Risk and risk tolerance

Each person's level of risk tolerance is a complex balance of personality (our personal tendency to like risk, or not) and our past experience with (and perceptions of) similar situations. Not surprisingly, it has little to do with factual assessments of risk, because human beings are notoriously bad at assessing actual risk. For example, people going camping in the woods will tend to think about, perhaps even obsess about, the risk of a bear attack, a risk that is statistically far lower than the chances of being struck by lightning. At the same time, they will get in their car and drive 300 miles to reach the campground without even considering the fact that driving is by far one of the most dangerous activities people engage in.

Risk tolerance, however, is not based solely on personality or perception; it is also based on the relationship between the fear of what might be lost (the risk) compared to the benefit of what might be gained (the reward). It is an individual's assessment of this risk/reward balance that determines behavior.

In simple terms, if the risk or loss is seen as greater than the reward or gain,³ a party to a conflict is not likely to take the risk unless they have sufficiently positive expectations about the other party's motives and intentions—in other words, unless there is sufficient trust. This leads us to look in depth at the second component of trust—how we assess motives and assign blame.

Attribution theory and self-serving bias

Attribution theory is a cornerstone in the broader discipline of psychology and has been the subject of a significant amount of research and writing over the last 40 years.

Essentially, what attribution theory argues is this: When a negative event arises, when we are hurt or harmed, our initial response is to attribute the cause to someone or something. We do this in order to make sense of what has happened, and we have a strong tendency to attribute in a very particular way.

Situation attribution

When we attribute the cause of a conflict or problem to the situation as opposed to a person, we are saying that the cause was due to factors beyond the control or intention of the person involved. The intentions were good, they tried their best, and the outcome was not desired by anyone. Some of the beliefs that this type of attribution tends to generate are:

• Circumstances outside of the person's control caused the problem, or forced the person into doing what they did.
• Their lack of skill or knowledge, or lack of accurate information, caused the problem.
• It's not their fault; they deserve very little blame, if any.
• The person did their best in spite of lacking necessary information, knowledge, or skill.
• The problem they caused is not indicative of their nature or character.
• The person's intentions were good, regardless of the outcome.
• The person's actions were not personal.

Some examples of a situation attribution are:

• A boss fires three employees because the company is close to bankruptcy and he doesn't have any other option.
• A person kills an intruder or attacker purely in self-defense.
• A driver rear-ends the car in front because of black ice on the road.
• A clerk makes a mistake because he was never trained properly on the computer system.

This type of attribution results in relatively low levels of blame, maintains higher levels of trust, and gives parties a strong sense that this problem can be prevented in the future if it's properly addressed.

Intrinsic nature attribution

This attribution can result in a wide range of blame, from low to very high. Essentially, it involves one party attributing the cause of the conflict to the intrinsic nature of the other party. It may be because they're shy, it may be because of their culture or traditions, it may be that past experiences or core values have strongly affected them, it may be that they simply don't pay attention to other people, but in all cases the issue is blamed on the other person's innate character or nature rather than to conscious, intentional behavior. Some beliefs that this type of attribution tends to generate are:

• The person caused the harm because of their intrinsic qualities: personality, culture, values, past experience.
• The person's intrinsic nature can be seen as benign or dangerous.
• The person's actions are less personal and likely not intentional.

Some examples of an intrinsic nature attribution are:

• A manager who steps on people's toes because she is a workaholic committed to meeting the team's goals and objectives
• A child who starts a fire that injures someone
• An employee who doesn't address a problem because he simply cannot deal with confrontation of any kind
• A friend who betrays another's confidence because he or she is simply incapable of keeping a secret

When parties make an intrinsic nature attribution it's usually more personal than a situation attribution but is typically less personal than an intentional attribution. How much blame we assign will be based on our assessment of how dangerous these intrinsic qualities are.⁴ In many cases, an intrinsic nature attribution allows significant levels of trust to remain, most often in parts of the relationship unrelated to the conflict.

Intentional/hostile attribution

This is the most destructive form of attribution in that it lays complete blame on the other party. It characterizes their actions as intentionally causing harm, either because of personal hostility or because they stood to gain in some way from the harm they caused. It assumes that the other person knew what damage their actions would cause and proceeded anyway. It assumes intentional dishonesty, malice, and hostility. Some beliefs that this type of attribution tends to generate are:

• The person intentionally caused the harm, for personal gain or advantage.
• The person is a “bad person,” that is, morally deficient, unethical, etc.
• The actions were aimed personally and directly at us.

Some examples of intentional attribution are:

• An insurance claimant who is lying to collect on an insurance policy
• A manager who degrades employees in front of the team to “teach them who is boss”
• A person who deliberately breaks a contract because he or she found a cheaper price elsewhere
• A friend who betrays a trust for personal gain

This attribution results in very high levels of blame, eliminates trust, and brings a strong sense that any further dealings with this party are too risky and dangerous, including any attempts at resolution.

Attribution and blame

There is a strong correlation between the type of attribution we make and the laying of blame. In general, the situation attribution minimizes the laying of blame on the other party and depersonalizes the situation; the intrinsic attribution causes a low-to-moderate level of blame along with a moderate amount of “taking it personally,” and the intentional attribution lays a significant amount of blame that feels highly personal. It can be arranged on the scale as follows (Figure 7.2):

Summary of attributions

The Trust model clearly shows us the following:

• The attributions each party makes in a given situation (including our own) dramatically influence the behavior of each party toward the other.
• Some attributions maintain trust between the parties, and some not only destroy trust, they also prevent any rebuilding of trust.
• Attributions are frequently based on incomplete or incorrect information, along with preconceptions and stereotypes.
• Attributions can be changed.

How we work with parties' attributions will greatly influence the outcome of a conflict.

Bob's attributions to:

Sally's attributions to:

Diane's attributions to:

Personal trust

Personal trust is a set of feelings that defines how comfortable we are taking a given level of risk with a specific person. This has to do with our judgment of that person's character, integrity, values, and so on. It answers the question, “How much do I trust this individual?” Some characteristics of personal trust are:

• It is the strongest form of trust.
• It is usually based on belief and assumption and less on actual information (e.g. “I just know that this person can be trusted”).
• Inconsistent behavior may have absolutely no effect on personal trust (e.g. “I know them, and they must have had a very good reason for doing that”).
• With personal trust, parties tend to assume the motives of the other person are good.
• It is based on perceived common values and common interests, to a large degree.
• Examples of strong personal trust include doing business on a handshake, sharing information with a close friend that could be harmful if revealed, sharing sensitive information in a negotiation because we have worked with the other party before, etc.

It is impossible for people to “will” personal trust, meaning that it is built on experience and is not achieved by parties simply agreeing to trust one another. It should also be noted that personal trust is difficult to establish and easy to lose.

People tend to assume that all trust falls under the umbrella of personal trust—if I don't trust you on a personal basis, then we have no trust. In reality, this is only one, albeit important, form of trust.

Procedural trust

Procedural trust is the trust we place in a structure or process we are involved in, as opposed to a person. For example, parties to a conflict often attempt mediation when they have very little trust in each other, and may have little experience with the mediator as well. In this case, they are placing their trust in the mediation process itself.Procedural trust answers the question, “How much trust do I have in the process itself, regardless of the individual(s) involved?” Some characteristics of procedural trust are:

• It is limited, situation-specific trust and tends to be more fragile than personal trust.
• Procedural trust is based on trusting the structures surrounding the individuals involved (Are they licensed or trained? Do they have credentials? Have their products been tested and approved by the government?)
• It is based on monitoring (A third party monitors and verifies the quality of the work; the manager monitors the employees' arrival time to verify attendance).
• It is based on deterrence (I don't pay you until the work is completed).
• Parties tend to assume the motives of the other person are either unknown or uncaring of others, which is why the procedural trust is needed in the first place.
• Examples of procedural trust include the process of buying a house, where the purchase money and the deed are exchanged through a trusted third party (such as a lawyer or a title company); court-supervised visits with children where the marital relationship has broken down; having a facilitator or mediator manage the negotiation to ensure that neither side does anything unfair or unreasonable.

Procedural trust is significantly different from personal trust, in that procedural trust processes can be collaboratively built and agreed upon by the parties themselves. Procedural trust is not a matter of will; it is a set of steps or structures that are tangible and defined. This makes procedural trust a powerful tool when working with conflict, and when applying some of the following strategies.

Strategy #1: Focus on procedural trust, not personal trust

One of the first casualties in conflict is the loss of trust, but how much trust is lost and how the practitioner should proceed are best assessed by looking at the attributions that the parties are making. In extreme conflict, both personal trust as well as procedural trust can be lost. In these cases, parties simply don't want to deal with the other party because they can't see a safe way to negotiate with an untrustworthy party. For this reason, Strategy #1 is to focus the parties away from personal trust (which can be seen as so risky to the parties as to be inconceivable) and focus them on various forms of procedural trust, on a process that will effectively protect both parties' interests enough to begin discussions and move forward.

How exactly to move forward can be decided by looking at the attributions that are in play for the parties. Different types of attributions will direct the practitioner toward taking different steps in order to intervene effectively.

Procedural trust and confidence-building measures

Personal and procedural trust are directly linked to the attributions the parties have made. In general, situation attributions maintain the most personal trust and require the least procedural trust; intrinsic attributions can damage personal trust and require some level of procedural trust, whereas intentional attributions destroy personal trust and require an almost exclusive focus on procedural trust in order to move forward. (Figure 7.3.)

Because conflict is extremely destructive to personal trust, the more blame and negative attribution the parties make toward each other the more practitioners need to look toward procedural trust to help the parties move forward. In other words, by effectively implementing procedural trust we can help the parties rebuild some personal trust down the road.

The first step in implementing procedural trust is to create a safe environment to begin the negotiation. This means shifting completely away from any substantive negotiation and focusing on the negotiation process itself.⁶ Procedural trust often focuses on who will attend, what will be on the agenda, what will be confidential, how the process will be monitored and made safe for everyone, how agreements (if reached) will be monitored, what the future relationships between parties might look like, and so on. Gaining agreement to important procedural elements often lays the groundwork for effective substantive negotiations. Another strategy to build enough procedural trust to move parties forward is by encouraging the use of “confidence-building measures,” or CBM’s.

Confidence-building measures

Procedural Trust		Confidence-Building Measures		Increase in Personal Trust
Monitoring Third-party help Mutual deterrence Risk/reward analysis Steps taken with independent verification that requires little personal trust to commit to, that is, no/low risk.		Unilateral steps taken by one party to show good faith and to test the good faith of the other party. Once parties see each other performing as agreed, it encourages parties to take greater risks with each other in the future.		Parties see each other taking risks, fulfilling commitments. Parties build history of trustworthiness between each other over time.

Confidence-building measures are small steps taken by one or both parties that signal a readiness to unilaterally demonstrate trust to the other side. They are actions taken beyond what is needed to establish basic procedural trust. A confidence-building measure is an action that does not ask the other side to place their confidence in us, but shows that we are prepared to place some confidence (or trust) in them. By taking a small risk and “going first,” one party creates a positive pressure on the other party to reciprocate. CBMs often break negotiating logjams and create a pattern of important procedural trust steps.

Examples of confidence-building measures can include:

• In a construction dispute, one side offering to resume work on site today, provided the other side makes a partial payment within a week
• In a supplier dispute, the manufacturer waiving the requirement for cash up front by offering to ship small orders on a 15-day payment basis
• In a workplace dispute, the manager offering a terminated employee his or her previous position back, provided the employee attends certain training courses within two months of reinstatement

In each of these examples, one side is demonstrating willingness to take a risk and go first by offering a CBM; in doing so, they create a situation where if the other side didn't reciprocate,⁷ they would risk being seen as the difficult party. This dynamic creates a positive pressure on both parties to behave well. When parties begin to see each other as reliable through effective use of procedural trust and confidence-building measures, they will begin to rebuild personal trust, slowly reducing the need for CBMs or the need for extensive procedural trust structures in the future.

Strategy #2: Attributional retraining

The second strategy to deal with negative attributions is to directly address the attribution made by each party about the other. This strategy applies where there is an abundance of intrinsic or intentional attributions.

As previously noted, whenever attributions are made, they are based on assumptions, on interpreting the available information in a particular way. Parties frequently take the same information and yet arrive at very different attributions and conclusions.

A good analogy is a children's connect-the-dots game, where a series of numbered dots are printed on a page but form no obvious picture. By connecting the dots in the right order (which is helped by the fact that the dots are numbered), a picture such as a dog or house emerges. In real life, when we assess conflict situations we are presented with the same series of “dots” (in this case, data points such as experiences, feelings, events, etc.) only in our case without the numbering. In Figure 7.4, to draw a “picture” we have to find a way to connect the dots that makes sense to us.

In Figure 7.5, however, the same data points (dots) are connected in different ways, leading to very different pictures.

To complicate matters even further, now imagine the situation where some dots (or data points) exist in one person's picture and others exist only in the other person's picture (each party having information the other doesn't have, or attributing different reasons for the events or information). Finally, as in Figure 7.6, it is not uncommon for a party to draw a picture that simply ignores some of the data points because they don't fit the picture the party has created or assumed. Completely different pictures can then be created, each of which will be completely legitimate (even seen as exclusively “right”) to the party drawing it. Our assumptions, our attribution of motives, and our interpretation of the situation and the other party's behavior all become highly influential in how we feel about the other party.

What this all means, then, is that both parties' attributions can be, and often are, biased, exaggerated, or simply wrong. Frequently, this biased attribution of the other person's actions is in the direction of minimizing situation causes and creating intrinsic or intentional causes, leading to high levels of blame and strong emotions.

Attributional retraining is a fancy term for (gently) challenging a party's assumptions. By challenging these assumptions, we help the party change their “picture”—if the dots that they used to draw the picture of the boat no longer exist, they will need to find a new picture to make sense of the situation. This process can help a party shift from intentional attribution and strong blame, to intrinsic attribution and less blame, or even to situation attribution and the elimination of some blame altogether. This process can significantly de-escalate a conflict and introduce enough trust to move forward, even if it is only procedural trust at first.

Strategy #2: Use attributional retraining with Bob

The mediator could meet with Bob alone and begin unpacking the assumptions and attributions Bob has made. This would be done by asking Bob some of the following questions, all of which uncover and gently challenge the assumptions Bob has made:

• You feel that Sally biased the competition in favor of Diane. Given that she didn't sit on the competition panel, how did she do this? (Bob: She spoke with the panel, that's how.) When did she do this? (I don't know. She just must have.) Why doesn't the union feel this competition was biased? (They're on her side.) If they were on her side, why did they make her rerun the competition? Why didn't they just let the first one stand? (Well, I don't know.)
• You feel that Sally doesn't want to have anything to do with you, and that's why she wants everything to go through Diane, is that it? (Yes, it's just a way of ignoring me because she doesn't like me.) Why do you want contact with her? (I want to know what's going on, because I'm important around here too.) How would your view change if Sally, knowing this was important to you, were to keep your direct communication lines open? (She won't!) And if she did, what would that tell you? (Well, I don't know, that maybe she's rethought some of this?)
• You believe that Sally is inventing the AS-1 role as a way of rewarding or helping Diane, because she is female, too. (Yes, they all stick together.) How clear are you that the director, Sally's boss, has ordered this position created in offices across the country, and that Sally had nothing to do with this decision? (What? Where did you hear that?) From Sally. How could you verify that? (I can call other offices to find out, I guess.) And if that is true, how would that change your view of why Sally is making these changes? (Well, I'd have to think about it.)

This dialogue is an example of attributional retraining, introducing information and interpretations other than the ones Bob has made and effectively causing Bob to rethink some of his attributions. If Sally had nothing to do with creating the position, Bob would have to rethink his view of Sally in some way. That is the goal of attributional retraining. Although it can take a bit of time, it can substantially alter the way each party views the underlying reasons for the other party behaving the way they are.

Strategy #2: Use attributional retraining with Sally

The mediator could meet with Sally alone and begin unpacking the assumptions and attributions Sally has made. This would be done by asking Sally some of the following questions, all of which uncover and gently challenge the assumptions she has made:

• You feel that Bob is behaving this way because he wants to frustrate you to the point you'll either promote him, or rerun the competition again, is that it? (Sally: Yes, he's doing this just to make my life difficult!) In general, how good a job had Bob been doing before all of this? (Well, he did a good job here for a long time before I arrived.) What if the reason he's behaving badly is because he really cares about his job and needs some contact with you to feel that he's in the loop and doing a good job? How would you feel about helping him? (I'm willing to help, but he has to stop being such a problem.) If he were willing to change his behavior, what contact could you offer so he felt important and included? (I'd certainly consider any suggestions, if that's really the problem!)
• You think that Bob hasn't recognized that he lacks a number of skills. (That's right. He's too proud to see that.) When has Bob ever refused to go on training that was offered to him? (Well, he hasn't refused with me, but I haven't offered anything.) How would it change your thinking if you offered him some skills training, and he accepted it? (It would show me he was interested in improving his work.)

In both cases, this would start the process of changing the underlying attributions and assumptions that were blocking and preventing any trust from building between the parties.

Next, let's look at how procedural trust and confidence-building measures might help.

Strategy #1: Focus on procedural trust

After shifting some of the hardline attributions between Sally and Bob, the parties looked at what steps could be taken to start improving things. They focused on two areas, communication and skills improvement.

Case Study: Coworker's Dilemma

This situation involved two coworkers, Jean and Anna. Jean had been in the department for about 5 years; Anna had been there about 15 years. Initially, when Jean joined the department, they had gotten along reasonably well. About 3 years prior, Jean was given an “acting supervisor” appointment in the department and had to supervise Anna, along with two other employees, for about three months. Anna resented Jean's style of supervising, and the working relationship began to deteriorate.

About six weeks into her new role, Jean approached the manager, Sheri, saying that Anna's work quality was very poor and Jean's work was suffering as a result. Jean relied on Anna (as well as two other staff) to supply reports and data to her. Sheri asked her to gather some information on “what was going on in the area” so she could address any problems. Jean took this to mean that she was to track Anna's work quality, and to do this she built an Excel spreadsheet detailing the dates on which requests were made to Anna, when the data were delivered, when scheduled reports were completed, and the quality of the work overall. In addition, she had included a “Comments” section that had the occasional comment such as “Late again!!” or “Quality?!” as a reflection of her frustration with Anna's work. It also included the odd comment about good quality work that Anna had done. She filled out this spreadsheet for about two months on a network drive that she thought Anna did not have access to.

At about the two-month mark, and before Jean could share this information with Sheri, Anna found the file on the network drive. She stormed into Sheri's office with the file and demanded to know what was going on. Sheri told her that the file Jean had created was unacceptable and that she would address it with Jean. Anna stormed out, angrily yelled something at Jean, and threatened to file a harassment complaint against Jean unless she was disciplined. Jean, in Anna's mind, had been out to “get” her for a while now, and this was evidence of Jean trying to get her fired.

Jean was upset as well. She felt that she had just done what Sheri had asked her to do and was not trying to “get” Anna. All she had wanted was for Anna's work to improve so she could do her job properly. Jean took great pride in doing more than was expected of her, but workloads had been increasing and she was falling behind due to Anna. When she approached Anna for information on reports, Anna had ignored her or had become angry. Jean didn't really accept that the comments on her spreadsheet were inappropriate, but she did realize that leaving the document on the network drive was a poor choice, because it wasn't private.

Relations in the workplace plummeted. Anna went off on sick leave for a month (her second extended leave in the past year) and upon her return didn't appear to feel any differently. She would not speak with Jean and refused to sit down with Sheri and Jean in the same room. Coworkers began to complain about the workplace, particularly about Anna's moods, and work fell way behind across the board. Anna refused to have any contact with Jean, still convinced that Jean was out to get her. In addition, because Sheri had clearly not disciplined Jean, Anna began to feel that Sheri was taking Jean's side. She began talking to the union about filing a complaint or a grievance.

Trust model diagnosis and worksheet: Coworker's Dilemma

Clearly, from the analysis, both parties have attributed the causes of the problem primarily to hostile and harmful intentions on each other's part, with a little bit of negative intrinsic attribution. This assessment was reflected in how emotionally hot the conflict was for both parties.

Trust model strategic direction: Coworker's Dilemma

What situation or intrinsic attributions are being missed by either party?

Anna:

• Anna is not seeing the workload issues Jean is facing and is not recognizing how much Jean relies on her work. (Situation)
• Anna hasn't clearly understood that Jean was asked to compile information on the work in her area and didn't undertake this on her own. (Situation)
• Anna is not recognizing that Jean has high standards and demands a lot of herself and that this, in general, is not a bad thing in the workplace. (Intrinsic)
• Anna is not recognizing that Jean's frustration is with not getting what she needs, and not directly with Anna personally. (Situation)
• Anna is not including the information that Jean had helped her quite a bit in the past. (Intrinsic)

Jean:

• Jean is not seeing that Anna may have a medical condition, given her numerous sick leaves, and that this may be affecting her emotionally. (Intrinsic)
• Jean is not recognizing that Anna simply has a different work ethic than Jean does but still has a work ethic that is in the range of acceptable in the workplace. (Intrinsic)
• Jean is not recognizing that it isn't her job or role to manage or judge Anna's work; it's her role to go to management if she's not getting what she needs to do her job well. (Situation)
• Jean is not recognizing that the comments were clearly inappropriate. (Situation)

What attributional retraining can be done to bring forward this information?

Questions for Anna:

• How clear are you that Sheri asked Jean to gather information about deadlines and workflows? That Jean, to a large degree, was doing what was asked of her?
• How much of the frustration you read in Jean's spreadsheet is because she felt frustrated in her own job and not necessarily with you?
• If Jean is just out to get you, why would she have offered and acted to help you in the past?
• How much of this problem is because of the long hours and high standards Jean seems to impose on herself?

Questions for Jean:

• Anna has been off a few times in the past year-how much information do you have on that? (Assume none, because it's private information.) What else might be going on in Anna's life outside of work, given these extended leaves?
• When you feel frustrated that you're not getting reports or information you need, who is responsible for fixing that? If the answer is “management,” what's the reason you're frustrated with Anna, when indeed it's management's responsibility to help you?
• How clear are you that Sheri believes the comments in your spreadsheet were inappropriate?
• You set high standards for quality of work, don't you? How appropriate or realistic is it to apply those standards to everyone in the workplace? Whose job is it to set standards for acceptable work for staff? How much of Anna's anger at you is because she feels you've been judging her work rather than letting management do it?

Procedural Trust Focus: What confidence-building measures would help each party start to rebuild?

What CBMs from Jean would have an impact with Anna?

• Jean apologizing for the comments in the report.
• Jean providing verification that the report had been deleted and all copies destroyed.
• Jean's commitment to never gather information without Anna knowing (this CBM also needs to come from Sheri, as well as from Jean).

What CBMs from Anna would have impact with Jean?

• Anna committing to behaving in civil, respectful ways whenever she interacted with Jean in the workplace.
• Anna agreeing to not file a harassment complaint if they reach a resolution.

Who could be an effective “monitor” between Jean and Anna in the short term?

• It was agreed that there needed to be a buffer or monitor between Jean and Anna, at least for a while. Sheri was far too busy and acknowledged having neglected this department because of time pressure. Sheri decided to assign a supervisor to take over running the area, and it was agreed that the supervisor would be the buffer and monitor for the foreseeable future.

What would need to be monitored so that both parties would feel that the process is safe and fair?

• The parties agreed to meet with the supervisor and establish “ground rules” that the supervisor would then monitor and hold both Jean and Anna accountable for. The stated goal was to have this monitoring only as a short-term process, after which Jean and Anna would manage their interactions themselves.

Epilogue of the case study

After initial meetings with Anna and Jean, the practitioner met with Sheri and arranged for Sheri to meet with Anna and Jean individually. This was to clearly articulate the following: To Anna, she affirmed that it had been Sheri who had asked for the report and not Jean choosing to do it on her own. Sheri apologized to Anna for not telling her about it and took responsibility for this misstep. To Jean, Sheri made it clear that the comments in the spreadsheet were, in her view, inappropriate. After some discussion, Jean admitted she could see that they “didn't look good” to anyone else reading them.

The practitioner then met with Anna, who denied that she had been disrespectful in the past, but committed to behaving respectfully in the future. Anna agreed that it had to be respectful as defined by both Jean and the supervisor. Anna also agreed that if Jean apologized for the report, she would not file a harassment complaint. During the attributional retraining portion, she admitted that although she didn't like Jean, she recognized that Jean was probably just insensitive and showing bad judgment, rather than trying to get her fired. (This is a movement from intentional/hostile attribution to an intrinsic one, which is lower on the scale.)

The practitioner then met with Jean, who initially refused to apologize for anything. After discussing Sheri's view of the comments, Jean acknowledged that the comments could be seen as inappropriate and agreed to apologize for writing them. She also wanted it to be made clear that she wasn't trying to harm Anna but only trying to improve her work.

The practitioner brought Anna and Jean together. Jean apologized for the comments, and Anna committed to civil and respectful interactions, along with not filing a formal complaint. Both agreed to meet with the supervisor and build ground rules, which they would ask the supervisor to monitor. Based on this, both agreed to go back to working together on a professional basis.

In an individual debrief with the practitioner, Anna stated that she didn't feel that Jean really understood how this had hurt her, but felt Jean had acknowledged enough for her to let it go and move forward. Jean, in her debrief, stated that she still felt Anna didn't like her, but if there was a reasonable and professional working relationship, that was enough for her to move forward.