Marli Rusen

Training is one of the most rewarding parts of my work because it focuses on building a better future, instead of focusing on the past. That said, I love using story-telling and “lessons learned” to make sure my guidance is realistic, balanced and practical for everyone in the room.
Here is what one client recently shared about their experience with two of my courses:

"Marli delivered engaging and practical training sessions at the UNA that resonated well with our staff. Both the ‘Sexual Harassment Training for Staff’ and ‘The Customer Isn’t Always Right’ workshops provided clear, actionable strategies that our team could immediately apply in the workplace. Her approach was professional, relatable, and highly effective in supporting a respectful and accountable work environment.”

Thank you to the team at UNA for trusting me to help strengthen your communication and relationships with each other, customers and stakeholders.

Are You Setting Your Supervisors Up for Success?

One of the most critical and challenging transitions, in my experience, occurs when a front-line staff member is first promoted into a supervisory position.

This becomes even more complicated when they are asked to supervise their “former” peers.

Without sufficient direction, support and training, this could fast become dysfunctional – for the supervisor, the team and the overall organization. This happens when:

1. The supervisor could blindly align with the team, refusing to address material operational, performance and behavioral concerns, and failing to report these issues to management in a timely manner, if at all;

2. The supervisor could favor certain team members over others (typically, coworkers with whom they have worked closely), resulting in conflict amongst the team and a loss of trust in the supervisor; or

3. The supervisor’s promotion could go to their head, resulting in a misuse or abuse of authority, and an overbearing “I know best” attitude over team members. Many team members share that their supervisor was amazing as a coworker but then changed into someone who didn’t seem to care about those who now reported to them.

Supervisors (and their staff) need to be educated on perceived and real conflicts of interest, the dangers of favoritism and the need for consistent and respectful team accountability. They can’t learn this through osmosis, mind-reading, or walking down the hall to find someone with the answers. Workplace supervision has grown too complicated for this laissez-faire approach. It is incumbent on more senior leaders and HR to set up first-time leaders for success. Otherwise, the failures are not theirs to own.

“He said/she said” – an Inexcusable Excuse to Avoid Resolving Disputes

In the course of conducting environmental scans, I commonly hear about concerns that have remained unresolved. When I dig deeper, I learn that the leaders are well aware of the outstanding issues. I am told that the issues were reviewed but the matter could not be resolved because of conflicting evidence. “It was he said/she said, so there wasn’t much we could do”.

That is a myth, not the reality. And it’s responsible for the inability of individuals and teams to move forward with clarity and closure.

The reality is that many incidents of misconduct often take place without witnesses. If this alone were enough to invalidate a complaint, our criminal courtrooms would be empty.

When any concern arises, workplace leaders and HR professionals have an obligation to interview those involved to determine whose version of events is more credible. This is expected whether or not there were witnesses to the alleged event.

If the version of events put forward by the complainant is more credible than the respondent, then the allegation is substantiated.

If the version of events put forward by the respondent is more credible than the complainant, then the allegation has not been substantiated.

Either way, the conflicting versions do not “cancel each other out” or somehow allow investigators to avoid making a decision as to “what most likely happened” (the civil standard of proof).

Simply put, organizations cannot leave parties in limbo by failing to conduct this analysis. They have a responsibility to inquire into concerns in an objective manner, make necessary findings and then relay the outcome (and their rationale) to the parties involved.

Beyond being a legal requirement, this is how to build a healthy workplace culture. Failing to engage in this process will cause those involved to perpetuate (and likely speak passionately about) their opposing beliefs and positions on unresolved conflict, given that they have not been informed or directed otherwise.

Conflict is not the cause of ongoing workplace dysfunction and divides – however, unresolved conflict often is. Teams thrive when there is clarity and closure to workplace disagreements and disputes. Investigate concerns early, evaluate them fairly and then use your findings as the basis upon which to educate those involved on where the line is – and is not – in any given situation. You won’t be sorry. And neither will your team.