When monitoring third-party risks, it is important that entities focus on value creation as well as value protection. Outsourcing is an increasingly a key strategic decision for many businesses, allowing them to focus on core corporate activities. However, when things go wrong in third-party relationships, companies may be exposed to significant reputational, regulatory, strategic and financial risks. There are two notable recent examples of high-profile third-party failures in Ireland: The Central Bank of Ireland imposed fines on financial institutions in relation to the governance and control of outsourced services delivered by third parties; and In 2018, a restaurant chain in the UK was forced to close more than 560 of its 900 outlets as “operational issues” at a new distribution partner left deliveries “incomplete or delayed”. This is estimated to have cost the restaurant chain in question £1 million per day in lost sales. In 2016, the Central Bank of Ireland warned that poor management of third-party relationships is putting banks at risk, citing “very serious failings” in relation to the governance of these arrangements and brandishing some cases as “astonishing”. Specific criticism related to poor management of outsourced arrangements, lack of oversight and a lack of engagement and challenge from boards. Extended enterprises The operational environment of many companies has expanded to include third-party service providers. Taken together, these third parties constitute what we term “the extended enterprise.” We continue to see companies struggle to identify, measure, report and monitor third-party risks within their extended enterprise. This has led to companies being exposed to a variety of risks and failing to maximise the upside of third-party relationships. The challenge for businesses is to formulate an extended enterprise risk management strategy that proactively manages the risks associated with the extended enterprise while also driving performance. In our experience, the answers to this challenge lie in expanding one’s view of third-party risk management to incorporate value creation as well as value protection. For companies to leverage their risk management processes to improve performance, it is critical that they develop an end-to-end approach for sensing risks systematically throughout the extended enterprise so that vulnerabilities can be addressed proactively. We term this approach ‘extended enterprise risk management’ (EERM). Extended enterprise risk management EERM is the practice of anticipating and managing exposures associated with third parties across the full range of operations, as well as optimising the value delivered by third-party relationships. The risk management landscape is often fragmented and decentralised. Many companies have not agreed and documented their risk appetite. They may approach third-party risk management on an ad hoc basis, addressing prominent areas such as cyber risk and regulatory compliance as they arise. Crucially, many companies do not have a broad pan-company view of all current third-party engagements and the associated risks. A common theme that emerges here is a lack of ownership of risks across the company. For example, despite the increasing focus on risk management, some companies still do not have a dedicated risk officer. Additionally, many companies are not appropriately utilising the three lines of defence to manage risk and drive performance across the extended enterprise. The first line of defence is the business unit, which owns the third-party relationship and is accountable for managing associated risks in alignment with policies and procedures. The second line of defence is a centralised governance programme for extended enterprise risk management, which is responsible for establishing and enforcing policies/processes to ensure that third parties are managed consistently by the business. The third line of defence is internal audit, which is charged with administering a robust audit programme aligned to the most critical extended enterprise risks and controls as well as performing independent assessments. In addition to underinvesting in the three lines of defence, many companies focus excessively on quantitative metrics – contract income and expenditure, for example – when engaging a third-party. When assessing third parties, companies should always include appropriate qualitative metrics – vendor quality, technical capabilities, vendor risk profile, control environment, and ability to drive performance, for example. By not having a defined EERM framework in place, many companies are concentrating on firefighting rather than maximising the benefits that can arise from well-managed third-party relationships. Driving value  Companies increasingly need to move toward a holistic approach to EERM that emphasises value creation as well as value protection. This typically involves establishing a systematic and proactive approach to managing risks across the third-party lifecycle and, in so doing, unlocking value and improving business performance. An operating model for implementing and integrating the various components of risk management across the third-party relationship lifecycle forms the foundation of this approach. To be fully effective, such models must be aligned to the company’s overarching risk appetite and risk management framework. The model should link the individual components of risk management to agreed and documented business objectives and the company’s risk registers. Four cornerstone capabilities  Many companies believe they cannot take an end-to-end approach to managing the extended enterprise because securing executive sponsorship and getting people to take ownership can be an uphill battle. Additionally, many businesses think that the task is too vast and they do not have the expertise and resources to build, execute and sustain a comprehensive third-party oversight programme. In our experience, these barriers are more perception than reality. It is neither necessary nor possible to do everything at once. Companies should consider some practical steps to take toward establishing an EERM programme or evolving an existing one. Many companies can get a sense of what those steps might be by considering the extent to which they have developed the following cornerstone capabilities. Strategy and governance This involves the creation of an agile and flexible governance model: Is there a defined and documented strategy and governance model for managing third-party risk? Is there a defined policy to assess third-party requirements prior to entering into relationships? Are third-party risk management activities linked to value drivers agreed and documented? Have you identified, agreed and documented critical key performance indicators (KPIs) for all third-party relationships? Have you agreed and documented how third-party KPIs will be reported and monitored? Are there defined processes in place to identify new and emerging third-party risks?  People This involves managing relationships, compliance and regulations: Is senior management sufficiently invested in EERM? Are the employees charged with responsibility for third-party risk management receiving sufficient and appropriate training? Is there sufficient investment in the three lines of defence to deliver effective monitoring of third-party risks? Are there defined and documented roles for managing third-party risk across the extended enterprise? Process This involves navigating events that shape the extended enterprise: Are there appropriate contracts in place with all third parties? Do monitoring processes allow for the reliable assessment of third-party performance? Does the company react to third-party events or actively seek to prevent them? Are risk management processes standardised across the company and integrated with tools and data? Is sufficient consideration given to how evolving technologies, market trends and disruptive forces present opportunities and challenges to third-party relationships? Technology This involves using data and analytics to make informed decisions: What tools and technologies are employed to make informed decisions about third-party performance? What transactional data are you entitled to access? Does the company’s IT and systems support KPI monitoring, reporting and performance assessment? Factors to consider in assessing your third-party risks   The complexity of the extended enterprise and resource constraints are no longer sufficient reasons to avoid taking an integrated approach to third-party risk management. Wherever your company stands at present in relation to EERM, some practical steps can be taken now to establish an EERM programme or to move your existing risk management model to the next level. The following factors should be considered. Strategy and programme This involves the development of EERM solutions to assess, design and implement a strategically aligned extended enterprise programme. These may include: Conducting an enterprise-wide strategic third-party risk assessment; and Developing the governance and operating model for EERM including KPIs, reporting and monitoring mechanisms. Evaluation and continuous monitoring This involves the selection and application of a suite of solutions to measure third parties and proactively sense and respond to extended enterprise risks and opportunities. These may include: The selection of quantitative and qualitative metrics/KPIs; Third-party risk assessment processes; and Contract compliance mechanisms. Technology enablement This involves the selection and application of technology solutions to transform and continuously enhance EERM. These may include: Systems design and deployment; Data analytics; and Reporting protocols. Conclusion Effective EERM programmes allow companies to align third-party risk management to strategic objectives and deliver enhanced returns on investment by emphasising value creation as well as value protection.  Crucially, there is no ‘one size fits all’ EERM model or programme. Each company faces unique challenges and therefore, EERM programmes tend to be bespoke by nature. Time spent on EERM programme design is rewarded in the longer term. Finally, successful EERM programmes are continuously re-assessed to ensure that the model being applied remains appropriate at all times. Jimmy Crowley is a Senior Manager in Risk Advisory in Deloitte Ireland.

Overcoming imposter syndrome can be challenging, particularly when it spirals into persistent negativity. BY DR ANNETTE CLANCY Have you ever felt that you don’t belong? That you’re a fraud? That it’s just a matter of time before you’re found out? If so, you’re in very good company including Maya Angelou, Albert Einstein and Meryl Streep. Research tells us that almost 70% of people will experience imposter syndrome (a feeling of incompetence despite all evidence to the contrary) at some point in their lives. This feeling is particularly prevalent among high achievers such as CEOs, who have deep-seated fears of looking ridiculous, of being humiliated and of losing face. Imposter syndrome is also accompanied by the anxiety that others will find out that you’re not as smart, creative, clever or capable as they think you are. You will be humiliated, shamed and ultimately deemed to be incompetent, thus confirming your inner fear of being unsuitable for this challenging job into which you have been promoted and for which you have worked so hard. So many of us spend so much of our time trying to be perfect or, if not perfect, getting so close that it makes no difference. Work cultures that foster a zero-deficit mentality further exacerbate this drive for perfection. Imposter syndrome also masquerades as other personality types: Perfectionists set extremely high standards for themselves. They tend to be critical, risk-avoidant and may suffer from overwhelming anxiety as they attempt to do the impossible. It’s a self-defeating proposition. Add this to a work environment that extols the virtue of perfection and you have a heady recipe for defensive behaviour and poor decision-making; Experts need to know every detail about a problem or situation before they feel confident about giving their opinion. They suffer from ‘paralysis by analysis’ and are afraid of looking stupid. They instead strive to know all the details about a problem before committing to a solution; and Micromanagers are unable to delegate and must oversee the smallest details of every project. Even when they do delegate, they are disappointed with the results and end up re-doing the work to their own standards. Other people’s efforts are never as good as their own. Overcoming imposter syndrome can be challenging, particularly when it spirals into persistent negativity. The following techniques can help to manage it and its symptoms. Break the silence Fear of humiliation keeps many people from talking about imposter syndrome. Yet, keeping it to yourself only escalates the anxiety and increases the stress. Tell somebody (anybody) about your fear and you may find that you meet another one of the 70% with a similar story to tell. You won’t be alone and you may even give someone else permission to articulate their fear also. Is your boss an idiot? Didn’t think so… you have been appointed to this position because your boss has evaluated your credentials and qualifications and has made a judgement call that you are the best person for the job. If you don’t trust your own judgement, at least trust theirs. You deserve the position, you are the right person for the role and you deserve to be here. Talk about mistakes Companies that operate no-blame cultures where employees are encouraged to talk openly about mistakes and problems are more likely to be supportive of staff wanting to relinquish attachment to their inner imposter. Focus on the positives Finally, take comfort in the fact that imposter syndrome is a symptom of success. If you feel like a fraud, more than likely you are an over-achiever and have very high standards. You didn’t get to where you are by wishful thinking and an accident of fate. Dr Annette Clancy is an organisational consultant and also researches organisational behaviour, in particular emotion in organisations.

The success of any change programme will depend on an organisation’s ability to get a small number of things right. BY DR GERRY McMAHON If today’s workplaces are to survive and prosper into the future, change must be accepted as a normal part of life. The drivers of organisational change are many and varied. They are also constantly increasing due to influences such as globalisation, competitive pressures, political and economic developments, and ongoing technological improvements. As a result, ‘change management’ covers a host of initiatives including mergers and acquisitions, restructuring, entering new markets, developing new products and services, introducing new technology, changing organisational processes, upskilling, upsizing, downsizing and the re-organisation of work. Employee resistance and the law Employee resistance is the most common problem faced by management when implementing change. Such resistance frequently manifests itself in an appearance at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) or the Labour Court, though it spans a continuum from passive withdrawal from the process to actively sabotaging the change, thus ensuring its failure. Of course, in general, changes cannot be made to employees’ terms and conditions of employment without their consent. Many employment contracts contain a ‘variation’ or ‘mobility’ clause that may allow amendments to be made to the contract without employees’ consent. However, these clauses are limited in that they will only allow the employer to make reasonable changes to non-material terms and conditions. Hence, for example, if an employer fails to engage or consult in respect of the change, an employee could resign and claim constructive dismissal. The claim would be that the organisation acted unreasonably and/or that the organisation breached its contracts of employment by amending the terms without consent. Should consent be sought but not forthcoming, an organisation would find it difficult at that stage to proceed with the changes across the board. In deciding on these claims, the WRC will usually examine the extent to which the employer acted reasonably by engaging and/or consulting with staff and whether employees’ consent was unreasonably withheld. The reasons for employee resistance to change include the following: People are satisfied with, or prefer, the status quo; The change is seen as a personal threat; The cost of the change seems to outweigh the benefit and the change isn’t going to be a success anyway; and Management is perceived to be making a mess of the change. Related thereto, organisational change is often associated with significant risks to employees’ health and is equated with high levels of stress. Hence, it should be no surprise that all of the effective ‘change models’ acknowledge that: People take time to accept change; They experience a psychological and emotional process in doing so; During this process, feelings of emotional distress, helplessness and meaninglessness are common; and Employees eventually accept the change(s) and may even find meaning in their revised role or setting. However, it is also well known that many change initiatives fail to achieve their objectives as they are undermined by employee sabotage, falling morale, lost productivity or industrial action. To enhance the prospect of successful change, the following guidelines therefore warrant consideration. 1. Specify your ‘change’ objectives At the outset of the process, list the objectives of the change programme. This list of specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-bound (SMART) objectives should be framed in terms of both business and employee outcomes. What are the perceived advantages of the change programme? What are the assessment criteria and targets? 2. Involve employees from the outset Research confirms that the best way to avoid negative consequences is to involve staff in the decision-making from the very outset. Related thereto, empirical research reveals that good communication increases acceptance, openness and commitment to change. It is also true that a deeper strategy of participation allows for an array of options and opinions to be elicited and considered. By being involved, employees are more likely to understand the rationale for – and to influence the nature of – the change, thus reducing their anxiety and resistance levels. A common approach is to clearly outline the business case for (and inevitability of) change and to invite the employees\union to help in the search for a solution. This has merit in helping to minimise any negative fall-out that would accompany a process which simply tells employees that their terms and conditions (and job security) are under review. By engaging the union’s support in creating both clear business and people objectives, the change path should be smoother and completed more quickly. For example, a practical output from such a process may include supporting or financing individuals facing redundancy in finding new employment or developing new skills. For those employees opting to leave, the provision of career transition support to help them identify other suitable employers and roles will ensure that they feel supported in moving on, protect the employer’s reputation and minimise the prospect of the employee becoming disengaged and\or disruptive. Of course, in these circumstances some organisations take what’s termed the ‘co-optation’ route, where they pay off the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role, seek their advice to enable their approval and emphasise the value placed on their opinions. This is largely a ‘needs must’ combination of manipulation and participation. In a similar vein, some organisations prefer to progress change via coercion, as they apply direct threats or force on the resisters (e.g. threats of redundancy, transfer, loss of promotion, negative performance appraisals or bad references). Dimensions of this approach were identified in an ESRI study, which found that employers who faced employee resistance were more likely to increase their use of part-time workers and job rotation techniques. However, the fall-out from such a strategy should be carefully considered (e.g. reduced trust levels, declining morale and productivity, and labour turnover). 3. Tune into the employees While engaging key staff (and, if applicable, their union representatives) is essential, the prospect of success is likely to be significantly enhanced through a good communications strategy. By extending communication across all areas and levels, misinformation and misinterpretation can be minimised. Hence, fora should be provided where employees can share their concerns and be listened to. By encouraging questions, listening to employees and reflecting appropriately thereon, staff concerns can be allayed as they gain a better understanding of the necessity and format of the change – and how their issues are being addressed in the new order. Success in implementing change is normally associated with those who must live or give effect to the change. It is therefore important to view the change process through the eyes of the most crucial participants in the process including the managers who establish the priorities, devise the strategies, control the resources and manage the performance levels. The appropriate response is to listen to their concerns and think constructively and creatively, rather than defensively, about how to respond to them. Employees need to know what is happening, why it is happening and how it will impact on them. This has major implications for communication, training and follow-up with staff. At the most fundamental level, this is about helping employees to view or redefine their value in terms of the range of skills and competencies they have to offer, and to find opportunities for deploying their abilities. 4. Select leaders and support managers Some organisations recognise that there are proactive and open-minded managers and staff who embrace change willingly and effectively. Their identification and engagement throughout the organisation can help ensure that it’s not perceived as just a ‘top down’ or executive onslaught. Dr Gerry McMahon is Managing Director at Productive Personnel Ltd., a human resources consultancy and training company.

Amatino’s Barry Kieran shares his thoughts on the challenges and opportunities facing small- and medium-sized practices. What trends do you see in terms of evolving client needs? Sectoral trends are very important in the current market where nuances can have a significant impact on the bottom line. More than ever before, clients need access to accurate, timely information that takes into account the various internal and external factors that influence their ability to compete and grow their businesses. For some time now, Amatino has noticed a trend where clients – particularly in the SME sector – are demanding more specialised services and advice in areas like finance, funding and working capital facilities. Businesses increasingly want to benchmark their own performance so they are looking for advisors with sectoral expertise. We see a growing trend of businesses seeking to outsource finance and payroll so that they can focus on their core business activities. Many small businesses have outgrown their existing accounting systems and outsourcing is attractive both from a cost perspective and because it frees up internal resources while helping businesses keep abreast of changing regulatory and legal requirements. Small businesses making the transition up to medium frequently need to rethink their approach and formalise and upgrade their management information system.  How are you responding? Priorities for Amatino include being watchful and responsive to clients’ working capital needs, Revenue practices, foreign exchange fluctuations and other sector specific trends. We recruit specialist staff with the industry experience to deliver the sectoral expertise that clients increasingly expect. Keeping pace with technology is vital so we continuously invest in our IT platform and systems. Cloud, scanning, artificial intelligence and client apps help us meet client demands for on-the-go access to live information. As a border-based practice, what is your sense of preparedness for Brexit? The sense of preparedness is still poor because businesses have no certainty about what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like. Very few businesses have developed a comprehensive plan. SMEs, particularly smaller businesses, lack the time and resources to prepare for different scenarios. Enterprise Ireland and the local enterprise offices are promoting a scenario-based modelling technique covering areas like tariffs, lengthened supply chains, and labour and financial restrictions – but most businesses still need a more comprehensive plan. We are encouraging all clients to talk to us so that we can help them put strategies in place that will see them through the next couple of years, whatever the eventual Brexit outcome. Is your firm experiencing any pressure points? In common with most practices, our experience is that finding people with the right training and experience can be difficult in the current market. Clients are experiencing the same recruitment pressures – that is one of the reasons why some clients are choosing to outsource their finance function. We have addressed this through training and the skills we seek in new people. What is the biggest obstacle facing small- and medium-sized practices? Talent acquisition would be one of the big obstacles, particularly for smaller firms. Practices can’t afford to stand still, but it can be difficult for smaller firms to secure the expertise and resources they need to thrive in a very competitive marketplace. Also, very few smaller firms seem to prioritise investment in their website, brand and digital services; failing to do so sends a message to clients and potential clients. It’s important to stand out from your competitors and not let yourself down when prospects or future staff check out your online profiles. What single piece of advice would you give to your fellow practitioners? If you haven’t done so already, embrace technology. The right type of client appreciates the efficiencies and benefits of a real-time management information system. Understanding the live position of their business enables them to make good decisions that maximise opportunities and minimise risk. This also makes lots of sense to the accountant in practice working with the client. It is also especially important for good real-time and regular communication, and to improve efficiencies.    Barry Kieran FCA is Managing Partner at Amatino, which has offices in Dublin, Cavan, Monaghan and Carrickmacross.

Coaching entire organisations could bring the popular concept of self-directedness to life. There’s a bit of a shift going on in how some organisations want to work. We’re hearing the term ‘self-directed teams’ being bandied about frequently now. We’ve even heard about the existence of self-directed organisations. ‘Self-directedness’ has become a bit of a buzzword in leadership seminars and at organisational development CPD events. Guru-type books such as Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organisations tend not to use the phrase, but they’re talking about it all the time. According to IGI Global, “key characteristics of self-directedness include motivation, self-responsibility, ability to self-assess, ability to transfer knowledge/skills, and comfort with autonomy”. Meanwhile, over at Wikipedia, they’re calling it “a personality trait of self-determination, that is, the ability to regulate and adapt behaviour to the demands of a situation in order to achieve personally chosen goals and values”. You can see the potential for a dark side but, fundamentally, it feels like a positive thing. Organisations evolving in a people-affirming direction; people owning situations and taking responsibility for outcomes. Its main proponents seem unified in their belief that the most effective way to bring about self-directedness is through coaching. Not just any old coaching, however, but organisational coaching – coaching the whole organisation. Positive deviance So at a recent coaching and mentoring research conference, we duly trotted along to the workshop on organisational coaching in an attempt to get with the programme, eyeball the cutting edge, ride the next wave, move out ahead of the curve and generally find out more about this growing idea – this organisational coaching-inspired voyage towards self-directedness. And we have to report that the workshop was really good. Kaj Hellbom of Helsinki’s Centre for Positive Leadership certainly knows his stuff. The journey towards self-directedness in an organisation begins, says Kaj, with a root and branch search for positive deviance within the workforce. “There is always a positive deviance,” he tells us. “Always.” Richard Pascale-Jerry and Monique Sternin, in their book The Power of Positive Deviance, are a bit more forthcoming. “In every community, there are certain individuals whose uncommon practices and behaviours enable them to find better solutions to problems than their neighbours who have access to the same resources and environment.” Thus, rather than focusing on fixing failures by instituting more control from the outside, positive deviance focuses on success achieved from inside. It leverages the good stuff – the unique; the unexpected brilliance that can be discovered going on in the organisation every day. There is always a positive deviance.  Internal consultants Kaj’s next point builds on this. It’s a fundamental milestone on the road towards creating self-directedness to realise that every organisation already has all the resources it needs to achieve – well, anything really. “All the consultants you need are already working for you,” he suggests, before adding slyly, “If you can find them.” And that is the point at which organisational coaching can make a major impact. First, by working with individuals, duos, teams and large departmental or service groupings to help them unearth the positive deviance in specific individuals and groups. By creating a non-judgmental and encouraging space to facilitate the surfacing of the organisation’s stories; to gauge internal reaction to those stories and interrogate the uncommon practices and behaviours that “enable these individuals to find better solutions to problems than their neighbours who have access to the same resources and environment”; to help colleagues discover a pathway towards having confidence in the thinking of those who have hitherto perhaps been seen as living out their work-life somewhere on the ‘maverick-genius’ scale; and to help them join up the dots between these “better solutions” and hard-numbered organisational results. And then by working some more with those individuals, duos, teams, and larger groups to help them shift their own thinking. To follow the positive deviance for themselves and scale up the thinking in a way that moves an organisation from okay to exceptional. So that was the gist of the workshop – now it’s about doing it ourselves at home.  Begin in the boardroom What might it look like to coach an entire organisation? Where should one start? How long would it take? What would it cost? Who should represent the stakeholders? How should the learnings be collated and curated in a meaningful and helpful manner? Who would own the project? How might they obtain enough organisational buy-in? These are big questions. Finding the answers begins, it seems, in the boardroom. “The development of organisational coaching has been slowed down,” writes Michael Moral, “by the existence of several compliance-based methodologies like, for instance, business process re-engineering and performance management.” Moral argues that these consultant-heavy, top-down approaches give only token attention to “inclusive action-learning approaches, which position organisational players at all levels and locations with shared responsibilities for change”. And this, he tells us, is where organisational coaching is starting to have an impact. Good organisational coaches, he argues, bring a deep understanding of systems theory and corporate structures married with an ability to coach individuals, duos, teams and large groups in four key areas: Behaviours: which can have real impact on the organisational decision system; Emotions: which deeply affect, and to some degree drive, organisational culture; Situation: which is, of course, the area of applying systems thinking to organisational structures; and Cognition: increasingly important as technology becomes a bigger and bigger part of organisational life and thinking. It is, argues Moral, “necessary to traverse all four subsystems to facilitate sustainable change”. And these are the areas on which systemic coaches have been focusing in a deep way for the last five to 10 years. Writers like Peter Hawkins, Simon Western and David Clutterbuck have pioneered thinking in these areas, but many others are taking up the baton. Research is proliferating and coaching practice is beginning to impact whole organisations. Standing in the way at times like these is what is known as ‘immunity to change’, described by Robert Kagen and Lisa Lajey as being “a strongly held belief that not only keeps us in our groove, but also fights any change that threatens the status quo”. This is facilitated in organisations, according to Michael Moral, by the lack of a process or ending that permits organisational members to let go of the past. And in the times of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) in which we now live and work, the past can be a very attractive place to inhabit. And here, says Moral, “executive (organisational) coaches who are savvy use resistance as information and energy to accelerate transformation. Coaches expect resistance and know how to use it”. Or as Kaj would put it, “You will meet people who will not move, but this is an everyday coaching issue”. And perhaps it is by dealing with these “everyday coaching issues” on a wider systemic whole-organisation basis that coaching will eventually fulfil its full potential as a positive force for organisational change and development; development that, in this sense, is clearly connected to organisational results and the empowerment of organisational people to produce results in a manner that demonstrated the ability to regulate and adapt behaviour to the demands of a situation. Ian Mitchell and Sîan Lumsden are co-founders of Eighty20 Focus, a real-time executive coaching organisation.

If your workplace is being held hostage to a toxic atmosphere, it is time to tackle the issue head on. They notice every minor fault. They dampen a productive conversation with a mean-spirited put-down. They find no pleasure in success and their greatest joy is nit-picking every management decision. Chronic complainers are hard work, dispiriting and difficult to manage. Working with a negative colleague can be depressing yet if not addressed, the constant complaining can infect the workplace with negativity. How do you deal with it? Acknowledge the problem Dismissing a negative colleague as simply somebody who is having a bad day undermines the feelings of those who have to work in close proximity to the negativity. Management must first recognise that there is a problem. One way of doing this is by tuning into the emotional temperature of your office. Is it upbeat and friendly? Is it downbeat and cold? Are people tiptoeing around someone? Attuning yourself to this type of data can give you an insight into the experience of your staff. Are they right? It is easy to place the blame for a toxic office atmosphere on one person. It is more difficult to ask whether they might actually be right. Does the nit-picker have a point? Are they pointing out (albeit irritatingly) a pattern of problematic decision-making or highlighting an office issue that is simply being ignored? Asking this type of question may allow you to view the problem in a systemic context. Sometimes, complainers complain because it is an effective means of drawing attention to what is being covered up or ignored by the wider organisation. In this sense, complaining can be seen as a style of whistle-blowing. If they are not… If you are certain that you have a lone complainer and that they are impacting negatively on the atmosphere in the office, then it is time to take action. Ignoring the mounting tension or trying to rationalise the individual’s behaviour will only damage your credibility in the long run. Here are three strategies to deal with the situation: Create clear expectations for workplace engagement. Make staff accountable not just for reporting what isn’t working, but for contributing to what is. Moaning about the negative co-worker beside the water cooler is contributing to the atmosphere, not alleviating it. Dealing directly with workplace behaviour by discussing it with line managers is a more honest way of addressing the atmosphere; What does your staff member hope to gain by complaining in this way? Complaining is an attention-seeking behaviour that immediately gets results, either informal or formal. Listen for what the complainer is really getting at – it is most likely some kind of unmet need, vulnerability or a sense that they are being ignored or not being heard. There may be a more subtle way of reducing the negativity by focusing on a positive intervention; and If all else fails, refer the complainer to a business coach and set out clear areas for development. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a staff member to complete a course of coaching if you believe their behaviour is having a negative impact on performance or morale. There is rarely a ‘one size fits all’ solution to chronic complainers but everyone is in agreement that a healthy workplace cannot be held hostage to a toxic atmosphere. Hiring the right people may be the first step, but dealing with the fall-out of a negative colleague may be one of the ongoing challenges of managing people at work. Dr Annette Clancy is a Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at University College Dublin and ran her own consultancy practice for over 17 years prior to joining UCD.