participants begin to explore options for reaching their goal and resolving the key issue identified at the start (theme). All options should be explored, no matter how unlikely or wacky they may seem. This stage is not about getting one good way forward, it is about demonstrating the many possible ways to reach their goal. Brainstorming, meta planning, mind mapping techniques described elsewhere in this toolkit can be helpful here.

Once several ideas have been identified, they can be explored in turn. •Which solutions seem best to you? •Why? •How will they give you the result you seek? •Are there any new options that were not available to you before? This process of looking back to see if ideas generated so far can spark new ideas, is an important one. Just thinking of ideas can free your 'ideas muscle' so the second time round new suggestions will arise. At the end of this part, participants will have a lengthy list of possible solutions and will understand how these suggestions can lead them to meeting their goal and resolving the key issue identified at the start. Wrap-up In this stage, participants move form exploring possibilities to deciding on actions. The TGROW process means that any agreed actions are based on a clear understanding of the issues. Participants also have to agree timescales and responsibilities, including their personal commitment to this change. The model has been talked through here as though it always follows a straight line from one stage to the next. In reality, at each stage, participants may need to go back and review earlier stages in the light of information and understanding. So rather than see the model as a straight line, it is more helpful to see it as a circular process with links that allow you to move between each stage at will.

The TGROW model THEME

WRAP UP

GOAL

REALITY

OPTIONS

Building a resolution agreement Going through a dispute resolution process can leave you feeling battered and bruised. Firming up an agreement for dealing with disputes in the future can be a positive step towards making sure this doesn't happen again. Resolution agreements should be developed before you fall into serious dispute. They are an early intervention technique which involves both parties agreeing a course of action to correct what is clearly beginning to go wrong. Below is an example of a resolution agreement between Wishing Well Housing Association and Hard Rock Residents' Association based on an imagined scenario. This is an agreement between – Wishing Well HA and Hard Rock RA • Both parties agree that before any future meetings, minutes from the previous meeting will be sent out 10 days in advance, together with an agenda for the next meeting. • It has been agreed that the constitution be updated and made more appropriate to our group's needs. Changes will be put forward at the AGM and reviewed each year. • Working parties will be formed to develop any future events, (ie summer fete, newsletter) with members from the committee being elected to the steering group by membership • The treasurer is to ensure that they make the finance book available for audit every 3 months • All members are to be encouraged to attend training events to keep up to date on specific issues…. and so on. Once the agreement is completed, both parties should sign and date the agreement.

Signed: Wishing Well HA

Hard Rock RA

…………………………………………

Date ……….........…

…………………………………………

Date …….........……

…………………………………………

Date ….........………

…………………………………………

Date …..........……..

The agreement should be reviewed regularly by considering the following points: • Is it fair? Do all parties feel the agreement is fair and reasonable? • Is the agreement balanced? Does everyone have a stake and role in its implementation? • Are the action steps realistic? Do we have the time, energy, skills and resources to follow-through and implement this agreement? • Is the agreement specific enough to proceed? Does everyone understand what we need to do and when we need to do it? • To what degree is the agreement self-enforcing, or does it rely on others who were not present for the discussion? What do we do if others are unwilling to do things we hoped they would do in the agreement? • Is the agreement future-oriented? In other words, have we considered what we will do if there are other problems or conflicts in the future? It is important that all parties leave the session with a firm commitment to implement the plans that they have determined together. Open communication will help deal with unexpected problems or challenges (for example, someone is sick or unexpected workload changes make it difficult to pay attention to the agreement for a few days). If things change, sit down again and re-negotiate solutions on the basis of new information. Try not to assume that, if something doesn't happen when you expected it to, it means that the other party has abandoned the agreement or is intentionally sabotaging the process. Talk. People generally try their hardest to make things work, and it is important for everyone involved to communicate with each other about potential pitfalls and problems before they take on a life of their own and become the basis of a new dispute.

TOOLS TO HELP MAKE DECISIONS This exercise helps analyse risk. We have chosen an example to show how it works. You can develop your own using the following form. Score as follows, for Likelihood and Impact: High = 3, Medium = 2, Low = 1

Nature of Risk

Inadequate resourcing of resident involvement

Likelihood of it occurring

Impact on the business if it occurs

Likelihood x Impact

Actions required & who will take responsibility for this Review resource needs against desired outcomes Housing Services Manager

Once you have scored your risk, you will have a clear idea of which risks impact most on your ability to meet your goals. This allows you to make plans to either minimise these risks or plan for how you will deal with them. 24

MAKING DECISIONS For and Against decision making The For and Against list is an easy way to make decisions. Some decisions are simple, others involve choices and options, with different degrees of risk. Use the brainstorming process to identify potential options. You will need separate sheets for each identified option. • On each sheet clearly write the option concerned, then below this write the headings 'For' and 'Against' (or 'advantages' and disadvantages', or simply 'pros' and 'cons') • Then write down as many effects and implications of the option you (and others if appropriate) can think of, placing each in the relevant column. • 'Weight' each factor, by giving it a score out of five points (e.g. 5 being extremely significant, and 1 being of minor significance). • When you have listed all the points you can think of for the option concerned compare the total score between the two headings. • This will indicate the overall attractiveness and benefit of the option concerned. • If you have a number of options and have complete a For and Against sheet for each option, compare the attractiveness - points difference between For and Against - for each option. The biggest positive difference between them is the most attractive option. If you don't like the answer reflected back to you, it might mean you haven't included all the 'against' factors - especially the emotional ones - or you haven't scored the factors consistently, so re-visit the sheet(s) concerned. You will find that writing things down in this way will help you to see things more clearly, become more objective and detached, which will help you to make clearer decisions. Example For and Against weighted decision-risk sheet Decision option: should I buy a new car? FOR

AGAINST

More comfort (3)

Cost, its expensive! Will mean making sacrifices (5)

Economical (3)

Insurance higher (3)

Lower servicing costs (4)

Time to choose and buy (2)

Better for family (3)

Getting rid of old car (2)

More reliability (5)

Big decisions like this scare me (4)

It'll be a load off my mind (2 total 5 against, total score 16

total 6 for, total score 20

On the basis of the 'For' and 'Against' weighting above, there's a clear overall quantifiable benefit attached to the decision to go ahead and buy a new car. A decision-making list like this helps remove the emotion which blocks clear thinking and decision-making - you can now see the wood for the trees again, and make a confident decision. 25

Simple scoring - A technique to help choose between different projects This technique is extremely helpful to groups planning their activities for the year ahead, (although it has potential to be used in may other situations also). When you have a long list of potential activities, how do you decide which ones to act on without having a lengthy debate? You will need a flip chart for this exercise. • Use brainstorming to produce a list of potential activities for the year • Write these up on a flip chart, leaving a space to the right of each suggestion for scoring • Ask the group to consider the list and each pick the 'top three' activities they think would most benefit the community in the coming year (give them clear guidance here - don't just ask them to 'pick' their favourite activities or you will skew the results) • Go round the group in turn asking them to identify their top three activities. Award three points to their top activity; two points to their second placed activity and one point to their third placed activity • Once each member has taken part, add up the scores for each activity • The activities with the highest scores give you your 'agenda for change’

Example: Activity

Scoring

Total

3,2,2,1,1,1,3,2

1,1,1,1,1,1,2

Hold a litter pick

3,3,3,3,2,1,2,3

Hold a fun day

3,3,2,1,2,3,3,3

Get the views of younger people Produce a newsletter

TOOLS TO HELP GATHER YOUR THOUGHTS Brainstorming Brainstorming is a powerful proven technique. It helps •create new ideas •solve problems •motivate and develop teams Brainstorming motivates because it involves members of a team in bigger issues and it gets people working together. However, brainstorming is not simply a random activity. Brainstorming needs to be structured and has rules. Although it sounds like an easy activity, it is actually quite challenging for the facilitator to manage the process, people's involvement/sensitivities and the follow up actions.

Brainstorming process Agree the objective Everyone taking part must understand and agree the question to be discussed. Keep the brainstorming simple. Allocate a time limit. This keeps the session under control and on track.

Manage the process Brainstorming allows people to create ideas at random. The facilitator encourages everyone to take part and to be accepting of wilder suggestions (some of the best ideas are initially the daftest). •During the random collection of ideas the facilitator must record every suggestion •Use Blu-Tack or sticky tape to hang the sheets around the walls •At the end of the time limit or when ideas have been exhausted, use different coloured pens to sort, group, connect and link the random ideas •Condense and refine the ideas by making new headings or lists. You can diplomatically combine or include the weaker ideas within other themes to avoid dismissing or rejecting contributions •With the group, assess, evaluate and analyse the effects and validity of the ideas or the list •Develop and prioritise the ideas into a more finished list or set of actions or options

Implement the actions agreed from the brainstorming •Agree actions from the session •Agree a timescale •Agree who's responsible •After the session, circulate notes •Monitor and give feedback It's crucial to develop a clear and positive outcome, so that people feel their effort and contribution was worthwhile. When people see that their efforts have resulted in action and change, they will be motivated and keen to help again.

Metaplan 'Metaplanning' (or 'more than planning') is a structured brainstorming technique where participants are asked a series of questions.

•Responses are written on cards (one per card), which are stuck onto a wall •Participants then group these responses into a series of categories, which they define •These categories are then prioritised by participants distributing a number of votes (sticky dots). This highlights their areas of concern. The number of dots they are given to distribute is one less than the number of categories. Example: In a typical 2-3 hour session participants could be asked the following questions. •What do customers expect us to do well? •What do internal customers expect us to do well? •What are the key problems that prevent us from meeting customer expectations? •To what degree are these issues impacting on our ability to provide customer satisfaction?* •What actions should we now take to improve our ability to meet customer expectations? *

Participants may be asked to place a single dot on a scale of 0 - 100 to indicate to what degree the five top problem issues (in rank order) impacted the top nine customer expectations (again in rank order). The group then decided on the mean point from the spread of dots. This figure has been represented as a percentage i.e. percentage of importance.

The results are then produced quickly in the form of an action plan for the group.

What's gone wrong and who can help? TOOLS: to help gather your thoughts

Listen, empathise & find common ground o

What needs to be done?

•

Brainstorming

•

Metaplan

•

Mind Mapping

TOOLS: to help resolve early stage disputes

TOOLS: to help effective communication

•

Facilitated agreement

•

Reflective listening

•

Dispute resolution agreement

•

Empathy

•

Develop agreed processes and procedures

•

Questioning

•

Common ground

•

Risk analysis TOOLS: to help resolve entrenched disputes

TOOLS: to help assess ‘where you are’

• Mediation • •

Health Check Effective Group Assessment

Take prompt action

• Effective procedures • Review

•

Analysing resident involvement against Housing Corporation expectations

•

Measuring our performance – the what, why, how report

What has worked and what else do I need to do?

Mind mapping A mind mapping exercise allows you to clarify your thoughts by getting things down on paper. Here's an example produced by some residents.

Put time into it

Hold training sessions on how this will work â&#x20AC;&#x201C; before the heat is on!

Jointly negotiate clear terms of reference, code of conduct etc, outlining how relationship will work, including complaints and mediation

Listen, hear, act

No lip service

Not a 'one size fits all' service

PREVENTING CONFLICT Empower residents to make decisions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; whether in communities or on service improvements

Invest in providing 'excellent' resident involvement service, in line with Housing Corporation requirements and Audit Commission expectations.

Develop a culture of partnership with clear communication. Open and transparent. Don't hide things

Involve residents from the outset, not after decisions have been made

Understand and respect each others roles and expertise

Ensure resident involvement is totally embedded in the culture of the organization. Hold regular training sessions with staff to introduce new approaches and remind of corporate approach

Link resident involvement approach into induction for new staff/appraisal process. Empower all staff to get involved and devolve decision making downwards. Support front line staff involved in agreed activities 31

DESCENDING INTO CONFLICT the down side of disputes The people in our case studies did not notice the dispute getting worst. They did not deal with the situation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not really realising at this stage there was a 'situation' to deal with. So the dispute began to spiral into conflict. Let's see what happened next.

Case Study One (part two) Less than a year after the public meeting, things had deteriorated dramatically on the estate. Some key members of the original group had left due to differences of opinion and had formed a rival group, set up with identical objectives to the founding group. The rival groups refuse to talk to each other or attend any joint meetings. They also arranged rival memorial services, Christmas parties for residents and days out for elderly residents. Key issues such as estate security became a matter of supporting opposite action and policy. Young people on the estate became polarised and in some cases bullying occurred. An alternative youth group was set up and encouraged not to attend the main youth club. The original group, through lack of experience and knowledge combined with a feeling of importance based on the attention and access to senior management granted to them, began to lose any goodwill accrued early after their foundation. The local officers from the housing association began to lose patience with the approach and attitude of the group - in particular, their tendency to leap-frog and approach senior managers whenever they were not given the decisions they wanted. Senior management also became frustrated with all too frequent approaches bypassing normal channels. Other agencies such as the police and youth areas also became concerned about the group's approach which ignored usual procedures and safety checks. Concerns about the group having access to funding with out formal constitutions and controls emerged. Attempts by the housing association's resident involvement staff to get the warring parties around a table to mediate failed. The amount of time and resources being focused on this one small estate became disproportional and caused frustration and illness amongst staff.

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions What action(s) would you take to resolve this issue?

How would you prevent it occurring in the future?

If the parties in conflict refuse to meet or talk what would you do?

Case Study Two (part two) Once the housing association was formed, both housing association and residents' forum looked forward to a productive working relationship. The housing association set about the business of setting up the new housing association and the residents' forum waited to hear about the role they could play in this ... and waited ... and waited. When they didn't hear from the housing association, they decided to be pro-active and develop the role they felt best suited the situation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but found previously open doors, if not exactly closed, did not lead to where they wanted to go. Having previously felt such a part of the process, they now felt unheard and undervalued. They began to be insistent. On the other hand, the landlord was working hard to set up the new association, which began to develop new ways of working with residents â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including improving the quality of life within communities. However, the residents' forum felt they were not part of the decision or the activity, despite their requests to be involved (or at least informed). Relationships deteriorated. The housing assocation felt they could not work with the residents' forum any more. They reported finding them confrontational and aggressive. The residents' forum were puzzled. They could not understand where their previously good working relationship had gone.

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions What do you think had gone wrong?

What action(s) would you take to resolve this issue?

How would you prevent it occurring in the future?

Case Study Three (part two) Over a period of time, the situation got worse, with a lot of reported in-fighting within the residents' association - some of which were a personal nature, others related directly to the management of the residents' association and the working relationship with the housing association. There was an agreement to hold a number of joint meetings to address the personal issues which had been identified. However, this did not happen as some of the individuals changed their minds (at this stage it was clear that there were two opposing groups forming). Instead, they insisted on a meeting, where the Chair of the group resigned and then stated that after her resignation, 'anything that occurred was deemed to be unconstitutional'. Other members of the group, whilst having strong views, were not prepared to take part in such a meeting. Because of fundamental differences between individuals within the group and their respective supporters, future meetings to determine a way forward were not possible. It was at this time that the Managing Director suspended the group.

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions What action(s) would you take to resolve this issue?

How would you prevent it occurring in the future?

If the parties in conflict refuse to meet or talk what would you do?

LESSONS LEARNED Each of these case studies gives useful information on the reasons behind disputes that become negative. How can we avoid this? Or if we're already on the 'slippery slope', how can we identify this and plan to resolve it? Again we highlight potential issues and solutions, plus some of the theory behind managing disputes. The toolkit at the end of this chapter gives useful exercises you can use to assess your position and ensure you are not falling into a negative dispute situation.

POTENTIAL ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CASE STUDIES Some of the issues identified include failure to: • control emotion! • think things through • follow agreed procedures • correct earlier mistakes • control the situation • agree the resident involvement approach • discuss and agree expectations • listen and consider each other's roles and responsibilities • provide training and support for new roles • produce procedures for changing the status quo/relationships • produce written guidelines explaining how groups will work: o constitution/terms of reference – (including guidelines around funding) o code of conduct, grievance procedure, dispute resolution • deal with differences of opinion • control relationships within residents groups and between residents group and housing association • listen to others or to work together to change • use of time/resources well You may have been able to identify others. When these types of situations start it is important to do something about it early to avoid ending up in an all-out conflict situation. The earlier you act the better.

WHAT MAKES GOOD PRACTICE? Good practice will be to reach agreement by: •balancing 'power' •building rapport and trust •being open! •encouraging everyone to speak •asking open questions, then listening •summarising often •checking and challenging in a friendly way •building common ground •re-defining problems as goals •evaluating lessons learned •updating your dispute procedure Again you might be able to think of more. If you think any of these situations might apply to you, try using the tools at the end of this chapter.

Housing association's complaints process Using the housing association's complaints process is a swift way of engaging with the housing association in a productive way to resolve disputes before they become entrenched. The housing association will be able to guide you through this. If you have a Resident Involvement Agreement (which explains how the housing association will work with residents to improve services and communities) or similar, this should explain how to approach the housing association if you feel it is not meeting its promises in the Agreement.

Key skills in handling and preventing disputes •reflective listening •empathy •reframing •exploring through questions •building common ground

Reflective listening Reflective listening is the foundation of effective communication. It enables the listener to receive and accurately interpret the speaker's message and then provide an appropriate response. The response is an integral part of the listening process and can be critical to the success of any negotiation or mediation process. Reflective listening: •builds trust and respect •enables the speaker to release their emotions •reduces tension •encourages relevant information to emerge and •creates a safe environment that is conducive to collaborative problem solving Reflective listening usefully helps the speaker resolve their own problem. The key question a listener should ask is 'How does this person see themselves and their situation?' The empathic listener tries to get inside the speaker's thoughts and feelings. Reflective listening enables the listener to hear the other person deeply, accurately and nonjudgementally. A person who sees that a listener is really trying to understand their meaning is more likely to explore their situation in more depth.

Guidelines for reflective listening •Be attentive, interested and alert. Create a positive atmosphere through non-verbal behaviour and don't let yourself become distracted •Be a sounding board. Allow the speaker to bounce ideas and feelings off you whilst responding on a non-judgemental and non-critical manner •Don't ask a lot of questions – this can sound like you're interrogating the speaker •Act like a mirror – reflect back and reframe what you think the speaker is saying and feeling •Don't discount the speakers feelings by using stock phrases like 'it's not that bad' or 'you'll feel better tomorrow'. •Don't let the speaker 'hook' you into their situation. This can happen if you allow your emotions to get involved •Show you are listening by: o Giving brief non-committal acknowledging responses such as 'Uh-huh' or 'I see’ o Give non-verbal acknowledgements such as head nodding, open, relaxed body expression, eye contact etc o Offer invitations to say more such as 'Tell me more about ...’ •Follow good listening rules: o Don't interrupt o Don't change the subject o Don't rehearse in your own head o Don't interrogate o Don't teach or preach o Don't give advice o Do reflect back to the speaker what you understand and how you think the speaker feels

Empathy By responding in an empathic way, you are showing that you appreciate how a person feels. This does not mean you agree with what they are saying – just that you recognise the emotion they are feeling.

For example: “That sounds like a difficult situation. To be spoken to like that in front of other people, especially after you'd spent all that time on that project, must have been pretty hard to take.” This is a lot harder to do than it sounds! •We all have a tendency to advise, tell, agree or disagree from our own point of view •We have to overcome the temptation to ignore, deny, moralise or go for the 'quick fix' Supporting people by showing you understand their feelings will give them the opportunity to talk more about what is troubling them, so that they should feel less upset and more able to cope with their problem.

Reframing Reframing is simply restating what the speaker has said to you to confirm that what you have heard is what they were saying – but in a way that takes out any unproductive language, emotion, position-taking or accusations. Reframing is a skill that is widely used in mediation. Just as empathy is used to acknowledge emotion, so reframing is a useful tool to defuse emotion in the message. For example: “If he shouts at me once more about that project, I'll let him have it!” becomes “You need reassurance that you will be treated with respect and listened to”. The aim of reframing is to empower people in dispute to develop a mutually acceptable solution. Statements should be descriptive, stating what people are doing, not interpretive, making assumptions about and judging what people are doing. Reframing can be done by: •Changing the syntax •Turn a statement into a question, paraphrase, summarise or put into sequence •Changing the vocabulary •Choose less provocative words •Changing the meaning •Change the statement in ways that are mutually acceptable, identify commonalities, remove contentious or irrelevant issues

Exploring through questions Questions are useful for: •uncovering background information •encouraging them to reveal needs •encouraging them to expand on what has been said. Closed questions limit responses to yes or no or to a choice among alternatives. There is a difference between questioning and INTERROGATION. Most people have a good understanding of what they want - encourage them to reveal their needs. Open questions are particularly good at this. Use your questioning to identify the need and a desire for a solution. Closed questions are particularly useful for confirming a desire for a solution.

Feedback The root of many problems in the case studies and in disputes in general is inability to provide or deal with feedback. Feedback originated from rocket technology in the 1950's. Feedback mechanisms kept early rockets on track so they hit their targets. That is what we should seek to achieve when working in groups. There are three types of feedback (plus negative and positive for each type): •Giving •Receiving •Asking Feedback challenges •Experience has shown that untrained individuals do not cope with receiving negative feedback well. They see this as 'attack' and adopt a defensive position, which often degenerates into attack. •Many people also find it difficult to convey negative feedback to others so they avoid or fudge it. •Finally, it is rare for individuals to ask for feedback early, particularly if they know it may be negative! Feedback – How to do it: •Ask early. Particularly if things are going wrong •Give real examples. “Pull your socks up” is meaningless! •Be honest. Never get personal, be tough on the job. •Balanced - good and bad news •Two-way - ask questions, then let them talk •Listen! You might be wrong. •Agree actions at the end. If no actions why have you bothered? Building common ground When starting to deal with dispute situations it is usual to seek shared interests as a common bond before moving on to the facts. A shared interest can form a link on which to build common ground.

Views and values This involves sharing views and opinions. Listen for, and build on, views and opinions which are similar. Call attention to them. Build through summaries. Use their language.

Exploring This involves: •Asking questions that open up and build understanding •Encouraging others to describe information and feelings important to them •Watching and listening for non-verbal cues which indicate important areas Goals Establish other people's goals. Identify shared goals, even where there are differences in the ways and means of achieving them. Visions for the future Explore other people's visions and dreams for the future. Visions may lack the clarity of goals. Show them how you can help realise these dreams.

Facilitated agreement Facilitated agreement uses an independent person to facilitate agreement in early stage dispute situations.

Key to success is to make sure: •There is no imbalance of power •You quickly build rapport and trust •You are open – and encourage them to be open also •You encourage and facilitate everyone to speak •You encourage everyone to help define the situation •You ask open questions, then listen •You summarise often You check and challenge in an approachable way •You define and build on common ground •You facilitate them to evaluate lessons 'learned' •You encourage them to update their dispute procedure

TOOLKIT FOR DEALING WITH DISPUTES Dispute 'styles' Different people have different ways of dealing with disputes. This tool describes four particular styles and explains why a fifth style – win-win – is more productive. •The Director/Street Fighter's goal is clear. The goal is victory - they want to

win •The Expressive Creator's goal is to influence the other people. They have so

much fun changing other people's minds; they love to take a position just to see if they can turn people's thinking around •The Amiable Pacifier's goal is agreement. They feel that if they can get

everybody to agree on something everything else will fall into place •The Analytical Thinkers goal is to have order in the meeting. They want a

more formal meeting so the procedures produce a result •The win-win goal is a good outcome for all involved

They also have different styles: •The Director/Street Fighter tends to frighten people. Sitting there hostile and

implying: 'If you don't go along with what I want, it's going to get very uncomfortable here and you're not going to like it' •The Expressive Creator tries to do it all by inspiring others - getting them • •excited they sway them over •The Amiable Pacifier wants to develop relationships. 'If we like each other well

enough, we'll all agree' •The Analytical Thinker really ignores the relationships and focuses based on

facts •The win-win individual learns how to separate people from the problem. They

detach themselves from their emotional reactions and focus on solving the issue Once inside a dispute: •The Director/Street Fighter is hard and domineering •The Expressive Creator is excitable •The Amiable Pacifier is soft. They may give in too easily •The Analytical Thinker is detached from personality •The win-win individual is soft on people, but hard on the problem. They are

easy going, friendly, likeable, and courteous with all involved. However, they keep concentrating and working away on the problem. 41

The dispute faults of the four styles Each of the styles has its faults: 路

The Director tends to dig into a position. Determined to get what they want from the negotiation, they will not budge even when it is the sensible thing to do

路路

The Expressive ignores the others and is not sensitive to what is really going on in the meeting The Pacifier's fault is being easily swayed

路

The Thinker's fault is they are inflexible

DIRECTOR STREET FIGHTER

EXTROVERT CREATOR

AMIABLE PACIFIER

ANALYTICAL THINKER

WIN-WIN

GOAL

VICTORY

INFLUENCE

AGREEMENT

ORDER

WISE OUTCOME

RELATIONSHIP

THREATENS

ENTHUSES

DEVELOPS

IGNORES

SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM

STYLE

HARD

EXCITABLE

SOFT

DETACHED

SOFT ON PEOPLE - HARD ON PROBLEM

WEAKNESS

DIGS IN

IGNORES OTHERS

EASILY SWAYED

INFLEXIBLE

METHOD

DEMANDS

ACCEPTS

CREATES

LOSSES

EXCITES

LOSSES

RIGIDITY

OPTIONS

POSITION

ENTHUSIASM

AGREEMENT

SYSTEM

SOLUTIONS

Win-Win individuals work to move people off positions so they can concentrate on issues.

The dispute methods of the four styles Methods of negotiating differ greatly: •The Director demands losses from other people. They do not feel they can win unless other people lose. •The Expressive wants to inspire people, to get them turned on to a particular idea, feeling if they are excited enough about it, they will go for it. •The Amiable tends to accept losses. They believe that if they make concessions, the other side will want to reciprocate. •The Thinker is too rigid in their style. •The Win-Win individual learns how to create options where nobody loses. They work to get people away from positions taken because of their personality styles, so that they can concentrate on interests. The key to becoming a win-win individual is to understand the different personality styles of others and use versatility.

WIN-WIN BEHAVIOUR DO

DON'T

Question

Talk too much

Listen

Interrupt

Summarise

Dilute arguments

Identify/ build on common ground

Debate, point-score, be sarcastic/ clever/ attack/ defend/ threaten/ blame

Emphasise agreement

Emphasise the gap

Build on their ideas

Make too many counter-proposals

Label your behaviour

Label disagreement

Describe your feelings

Use irritators 'with respect' 'frankly' etc 43

Dispute Questionnaire - Dispute Styles This is another exercise which looks at the different ways people behave during dispute situations. Try it out. Does it teach you anything new about yourself? We all have behaviour styles. These styles show themselves in dispute situations. Knowing your style means you can avoid unproductive behaviours. Mark the response to the following situations you think describe your behaviour. Select the one that feels like you most of the time. 1. Most people think of me as ¨ a. Focused ¨ b. A good talker ¨ c. A good listener ¨ d. A perfectionist

9. I plan a meeting by ¨ a. Talking to others involved ¨ b. Listing bold changes to be made. ¨ c. Checking for mistakes in the old agreement. ¨ d. Reviewing procedures to follow

2. In meetings, I find myself ¨ a. Taking charge ¨ b. Following other's directions ¨ c. Being a good listener ¨ d. To be a good talker

10. I like for people to be ¨ a. Direct ¨ b. Loyal ¨ c. Friendly ¨ d. Accurate

3. When I work toward a goal, I like ¨ a. To plan carefully ¨ b. Quick results ¨ c. The traditional methods ¨ d. To involve others

11. I think of myself as being ¨ a. Cautious ¨ b. Optimistic ¨ c. Satisfied ¨ d. Impatient

4. When I play a game, I like ¨ a. A lot of action ¨ b. Strict rules ¨ c. Team spirit ¨ d. To develop my skills

12. When involved in a heated discussion, I ¨ a. Am stimulated ¨ b. Try to calm things down ¨ c. Try to help others

5. I see the process of conflict as ¨ a. A step-by-step process ¨ b. Helping others ¨ c. An exercise in patience ¨ d. A competitive exercise

13. When getting others to work, I ¨ a. Help as much as possible ¨ b. Am patient ¨ c. Want quality ¨ d. Want action in a hurry

6. A previous agreement is something ¨ a. To change ¨ b. To preserve ¨ c. To help people ¨ d. To check for problems

14. When my colleagues find a mistake in my work, I feel ¨ a. Like giving my side of the story ¨ b. That I must be patient ¨ c. A personal loss

7. When in dispute with others, I ¨ a. Enjoy the meeting ¨ b. Dislike taking risks ¨ c. Follow the rules carefully ¨ d. Sometimes get impatient

15. I do my best work when ¨ a. Working with the team ¨ b. Working by myself ¨ c. Doing what the boss wants ¨ d. Using tried and true procedures

8. My greatest fear in conflict is ¨ a. Hurting others' feelings ¨ b. Things changing ¨ c. Being criticised for mistakes ¨ d. That the other side will take

16. I like a working environment that is ¨ a. The same every day ¨ b. From 9 to 5 ¨ c. Free from details ¨ d. Free from set rules

Dispute Style Score Sheet Directions: Circle your selection and total the number in each column

TOTALS

Dispute Style Interpretation There are no right or wrong answers because people select items which reflect their general behaviour pattern. However, it is good for people to know how their behaviour pattern will affect the negotiating process. The interpretation for those having the most responses in the various columns is as follows:

COLUMN 1 THE 'PUSHY' STYLE

COLUMN III THE 'STAND PAT' STYLE

This person likes quick results which they get by using power or authority over others. In negotiating situations, there is a tendency for this person to become impatient when they do not get things done. They may not research the facts beforehand and need to be cautious about moving too fast. A better negotiated decision can be reached if they involve others in the process.

This person likes to use traditional procedures in negotiating and would not like to make changes in agreements. They need others of equal ability in the negotiations and will display great patience. They also need to become more creative in negotiating and be more confident in the ability of others.

COLUMN II THE 'BUDDY' STYLE

COLUMN IV THE 'CHECK ALL' STYLE

This person likes a more democratic negotiating process. They like the public recognition of negotiating yet needs to use a more logical approach. They may fear hurting someone's feelings and, thus, a loss of popularity in the negotiating session. They need to be more direct with people when necessary and also to be more in control of the negotiating time.

This person likes to follow the directions and standards set by others in negotiating. In the negotiating session, they need to develop tolerance for the conflict that is present. Although they are a good quality controller, they may overlook the big picture because of details. They need to learn how to make quicker decisions when necessary and to use policies only as guidelines in negotiating.

RESOLVING DISPUTES – or how to move things forward when they get stuck! Case Study One After consultation and many meetings with the key partners involved, attempts were made to get the rival resident groups to meet with officers from the housing association and local councillors. However, there had been such a breakdown in relationships and trust between the groups that offers of mediation were rejected. They refuse to meet. Activity: Ask yourself the following questions: What do you do after everything else has failed?

Is there anywhere else to go?

Case Study Two The housing association decided to approach the residents' forum and tell them of their concerns. The forum was shocked to hear that the housing association felt they were difficult to deal with – especially given their previous good (or so they thought) working relationship. At first they felt like walking away, but this feeling passed. Ultimately it was decided to bring in an independent person to meet with both groups separately at first, then together, to discuss their feelings and plan a way forward in a facilitated environment. Using a facilitated agreement process, both housing association and forum were able to develop and begin to enact an action plan for change. Activity: Ask yourself the following questions: It sounds like 'all's well that ends well' – but what are the potential pitfalls facing the housing association and residents group?

Are there any other measures you would put in place to ensure this remains a healthy relationship?

Case Study Three At this stage, it was agreed by all parties that they should get direction and advice from a mediator. A 'conflict mapping model' was used by the mediator which involves interviewing participants to gather their views on: • what has been happening • their feelings • their ideas about how to move forward. All sides quoted the constitution to support their arguments. The mediator examined the constitution and found that: • sections lack clarity • were open to wide interpretation • or impossible to comply with Although adopted with good intentions, the constitution was not 'fit for purpose' and had to some extent contributed to the current situation. Recommendations from mediator's interviews: • a fresh start, with a new constitution to give a solid foundation for the future • procedures to ensure new, more rounded membership • a future that would be resident-led, with professional support as appropriate

Activity: Ask yourself the following questions: What are the potential pitfalls facing the housing association and the residents' group?

What procedures would you put in place to make sure the changes in practice were successful?

LESSONS LEARNED ... It is only in fairy tales that 'happy ever after' occurs! Yet the future is potentially rosy for at least two of our case studies as long as they put some of the procedures covered in this toolkit into place and continue to work at their relationship. Even for the remaining case study, further work may yet yield a positive plan for the future.

Potential issues arising from the case studies ... Some of the issues identified in this section include: •Parties losing trust •Groups proceeding independently without communicating with each other - hence reenforcing the level of distrust and increasing the gulf between them •Personalising issues and losing a dispassionate focus •Vigorously defending viewpoints and attacking suggestions for resolving

WHAT MAKES GOOD PRACTICE? Running training and development sessions in dealing with disputes, positive and negative feedback and hostility before the dispute started would have been helpful. What is needed is discipline in dispute management and partnership working. Managing 'in anger' may not give you the result you want. Once conflict and disputes start –in the absence of well-practised procedures - people fall back on their old aggressive behaviours. Expecting people to put into practice empathic listening and reflection techniques when they are under pressure and have never been trained is unrealistic.

Managing Disputes - how to do it… If the dispute is mismanaged it can be a disaster. Costs to organisations and individuals in our dispute case studies have been very high. The real cost of continuing while differences remain unresolved, means that residents are not getting value for money! Disputes result in disaster because people lack skills to deal with them. In addition, many housing association and resident groups never plan for it! We all know that there will be differences on key issues. Why then are we surprised when these differences surface? Research shows us that how the dispute is managed, will decide whether it is constructive or destructive. Simple differences can become huge entrenched arguments. We recommend that housing associations and residents be trained to learn the differences between healthy debates and dysfunctional arguments. A “full and frank discussion in the minutes” can hide grief and upset, resulting in delays, progress and trust. Healthy debates between housing associations and residents include: •being open to ideas •listening and responding to different ideas •understanding other peoples' views •staying objective •staying focused on the facts •systematically analysing the situation to find solutions •avoiding getting bogged down.

Direct, open discussion of disagreements often results in greater understanding of other people's ideas and motivates us to question the accuracy and completeness of our own views. As a result, people are able to incorporate their own ideas with the best and most reliable information from others, which result in higher quality decisions Upsets and arguments demonstrate: - rigid thinking, where people assume they are right and others are wrong - no acknowledgement or response to other peoples' ideas - a lack of interest in how the others see the situation - personal attacks and blaming others, with hot topics tackled haphazardly

Checklist for a Healthy Debate We recommend the following ways for a constructive healthy debate: •Identify and examine differences “What has gone wrong” •Listen, empathise and find common ground •Summarise frequently •Address concerns and problems •Invite constructive face-to-face feedback •Be assertive •Get closure and move on! Reflective listening and empathic responses (see earlier exercises) are key skills for a healthy debate. But it is much better to have practiced these skills before they are needed in a dispute situation!

TOOLKIT FOR MANAGING DESTRUCTIVE DISPUTES If things start to go badly wrong what do I do? We recommend five steps to resolve destructive disputes: •What's gone wrong and who can help? Recognise dispute exists •Listen! Empathise! Find common ground •Decide what needs to be done. Understand all the views •Take prompt action. Attack the issue, not the people •What has worked and what else do I need to do? Develop an action plan describing how the problem will be solved.

The 5 Stages of Dispute Management What has worked and what else do I need to do? Take prompt action

What needs to be done?

Listen, empathise and find common ground What’s gone wrong and who can help?

Follow these steps - but also avoid traps that worsen dispute by: •forcing group members to choose among options •becoming too dependent on the housing association to resolve issues/problems simply because dealing with dispute is painful •being tempted to ignore disputes altogether •forcing members to give in to group (or outside) pressure

Use a positive dispute resolution process, which overlaps with the recommendations discussed earlier. Consider also: •Making sure everyone understands their responsibilities •Getting them to write this down •Practicing dispute resolution skills. •Keeping solutions open •Allowing and encouraging the use of dispute management strategies.

We also recommend that communication between housing association and residents be improved by: •Making sure there are no surprises. Having frequent and effective communication ensures accurate information and feedback •Holding frequent and productive meetings that focus on communication between housing association and residents

The What's my Style exercise in the earlier chapter is a quick way of demonstrating how we are different and giving you more ideas about how to tackle people you are not always comfortable with. Remember, there are no right or wrong people, just “how will I get a better result with this sort of person?” Often in cases of conflict and dispute people get labelled as 'difficult' or 'trouble-makers'. Such labelling is unhelpful. What happens is communication shuts down. People stop listening and trying to understand each other and start evaluating their 'rightness' over the other's 'wrongness'. Both sides start putting increasing energy into proving their position and focusing on what they need to do to support this position. Once you get to this stage you start to have a real problem. The trick is to recognise what is happening and do something about it before positions get too difficult. Unresolved disputes damage the trust that is so essential for effective working. Trust creates a better relationship, helping encourage more creativity, openness and understanding. It also helps build tolerance and an inclination to make decisions for the good of all concerned, rather than focusing on self interest.

Resolving entrenched dispute Mediation Sometimes people get stuck and moving their position seems impossible! A mediator is neutral and works confidentially to help the people in dispute reach an agreement everyone is comfortable with. Mediators: •Help people: -identify their needs -clarify issues -explore solutions -negotiate their own agreement •Do not advise those in dispute, but help people to communicate with each another •Are impartial, and have no stake in the outcome.

In community mediation, mediators generally work in pairs. In other forms of mediation, they usually work alone.

How can Mediation help? Mediation works because it: • Allows people to be heard. In many cases, a simple apology is all that is required to put

things right • Empowers and encourages people to put forward their suggestions and ideas • Is less scary than legal procedures • Lets people represent themselves • Provides solutions people have decided on. This gives them a sense of ownership • Ensures agreements reached in this way last much better than solutions handed down by

courts or an arbitrator • Is quick to organise. When disputes are not acted on, they escalate • Is easy to arrange and can be completed within weeks • Is not expensive. Most forms of community mediation are available at reasonable rates

Moving the situation on - different approaches

Who makes the decisions?

Who controls the process?

Types of outcome that emerge

Negotiation

Mediation

Ombudsman

The parties

The Ombudsman

The parties

The Mediator firmly but informally with the parties

The Ombudsman with input from the parties

Whatever the parties are prepared to agree to

Aiming for win-win – mutually acceptable

Decision which is fair and reasonable given the circumstance of each particular case

When a situation becomes stuck, it can be very helpful to give everyone the opportunity to explain their side of the story, and talk without interruption. This is not an 'easy option' - when people are honest and say what they feel, the situation can release strong emotions. However, once people have a chance to express their feelings, they are more likely to let their hostility go. Conciliation is different from mediation. While mediation and conciliation may look like the same thing, conciliation can be very different. Mediation actively promotes its independence, neutrality and confidentiality. Mediators don't take sides, don't offer advice, and work to neutralise power imbalances. Conciliation does not automatically concede that equality exists between the two sides. It does recognise that rights and obligations exist between them. The Disability Conciliation Service (DCS) puts the rights of disabled people as a non-negotiable issue within the conciliation process. The conciliator must be active to ensure that the serviceuser's issues are addressed, be active in suggesting ways in which the service-provider might meet their obligations, and be clear whether a proposed solution would uphold the service-users rights.

Mediation - yes or no? It takes two to tango! Both sides must be committed to reaching agreement. If the parties are not ready and willing to mediate, mediation cannot take place. Mediation will be suitable if: •There is a desire for resolution/change •There are clear outcomes/goals •There is an agreement to meet •Parties have power to act on potential agreements Mediation is not suitable if : •There is a threat of danger •There is lack of agreement for mediation •There are legal issues •There is no clear outcome or desire for resolution •There is drug or alcohol dependency •There are mental health issues

CONCLUSION - prevention is better than cure Most of the tools in this toolkit are about preventing disputes. This highlights the need to get relationships right, rather than waiting for disputes to start and dealing with them then. Prevention is better than cure. However, when disputes start it is important to recognise this and deal with them early. The longer they drag on, the more entrenched positions become. The Housing Ombudsman encourages parties to consider a range of resolution options to resolve disputes at the earliest opportunity. They emphasise policies and procedures are there for guidance, not a prescriptive set of rules to be adhered to rigidly in every situation. This could lead to fettering of discretion, which exists in every policy, which in turn, could lead to injustice. Hence the importance of reviewing progress and relationships on a regular basis. Residents may wish to use the housing association's complaints policy to reconcile their dispute. The Housing Corporation recognises the value of effective complaints handling by Registered Social Landlords. It is for this reason they require Registered Social Landlords to be members of the Independent Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, the Ombudsman's statutory remit prevents dealing with collective disputes, although cases pursued by an individual on behalf of a group may occasionally be considered. â&#x20AC;&#x153;This is why we are pleased that TPAS has developed this dispute resolution toolkit, which offers a range of techniques for preventing and tackling disputes between landlords and groups of their residentsâ&#x20AC;?. (Steve Douglas, Chief Executive, Housing Corporation)

SIGNPOST Signposting pages and pointing readers in the direction of other agencies or organisations is very important in supporting this toolkit. Organisations detailed below have been selected with a view that they are in a position to display up to date information and advice on policies and/or procedures and are recognised as professional organisations in their right.

Advice, Information and Mediation Service (AIMS)

www.ageconcern.org.uk/aims Age Concern England Astral House 1268 London Road London SW16 4ER Tel: 020 8765 7465 Lo-cal helpline 0845 600 2001

Audit Commission

www.audit-commission.gov.uk 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ Tel: 020 7828 1212 Textphone: 020 7630 0421 Fax: 020 7976 6187

Chartered Institute of Housing

www.cih.org Octavia House Westwood Way Coventry CV4 8JP Email:customer.services@cih.org Tel: 024 7685 1700 Fax: 024 7669 5110

Commission for Racial Equality *

www.cre.gov.uk St Dunstan's House London SE1 1GZ Email:info@cre.gov.uk Tel: 020 7939 0000 Fax: 020 7939 0001

Crime Reduction

www.crimereduction.gov.uk Information and resources for people working to reduce crime in their local areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; links to other sites 56

Department for Communities and Local Government

www.communities.gov.uk/ Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Tel: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 020 7944 4101

Disability Rights Commission *

www.drc-gb.org/ DRC Helpline FREEPOST MID02164 Stratford upon Avon CV37 9BR Tel: 08457 622 633 Textphone: 08457 622 644 Fax: 08457 778 878

Equal Opportunities Commission *

www.eoc.org.uk Arndale House, Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3EQ Email: info@eoc.org.uk Tel: 0845 601 5901 Fax: 0161 838 8312

Housing Corporation

www.housingcorp.gov.uk Maple House 149 Tottenham Court Road London W1T 7BN Tel: 0845 230 7000 Fax: 020 7393 2111

Home Office

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Tel: 020 7035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri) Fax: 020 7035 4745 Minicom: 020 7035 4742 Email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Housing Ombudsman Service

www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk 81 Aldwych London WC2B 4HN Email: info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk Tel: 020 7421 3800 Fax: 020 7831 1942

Leasehold Advisory Service

www.lease-advice.org 31 Worship Street, London EC2A 2DX Email: info@lease-advice.org Tel: 020 7374 5380 Fax: 020 7374 5373

Local Government Association

www.lga.gov.uk/ Local Government House Smith Square London SW1P 3HZ Email: info@lga.gov.uk Tel: 020 7664 3131 Fax: 020 7664 3030

National Housing Federation

www.housing.org.uk Lion Court 25 Procter Street London WC1V 6NY Tel: 020 7067 1010 Fax: 020 7067 1011

Race Equality Foundation

www.raceequalityfoundation.org.uk/ Unit 35 Kings Exchange Tileyard Rd London N7 9AH Email: leandra@racefound.org.uk Tel: 0207 619 6220 Fax: 0207 619 6230

Tenants And Residents Of England

www.taroe.org Whitchurch Way Halton Lodge Runcorn WA7 5YS Email: RuncornOffice@taroe.org Telephone/ Fax: 01928 574243

TPAS / Compas@TPAS

5th Floor, Trafford House Chester Road Manchester M32 ORS Email: info@tpas.org.uk Tel: 0161 868 3500 Fax: 0161 877 6256

* The Commission for Equality and Human Rights is to be formed in October 2007 and is likely to take over as the overall umbrella organisation.

RECOGNITION A lot of time and effort has gone into the development of this toolkit and it would be remiss of us not to recognise those that contributed to its development. So, to all those that took part, be it from resident groups, housing associations or as members of the Steering Group – your work and input is much appreciated and without your support this project would not have been possible… Thank you.

Deborah Ilott

– Housing Corporation (Project Manager)

Linsey Cottington

– Carrick Housing Ltd

Helen Barbrook

– Westlea Housing Association

Alison Cross-Jones

– Westlea Housing Association

Lewin Dumper

– William Sutton Trust

Pauline Seymour

– Tor Homes

Pauline Vernon

– AIMS, Age Concern

Linda Collier

– Housing Ombudsman Service

Fola Ogunjobi

– National Housing Federation

Michael Gelling

– Tenants and Residents of England (TAROE)

Allen Daniels

– Compas@TPAS – Project Manager

Ian McDougal

– Compas@TPAS – Associate

Jenny Vernon

– Compas@TPAS – Associate

Thanks also goes to those housing associations that agreed to be case studies. Their support and positive approach is much appreciated. Finally, without funding from the Housing Corporation, this project would not have taken place. Many thanks for the support and guidance throughout.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION TOOLKIT