Ep.3 Workplace Conflict: The Balcony View

In this episode, Katie talks with workplace conflict expert, Jennifer Pernfuss, about how to effectively meet systems amidst conflict and crisis, by taking the balcony view. They discuss why it’s important to bring a systems lens to issues involving workplace harassment, using workplace conflict in a constructive manner, creating psychological safety, and the role of rank and privilege. 

Jennifer Pernfuss is a non-practicing lawyer with a degree in Psychology and has maintained a consulting and coaching business for 27 years focusing exclusively on the prevention and elimination of workplace discrimination, harassment and the resolution of workplace conflict and employee complaints. Trained in systems theory, process-oriented psychology and relationship systems coaching combined with her understanding of the law Jennifer develops and implements restorative processes, helps repair strained working relationships and move parties to resolution.

For over 18 years, CRR Global has accompanied leaders, teams, and practitioners on their journey to build stronger relationships by focusing on the relationship itself, not only the individuals occupying it. This leads to a community of changemakers around the world. Supported by a global network of Faculty and Partners, we connect, inspire, and equip change agents to shift systems, one relationship at a time

 We believe Relationship Matters, from humanity to nature, to the larger whole.

Transcript

Relationship Matters - Season 3

Ep2. Workplace conflict (Part 1): The Balcony View 

Key 

KC – Katie Churchman 

JP- Jennifer Pernfuss

Intro [00:00 00:06] 

KC – Hello and welcome back to the Relationship Matters podcast. We believe relationship matters, from humanity to nature to the larger hope. Conflict is a signal that something is trying to change, so what signal is a workplace harassment case trying to send us? In this episode, Jennifer Pernfuss discusses how to effectively meet systems amidst conflict and crisis by taking the balcony view. What might be possible when we take on the balcony perspective and see the situation through a systemic lens? Jennifer Pernfuss is a non-practicing lawyer with a degree in psychology and has maintained a consulting and coaching business for 27 years, focusing exclusively on the prevention and elimination of workplace discrimination, harassment, and the resolution of workplace conflict and employee complaints. Trained in systems theory, process orientated psychology and relationships systems coaching, combined with her understanding of the law, Jennifer develops and implements restorative processes, helps to repair strained working relationships and moves parties to resolution. In this episode we cover a variety of topics around workplace conflict including why it’s important to bring a systems lens to issues involving workplace harassment, using workplace conflict in a constructive manner, creating psychological safety and the role of rank and privilege. So, without further ado, I bring you Jennifer Pernfuss. Well, welcome to the Relationship Matters podcast Jennifer, it’s a delight to have you on the show. 

JP – Thank you so much Katie, I’m looking forward to this. 

KC – There’s so much I want to ask you but I’m wondering if we can start with your journey into this work and this world. And I guess your why behind, why relationships system coaching? 

JP – Yeah, so, I have a degree in psychology, so I’ve always been interested in that area, I’m also legally trained, I was called to the bar so I’m a non-practicing lawyer. And because of my own experiences with respect to sexual harassment, I got very interested in how organizations address these issues. I then became an investigator and, for about 12 years, conducted external investigations into employee complaints. And I was left dissatisfied with the outcome, as did the people who participated. So, I got really curious about what are other ways, more productive ways of addressing these issues, having regard for the dignity of the people involved as well as the relationship, their working relationship. So then I trained as a mediator and mediation is a great process and it has its limitations, so I found in my own application of mediation that it wasn’t sophisticated enough to hold the complexities of these issues, this conflict within relationships. So I searched for other modalities and that’s how I found CRR Global and organization and system relationships coaching. And I sang the hallelujahs, it was brilliant training and I learned so much, and it’s really that modality and that process and way of addressing conflict, through that lens, that I now focus primarily all of my practice on. 

KC – So, why do you think it’s so important, now more than ever, that we bring a systems lens to these kinds of issues involving workplace harassment, for example. 

JP – Yeah, so historically what we’ve done in our organizations is where it’s a complaint-driven process, so while there’s an obligation on the part of the employer to retain a harassment-free environment, the way our systems and processes and procedures are set up, it’s, the onus is on the employee really to bring it forward. And usually, by that time, the relationship is, there’s so much conflict, there’s a lot of tears that have happened, that it’s really hard to intervene and repair. And then once these issues have been brought forward it triggers procedures from the policy. And then that triggers an adversarial process like an investigation. So all that to say that the historical way in which we approach these is through the lens of policy and procedure, through the lens of liability and a company protecting itself from liability. And while all of those are important, I believe that the starting point ought to be relationship and thinking about the experience of the individuals through that lens and then that informs the way in which we address it which looks very different than how our traditional policies and procedures are set up. 

KC – In terms of conflict being a signal that something’s trying to happen, how do you hold that with these highly charged and challenging situations? 

JP – Yeah, so I love what you say about this conflict is a signal. So, conflict is a signal that something wants or needs to change. So rather than even zooming in at the level of the two people in conflict, what I like to do is take the balcony view, look at the system as a whole, lean in and listen, what’s wanting to emerge, what’s wanting to shift? And whilst the issue may be arising out of two people within an organization, the change needed might be cultural. Might be systemic. Might be something other than what’s living in their relationship, they’re just the voices of change. 

KC – So you’re not just considering the conversations that are happening, say, in that room. You’re talking about all of the prior conversations and the people outside of the conversation that have been involved in, perhaps, why, what’s happening is happening. 

JP – Absolutely. And I lean into the idea that they speak about at ORSC, through your ORSC learning experience, around deep democracy. So, every voice in a system matters and we can’t really understand the reality of a system until we’ve taken into account all of those voices, otherwise we’re just getting a partial picture. And so, what I do is I take that balcony view and I’m listening, what are the voices of the stakeholders? And through that, being guided on what changes need to happen. And it takes then the pressure off of the complainant, the person raising the complaint, it even takes the pressure off of the relationship through which these issues have arisen. It’s like I sometimes have this image of two people in conflict, one or both of them, putting up their hands and saying we need something to change, this isn’t working. And what might not be working might be the way in which they’re interacting. But it also might be the team dynamic, or it might be the organization in its value system. And then, to your point, taking it even further, an organization in a community for example, the community members may have something to say about the conflict that’s happening within the organization. Kids in elementary school, for example, the students have a voice in that. If it’s a hospital the patients have a voice in that. So, I try to hold enough spaciousness for all of those voices to express themselves, to get that needed information that’s going to guide what’s going to happen next, what’s emerging from that.

KC – It’s such a powerful visual to sort of imagine you or yourself as a coach standing there taking that view that goes wider than just the room you’re in. And I almost sort of saw you as a conductor there, with all the different instruments in the orchestra, listening to all of those parts at once. 

JP – I love that metaphor Katie, you’re right. And, in a way it takes some of the pressure off me too, I mean I’m not retained to fix anything or at least I let my clients know that’s not my role. I do believe that the seed to the desired outcome or the resolution lives in the system. I stay outside of the system and hold it and listen and it will tell me what it needs. That way it feels less onerous. 

KC – I’m wondering then, how do you prepare yourself to go into those highly charged situations? Because I imagine sometimes you sort of do have your bias from your experiences in your life, and then to go in and hold that view must be really hard. 

JP – Yeah, sometimes it can be challenging, and you know, I’m aware somebody may say something that’s triggering for me, that’s where I need to have done enough of my own work and know that whatever is happening in that room is not personal. Some of the adages I lean into, one of them is hurt people hurt people. So even though someone is deemed a respondent and has, I’m putting quotes, acted badly in the workplace, often those behaviours are, the origin of those behaviours is their trauma or woundedness and it’s getting acted out unproductively in the workplace. So, I really try to hold compassion for all of the stakeholders, even the people endeavouring to manage these hard issues in a workplace, they have stress, it’s triggering for them, they’re accountable. So, I think it just really, I remind myself of the humanity, everyone’s doing the best they can at any given moment, it doesn’t take away accountability or the need for accountability, but it does kind of even the playing field a little bit. 

KC – Something I’ve noticed throughout this conversation is how you’ve steered away from labels, victim, persecutor, persecuted. And I guess those labels in themselves are probably quite… I don’t want to say damaging but, do they limit the conversation that can be had if they’re already present and vocal in the room? 

JP – Absolutely. Language is powerful, it’s meaningful, it can be triggering. Some people will speak about, you know in cases of sexual harassment, what I would call the respondent in a claim, the perpetrator. Well, even that has a lot of stuff wrapped around it. Or the complainant is the victim, that’s loaded too. You know, if we embrace this idea of naturally created resources in hole, that’s a different perspective to stand in even if somebody’s been injured by somebody else. I call myself a restoration practitioner and even the word restoration I’m challenged by because it suggests returning something to the way that it once was which is impossible. We’re always emerging and changing. So, I don’t even know what to call myself anymore, even when I talk about reparation in the workplace – when I say it I mean repair, some people it harkens back to human rights violations and it’s an unacceptable word to some people. So, it’s very important in this work that we’re very mindful of the language and the labels that we’re using. 

KC – Yeah, it’s something that’s been a theme, a running theme on the podcast, Yuri Morikawa was on recently and she was speaking about how she’s worked with, I was calling them victims of human trafficking, and she calls them survivor leaders. And, it’s a subtle shift but I’m sure one that has a profound impact on the women that we’re talking about. And, I imagine in your work as well, it’s not such a divisive atmosphere when you don’t have these roles, these labels suddenly attached to who’s on what side of the conversation. 

JP – Absolutely, and then you bring in this other perspective where people want the labels because they want it to highlight the impact that these behaviours have on somebody. So, it’s, it’s hard to navigate that, but I love that survival leader? 

KC – Yeah, survivor leaders. 

JP – I love that because it also has an aspect of empowerment. You know, kind of like metaskill we can get through this or you can get through this. 

KC – Yeah, and you’re not defined because of your experiences you create from them and that’s a very different, I mean, it’s a coaching lens towards what’s possible then. 

JP – Well even if I can pick up on the complexities that I’m getting from this conversation, the behavior between two people in a workplace, whilst it’s between two people, it also happened within a particular culture. So, in terms of accountability it just doesn’t rest with the individual who’s conducting him or herself that way, in an injurious way, but also the organization who has an obligation, certainly a legal obligation, to create a harassment-free work environment. And also, many of them have a commitment to providing a psychologically safe or relationally safe environment. So, to label it or put it on one stakeholder I think is too limiting. There’s a collective responsibility around these issues. 

KC – Yeah, it’s so much bigger than that idea of the persecutor and the persecuted. It’s cultural, it’s systemic and there are more players perhaps involved than we often see. 

JP – Indeed, and I think historically what we’ve done is we’ve laid it at the feet of individuals as a way to protect against having to take responsibility for systemic changes required in our organizations. 

KC – So, how do you go about bringing those wider players and pieces of the puzzle into the conversation? If, say, it feels quite closed when you initially walk into a situation. 

JP – So, typically what I do is I pause and I stand back and I get on that balcony and I look at the system and what I’m looking for is where’s intervention needed? And how do we start to enlist and get those voices in to be able to inform next steps. So, it can take the form of coaching sessions with one-on-one individuals or teams, weaving in some training, that’s also another aspect to this. It can be providing support to complainants or respondents so they’re getting some one-on-one coaching and they have an ally. It can be policy development. It can be coaching management and how to effectively respond to complaints. It can be providing some trauma-informed awareness. Really, it’s whatever the system is revealing in terms of what it needs to support this needed cultural shift. 

KC – So that step back- space - is absolutely crucial then to what follows from that? 

JP – I believe it is and there’s another important piece here. I’d always, as you can see I’m distinguishing always between what happens to two or more people in the subsystem and in the organization as a whole. There’s this piece around people feeling injured by each other and then in that there can also be the experience of a violation of the psychological contract an employee has with his or her employer. So the repair needs to happen both at the individual level, the subsystem level and also as it relates to the employee’s relationship with its employer. And I think that’s the piece that we miss and it’s an important piece. What I see in this work is there are all the events that lead up to complaints that have caused injury, and then the processes that we’re using to address these issues themselves cause injury. And that’s often the starting point where the employees are dissatisfied with the employers or disappointed, feel let down. And that’s the focus, rather than the varied issues that lead to the complaint in the first place. So it’s kind of a double whammy. 

KC – Right, and then you’ve got probably multiple levels of hurt going on because people are feeling completely let down by a system that didn’t support them through a very challenging time, I’m sure for some people. 

JP – Absolutely. Hurt and a lot of lost trust. And as we know in relationships, rebuilding trust, there’s some heavy lifting in that once that’s gone. 

KC – So is that somewhere you start, after taking that balcony view, is trust sort of the key part to that initial engagement? 

JP – Absolutely. And emphasizing that this work is not about seeking agreements, consensus on fact, but rather alignment. So I’m always with the question when you say where do I start, I often start with the consideration of where everyone wants to end. Where do we want to land after all of this work? And if, you know, to be a little presumptuous at the moment, if it’s a land of psychological safety, relational safety, rebuilding trust, repair, increasing positivity, increasing productivity, if that’s what we’re aiming for, that’s our high water mark, what do we need to do to get there? So, if you can get alignment on the end goal, that’s a really powerful starting point. 

KC – Is alignment always possible? 

JP – No, it isn’t always possible. And I think that there’s wisdom in being able to recognize when a relationship’s over. 

KC – I was wondering that because I guess, you know, there has to be involvement on both parts. As you say, not to agree, but at least to see some deeper value sets that meet in the middle somewhere. 

JP – Absolutely, yeah. And what’s always wrapped around this is our legal obligations, rights and obligations, so while employees can work towards agreements or rules of engagement, out legislation, policy and procedure will dictate what the expectations are in terms of behavior and some of it is non-negotiable. Like, you know, freedom from sexual harassment or racial harassment. If somebody is not willing to comply with that expectation there are responses the organization can take like disciplining or termination. 

KC – So, alignment, that’s interesting, it comes from multiple levels then. There’s the legal level but then also the other values and things that show up within the room itself, all of that’s in play. 

JP – All of that’s in play. Hence that complexity, there are so many aspects to this. 

KC – Yeah! So, I guess, how do you sense when alignment’s not possible? What’s the signal for you there? 

JP – Yeah, that’s a really good question. In the ORSC work we talk about, do you know that triangle, what’s primary and what’s secondary. And in this work what we’re doing is meeting the system where it is, naming the primary, the secondary is high hope. And when you start to weave that into conversations you get a sense of who are going to be the leapers, who are going to be the bridge builders. Who are the tradition holders, and I’ve added the immovables? The ones that are saying I’m not going there. And they can make that clear and if that’s the case then they can seek employment elsewhere. And we’re not all really good at kind of calling that and I think it’s an important call to make. That being said, I think that employees should be given a lot of support, a lot of guidance, a lot of coaching to help them be successful. I think that most people want to get it right and to make it with other people in their working relationship. And it’s not always possible. 

KC – I’m wondering, off the back of that, if you’ve seen more divisiveness over the last 18 months? I feel socially it’s this or that, yes or no, right wrong. And I wonder if that’s shown up in some of the cases you’ve been working on? 

JP – Absolutely. So there’s, I’m seeing this minority dominant voice, often occupied by people who have had the benefit of a lot of privilege, and because of this reconning, this necessary and important reconning that is happening in society, there’s a lot of fear. And there’s a lot of digging in, hence the divisiveness. Protecting territory, protecting power. Yes, I’m seeing that a lot in my work. 

KC – So, how do you go about working with that because as a coach I sort of imagine turning up to a session and there are quite literally two sides, how do you go about bringing the system together and help it to see itself? 

JP – Yeah, so there’s that parts that, you know as Merida talks about, creating intelligent teams, meeting the system where it is. So, if it’s in these divisive states, revealing itself to itself. Providing additional information so that they can see what’s happening and then there’s time for some reflection. And then there’s that alignment piece. So, you know, I think almost always you can get to a place of alignment in terms of creating a working relationship that is sufficiently collegial, respectful, such as you can get the tasks done. You can agree to disagree, you can have a completely different life experience and nevertheless work towards a collective desired outcome. You know, I’ve sometimes said to people who come reluctantly to systems coaching because they’re very attached to being right, you don’t have to like each other! You don’t have to like each other, you don’t have to go for dinner, the BBQs or play golf together, whatever you’re playing. It’s simply about creating that level of civility and collegiality sufficient that you can do your work. And most people, I think most people long for connection, a sense of belonging, and it’s often these other things that get in the way and they are surmountable, I believe they’re surmountable. 

KC – I really love that, that you don’t have to like your colleagues, you don’t have to love your colleagues, and I feel alignment really allows for that space. How can we work together, can we – as you say – agree to disagree? You can align over that at the very least, probably. 

JP – Yeah, and even as you say that Katie, don’t you feel like the alignment, the desired outcome is kind of over there? There’s the quote, to quote Rumi, between right and wrong there’s a field, I’ll meet you there. I love that image. So, there are disagreements between us but around creating an atmosphere sufficient that we can do our work and make our contribution and our offering, that’s achievable.  

KC – I like that it’s over there. Sort of a separate space from what we’ve got going on here. 

JP- Yes. It’s like, in the ORSC, by putting the problem out in front. 

KC – Mmm. And it feels timeless and connecting, that sort of deeper human level. Transcends so much of the surface-level stuff, perhaps, that gets in the way. 

JP – Exactly, yes. 

KC – You mentioned about privilege and I’m wondering sort of how you work with rank and privilege because I’m sure that it does show up. Probably unconsciously. But when it’s being used in an unskilful way, how do you work with that when it’s in the room? 

JP – Yeah that’s a good question. So, part of that is doing some education before it shows up. So, educating around the systems lens and this idea of deep democracy. This idea of ghosts in the system and time spirits. And when we talk about time spirits, that’s a good place to Segway into privilege. Rank, rank being the sum of power and privilege. And so, what I do is I start cogently, where do we get our rank. You know, obviously from our roles, in our titles - in an organization that’s quite obvious. And I’ll put to the group where else do we see it? I’ll have them respond and so we pepper it in. And then I like to make the point that people with rank are often oblivious to it. People without rank are very aware of the people who have it. And as soon as you say this, just as you, you know there’s often a nod. It’s like yeah, I get that. Because we’ve all been situated differently in terms of rank at different times in our lives. And I find that that’s really powerful and with rank obviously comes responsibility and also an appreciation that I, from my own privilege, I’m a privileged white woman speaking to this topic. I can’t understand what it’s like to be racially marginalized and all that’s to say that I don’t think one can do this work without taking rank into account. Because it is always at play. 

KC – Yeah, it’s one of those ones, it’s always there, as you say, and when you mentioned about how if you don’t have rank you’re aware of it, it’s so true. If you think about that first job you had, you’re so aware of all the people above you in the pecking order. And actually, sort of as you start to climb the pecking order, the hierarchy, whatever the structure of your system, you sort of forget and take it for granted. And so actually, to bring it to the forefront of the conversation right up front, I think is probably so useful for, not disarming the rank and the privilege but to make it transparent and clear that it’s there and it’s having an impact. 

JP – Indeed. And, when I think about my own rank, hopefully it informs how I communicate, how I am in relationships and the impact I’m having. If I’m mindful of that. 

KC – How do you work with people who can’t or won’t see their rank and their privilege, even after, say, a conversation like that. 

JP – Yeah, that’s tricky. You know this idea that our intention, it’s often the people that are like that, they just assume that you understand their intention. And the impact that they’re having, they’re not so connected to, right, because somebody who’s not willing to reflect on power and privilege is often disconnected from even considering their impact. Right, and so I’ve been in situations where a lot of feedback has been provided to a leader for example about impact, and the penny is not dropping. Sometimes on rare occasions that can speak to a personality disorder or other more serious issues, I’m not a psychologist, let’s be clear on that. And people can be limited around capacity and their ability to reflect. 

KC – That’s such a good point about the gap between how people think they’re being and how they’re coming across. And I often say to people flag your intentions if it’s not clear because you hold that quite often, not always, but often people just get your impact, they don’t get your intention. And if there’s a massive gap between the two, we’re on a very different page right now. 

JP – That is such great advise, because we know that in the absence of information, so if you don’t flag the intention, people will often make up their own narrative or their own story around the behavior. And then they will relate to the other person from that story, the story might not be right at all! I always think that’s such a tragedy when somebody’s narrative is not reflecting the truth. 

KC – Yeah, or that they can’t see that all of the narratives are holding a part of the truth. And that goes back to that balcony view and that sort of mosaic you were describing when you were looking at all of the things going on at once. 

JP – Yes. Indeed. 

KC – I’m wondering, what’s your biggest takeaway from working with high levels of conflict? Because I know, speaking from my own experience, I find coaching conflict still quite challenging and I want it to get back to the lighter stuff, but I know conflict is where real change can emerge if we lean in, in the right way. 

JP – Yeah, one of the takeaways, there’s a lot of suffering that happens at work. We experience a lot of or can experience a lot of pain in relationship. That’s one thing I’ve become really aware of in my work. Another takeaway is how little time we spend developing the skills and the tools and the self-awareness to be able to navigate conflict in relationships. I always think, you know, when we’re in elementary school we learn about geography and science and math, we don’t learn relationship intelligence and yet it is the biggest determining factor for our quality of life and our ability to succeed at work. We can be brilliant at the substantive aspects at our work but if we can’t figure out how to navigate our team or be in working relationships effectively it really hampers our impact. I get really curious about that, about what tools and skills we can acquire, what work we can do with ourselves to be able to be more effective in our working relationships. And even from the standpoint of workplace harassment, the traditional ways in which we have addressed these are insufficient, they actually can, in many cases, cause harm, they have to be reimagined. We have to do better in that regard. And that’s really what I hope to dedicate the rest of my career to, creating a shift in that area. 

KC – That’s brilliant. I think that’s so true and I want to normalize, as well, the fact that we’re all really learning from the ground up when it comes to relationship because we’re not given it as a part of our standard curriculum. And I said to this couple the other day, who I’m working with, that it makes sense that they’re struggling in this way because they’ve never been taught a different way before. And so when you think about then in sort of a workplace harassment case there are even more dynamics that sort of come into play and things that we haven’t learnt how to do. So, it’s how you say, it’s not just why it happened, it’s the way it’s dealt with after it happens too. It’s all needing, I think, a real shift and update. Reimagined as you say. 

JP – Yeah, absolutely and I say even for myself who I have the skills, I have the tools, I have some self-awareness, and still when I know it’s time for me to have one of those challenging conversations with someone in my life, in service of protecting my relationship, it’s hard! I don’t wanna do it! It’s hard to do because I think, generally speaking we are conflict adverse. And we are here, having this conversation, pushing the envelope is an important part. 

KC – Thank you for your vulnerability there. And I think the work you’re doing is so important. I wonder if we can close on sort of your final thoughts for what needs to happen next. It could be to HR lead or to coaches also working in similar fields to this, but what needs to happen to really reimagine the way we look at workplace conflict? 

JP – I think that, I’m biased obviously to the training providing by CRR Global, the organization and relationship systems coaching training, it has so many gold nuggets that have significant application in the workplace. I think that the more conversations we can have like we’re having, the more invitations we make to our organizations to find ways to address issues early on in a dispute before complaints are filed before it becomes adversarial, where we create atmospheres of permission to be able to bring issues forward productively and in service of relationship, so it’s an attitudinal change, a value change, and I really believe wholeheartedly that we all long for it. We just need to know how to do it. 

KC – Thank you so much Jennifer, I’m taking a lot away from this conversation but I think what’s really going to stick is that balcony view, so standing back and seeing the whole orchestra in play at once. Thank you, such a useful metaphor. 

JP – Aw, thank you Katie, it’s a joy to be with you in this conversation. 

KC – Thanks to Jennifer Pernfuss for sharing her expertise and insight into what it means to take the balcony view when it comes to workplace conflict. My key takeaways are as follows – historically, organizations have dealt with workplace harassment cases via a complaint-driven process making it very hard to intervene and repair. However, this approach is through the lens of policy, procedure and company liability. And whilst these pieces are important, how can we meet the starting point relationship and think about the experience of the individuals involved by looking through the lens of the relationship? This can then influence our policies and procedures and setup. Conflict is a signal that something wants or needs to change, so rather than zooming in to the level of the two people involved in the conflict can we zoom out and take the balcony view in order to see the system as a whole. What’s wanting to emerge? What’s wanting to shift? Whilst the issue might arise out of two people within an organization, the change needed might be cultural, it might be systemic, and the two people at the center might just be the voices of change. Alignment doesn’t mean agreement and it doesn’t mean you have to like each other, it’s simply about creating a level of civility and collegiality sufficiently that you can do your work. So, alignment for a system could mean agreeing to disagree. Rank is a sum of power and privilege and it’s important that we address it as it is always at play. People with rank are often oblivious to it and people without it are often very aware of the people who have it. The traditional ways we have addressed workplace conflict are typically insufficient. Systemic thinking enables us to hold complexity when conflict arises within an organization and enables us to reimagine how we might use conflict to steer us towards positive change. I’m pleased to say that Jennifer is going to be back with us on the show for another episode in season three to continue deep diving into this very important topic around workplace conflict. 

[Outro 36:47 – End]