<![CDATA[ADR Group NW

<![CDATA[ADR Group NW - Blog]]>Tue, 12 May 2026 15:50:49 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[From Conflict to Collaboration:]]>Tue, 12 May 2026 16:16:31 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/from-conflict-to-collaborationKey Takeaways from the SW Washington SHRM Conference

I recently volunteered at the SW Washington SHRM Conference and had the opportunity to sit in on several workshops and keynote presentations. One takeaway from the conference is that HR is a complex and evolving profession. My biggest personal takeaway, however, was how deeply the themes shared by the presenters intertwined with the work we are doing at ADR Group NW.

The first keynote speaker, Julie Devlin, spoke about change and the importance of building systems that allow people and organizations to pivot and thrive through adversity. She encouraged attendees to consider the perspectives of those who seek support from HR and offered the prompts: “I will change the conversation in my workplace by _________” and “I will change the conversation with myself by _________.” One statement that stood out was her encouragement to “let go of yesterday’s thinking” in how we manage people today.

The second keynote speaker, Luke Goetting, expanded on that message by exploring the realities of working across generations. With four generations actively working together and millennials now representing the largest segment of the workforce, communication styles and workplace expectations continue to evolve. His message reinforced that adapting our communication styles and considering the needs of those we lead and work alongside are essential to building stronger relationships and supporting long-term organizational sustainability.

One workshop, led by April Allen and Shawna Unger, focused on “Conflict Hooks” — the actions and behaviors that can create dysregulation and feelings of disrespect. Imagine the impact teams could have if they openly discussed individual Conflict Hooks and practiced techniques that support understanding from another person’s perspective. The benefits are significant: increased trust, stronger collaboration, greater productivity, and improved psychological safety.

For more than 25 years, ADR Group NW has supported individuals, organizations, and communities in transforming adversity into opportunity and collaboration. The conference reinforced that the challenges facing HR professionals today are real — and they are also opportunities for growth. At ADR Group NW, we help organizations create safe spaces to explore the “why” behind conflict and workplace challenges while developing the skills and systems needed to navigate change, strengthen collaboration, and foster inclusive workplaces.

How might your workplace change if people felt more understood, psychologically safe, and equipped to navigate conflict collaboratively?
]]><![CDATA[Feedback As a Gift]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:18:26 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/feedback-as-a-giftOn Friday, I’m delivering a workshop for leaders on giving and receiving feedback: Feedback and Empathic Communication. As I prepare, I’ve been reflecting on how we offer feedback, how we receive it, and what often gets in the way.

It has been my experience that people naturally default to a self-focused perspective. We tend to think first about our own needs, intentions, and experiences. At the same time, we also have the capacity for empathy and the ability to be fully present with others. But empathy usually requires intention. It asks us to pause our internal narrative long enough to truly consider someone else’s experience.

The opposite extreme can be just as unhelpful. Becoming entirely other-focused can sometimes look caring on the surface, but it may also become a form of avoidance—where one person disappears. Healthy communication makes room for both people. Even in professions built on neutrality, such as mediation, we do not stop being human. Humans bring emotions, judgments, ideas, and lived experience into every interaction.

Today, I attended a networking event as a guest and decided to be honest about one of my reasons for being there: I wanted feedback. To my delight, I received thoughtful, constructive ideas about how to put some of my own concepts into practice. What a gift.

That is the heart of this message: when someone takes the time to give you feedback, they are offering you something valuable. The feedback may not be polished. It may not be delivered exactly how you would prefer. It may even challenge the identity you hold about yourself. But feedback is often a window into how others experience your behavior.

This does not mean you must automatically accept or agree with everything you hear. But when feedback comes from someone you trust—or from someone who has nothing to gain or lose by telling you the truth—it is worth considering. If it lands poorly, sit with it before reacting. Thank the person for sharing it. Let them know you heard them. Then reflect with a growth mindset.

If you regularly ask for feedback and hear only praise, it may be time to widen your circle or create more psychological safety for honest responses.

Many years ago, I was a member of Toastmasters International. As I progressed through the program, constructive feedback became increasingly valuable to me. When I stopped receiving it, I felt my growth stall. Although the Evaluator role is built into the experience, I realized how uncomfortable many of us are with offering difficult feedback. We often prioritize being “nice” and preserving relationships, forgetting that honest feedback can strengthen both.

I am under no illusion that feedback is easy. It can be uncomfortable to give and difficult to receive. But like any skill, we improve through practice. Practice builds confidence, deepens authenticity, and supports stronger relationships.

Take time to listen with curiosity—especially when the feedback you receive contradicts how you see yourself.

]]><![CDATA[The Myth of Multi-tasking]]>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 17:16:30 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/the-myth-of-multi-taskingWhy Doing More Often Means Less
One day, when my kids were young, we were at a fast-food restaurant ordering our meal. The cashier was clearly not giving us his full attention and even mentioned that he was “good at multitasking.” When the food arrived—and it wasn’t what we had ordered—it became obvious that he was not, in fact, good at multitasking. To this day, it remains a family joke and a gentle reminder whenever one of us is not fully present with the other.

Why do we multitask, and why do we believe we are good at it?

An NPR article titled "Want to lighten your mental load? First, let go of these gender myths", challenges the common belief that some people are naturally better at multitasking than others. It also highlights the mental strain multitasking creates. In reality, we often accomplish less when trying to do multiple things at once, and we make more mistakes. In some settings, those mistakes can be dangerous—such as when a driver believes they can safely text while driving.

So how does multitasking affect our relationships and our ability to manage conflict?
When we multitask, we are not fully listening, fully present, or fully engaged. We miss cues, overlook concerns, and drain our mental energy. Research from the American Psychological Association has shown that frequent switching between tasks—especially complex ones—can reduce efficiency, increase errors, and create safety risks. More activity does not automatically mean better outcomes.

Multitasking can also shape expectations in our relationships. For example, if someone grew up in a household where one parent managed work, childcare, meals, household tasks, and emotional labor all at once, that model may become normalized. Without reflection, those learned patterns can carry into adult relationships and workplaces, where they may create unrealistic expectations or unnecessary tension.

Habits are automatic responses to specific situations. Multitasking can become one of those habits, much like our habits in conflict. We repeat what we know. But growth happens when we pause long enough to examine those patterns, decide whether they still serve us, and intentionally choose responses that are more effective, safer, and more aligned with our values.

When we attempt to multitask, we often drain our cognitive energy and increase the likelihood of mistakes. And, as that cashier unknowingly taught my family years ago, divided attention is rarely the best version of our self.

]]><![CDATA[Occam’s Razor and the Human Side of Work]]>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:56:36 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/occams-razor-and-the-human-side-of-workOccam’s Razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one. It was when I was in school for my graduate degree that I first learned about this principle. As a problem-solving principle, it can help us strip away the noise and recognize a core truth.

My work is about listening to understand people and two things hold true: humans are complicated and simple at the same time. At our cores, we have similar needs: food, shelter, love, safety, health, meaning—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs helps us to understand what humans generally need. That is the simple part. The complicated part is that we all have different ways of interpreting and achieving these needs. We have different life experiences, cultures, worldviews, values, beliefs, likes and dislikes—all things that uniquely define how we go about achieving our basic needs, and how we respond when we feel threatened.

Occam’s Razor would suggest that if a basic need to is earn a living in order put food on the table and a roof over one’s head, simply showing up for work and collecting a paycheck should meet those needs. But therein lies the complication. Work has shifted as the contract between companies and their people have evolved. According to an article from Forbes, talent, adaptability and engagement define success which means a new world of work demands new leadership and a renewed focus on human potential.

While compensation still matters at work, there are other prominent needs for building a thriving workplace.

Adapting to flexible work models: people expect flexibility and autonomy over how they produce their work and how their performance is evaluated. Setting clear expectations involves how the team collaborates and how each member individually fulfills their contributions.
Focusing on engagement and retention as a function of leadership: because turnover is expensive. Investing in meaningful growth opportunities, fostering psychological safety, authenticity and meaning around recognition and feedback, and cultivating long-term investment in people.
Leadership that leads with empathy and adaptability: this is where the simple and complicated intersect. Compensation is critical but people also seek to feel valued, supported, invested in, and be able to achieve the level of autonomy that is meaningful to them. Leadership with a growth mindset recognizes that empathy is both a cognitive and affective skill, directly impacting their own success in the long run.

Stripping away the “noise” in the effort to recognize core truths, can lead us to the simplest answer, as Occam’s Razor suggests. However, to get to the simplest answer, we must understand the complex and complicated parts of human needs. And this takes time, empathy and strong leadership skills. Investing in people means investing in leadership, todays and tomorrows. And that is a core truth.

For more information: www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/05/08/the-future-of-work-through-occams-razor-its-all-about-people/

]]><![CDATA[The Gap Between What We Say...]]>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:33:07 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/the-gap-between-what-we-say... and What We Do

Company A claims to be better than Company B, pointing to B’s water pollution from its processing. Company B counters that it is the more responsible organization, highlighting A’s harmful air emissions. Both publicly declare themselves stewards of the community and vital job creators.

At the same time, Company A is actively working to put Company B out of business—launching negative ad campaigns and filing lawsuits on behalf of the city. Company B, initially reluctant to engage, now feels compelled to defend itself and has retaliated in kind.

What follows is predictable: escalation.

Employees at both companies begin to fear for their job security. Communities that once welcomed these organizations start to push back. Regulatory agencies impose heavy fines and issue warnings that could ultimately shut operations down altogether.

While fictional, this scenario reflects a familiar pattern. When individuals, organizations, or nations adopt a zero-sum, win-at-all-costs mindset, harm rarely stays contained. It spreads—affecting employees, communities, and often the most vulnerable. Polluted water and toxic air don’t recognize corporate boundaries.

Aggressive tactics also come at a cost: they shut down the very conversations that could lead to better outcomes. Without negotiation, there is no space to surface underlying interests, involve experts, or engage the broader community in meaningful solutions. Decisions are made in isolation, often without full awareness of their long-term consequences.

There is also a clear contradiction at play. Both companies claim a mission centered on community stewardship, yet their actions undermine that very commitment. Declaring moral superiority while engaging in harmful, adversarial behavior reveals a gap between stated values and actual practice.

Regardless of the reasoning behind Company A’s initial actions, the impact remains the same. Efforts to eliminate the other come with significant collateral damage—damage that directly conflicts with the mission both organizations claim to uphold.
A different path is possible.

Through negotiation, both companies could move beyond positions and begin to understand underlying needs and interests. Fears can be constructively addressed. They could identify shared concerns, explore innovative solutions, and uncover opportunities that adversarial strategies will never reveal. William Ury offers Building them a Golden Bridge. This approach works to build trust and create incentives to keep walking towards you as you negotiate.

When the goal shifts from winning to solving, the outcome shifts as well—not just for those at the table, but for everyone affected by the decisions they make.

]]><![CDATA[How to Interrupt a Monologue]]>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:07:56 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/how-to-interrupt-a-monologue...but not shut down important conversations

Yesterday, The New York Times featured an article on what to do when someone won’t stop talking. Most of us don’t need research to validate this—we’ve lived it. It happens in social settings where you find yourself trapped in a one-sided conversation, nodding politely while scanning the room for an exit. It happens at work, too—when a meeting becomes a monologue, input disappears, and people leave feeling frustrated, disengaged, or invisible.

So what can you do in the moment?

Writer Jancee Dunn offers a few simple—and surprisingly effective—ways to take back the conversation:

Use their name. Hearing our name grabs attention and can naturally create a pause.
Own the interruption. Saying “I’m going to jump in for a moment…” removes ambiguity and softens the impact.
Lead with “I need…” Try: “I need to add something here” or “I need to pause us for a second.”
Exit when needed. A direct “I’ve got to step away” or “I need to connect with someone else” works—no apology required.

And my add:

Plan an out. In certain situations, a pre-arranged call from a friend can provide a clean escape.

In group settings, especially at work, the stakes are higher. When one person dominates, the group loses. A few ways to redirect without escalating:

Summarize and shift. “So what I’m hearing is…” (pause) “…I’d love to hear others weigh in.”
Name the imbalance. “We’re tight on time, and I want to make sure we hear from more voices.”
Invite others in. “John, I’m curious what you think.” or “Joan, what’s your take on this?”

Even better—don’t wait until it happens. Build norms that prevent it. Here are some creative meeting agreements used by teams at companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple include:

Step up, step back
ELMO (Enough, Let’s Move On)

Everyone has a role, official or unofficial
Manage your own input
+2 rule (wait for two others or two minutes before speaking again)
Silence break

And sometimes, the lesson hits closer to home.

Recently, I was co-presenting a virtual session with two other facilitators. I was in the flow—locked into my content—and completely missed the cues around me. When I finally looked up, I saw it: panic on their faces. I had gone well over my time. That moment stuck with me.

Since then, I’ve made a few changes: building in intentional pauses, adding time markers to my notes, and—most importantly—looking up more often to read the room. Because monopolizing isn’t always about ego. Sometimes it’s about momentum, anxiety, or losing awareness. And that’s the real takeaway:

We will all encounter the “talker.”
And at times, we will be the talker.

The goal isn’t perfection—it’s awareness, adjustment, and creating space where conversations become shared, not dominated.

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/well/wont-stop-talking-help.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

]]><![CDATA[Not Feeling It?]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:03:25 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/not-feeling-itRethinking Productivity and the Monday Myth
I’m fortunate to have a home office for projects, administrative work and preparation for meeting with clients. While some of my clients join me virtually, most of our work happens in person or in neutral spaces—and those interactions energize me.

But Mondays? They’re not my most creative or productive days.

And it turns out, I’m not alone.

A 2023 Forbes article—based on hybrid workplace data—found that many workers report Mondays as their least productive day. It makes sense. We often need a transition from weekend to work mode.

Knowing this about myself, I’ve built a system that keeps me moving forward—even when motivation is low.

First, I rely heavily on my calendar. Weekly tasks (like this blog) are scheduled on repeat. And I’ll admit—an unchecked box on my to-do list is all the motivation I need. I don’t like leaving things unfinished.

Second, when I have a deadline-driven project, I get up early, grab a cup of coffee, eliminate distractions, and focus deeply for a few hours. That concentrated time allows me to step away later—whether for a walk or the gym—without guilt.

I’ve also learned to align my schedule with my energy. Mondays are best for client meetings when possible. And when it’s a no client, low energy Monday? I practice self-forgiveness. If I only have two solid hours in me, that’s okay—because I know that on another day, I might hit a 12-hour stride.

Those are the days I find “flow.” And there’s nothing better.

The reality is, we all have different rhythms, motivators, and capacities. And those differences can create friction in the workplace—across teams, generations, and organizational expectations.

The same Forbes article suggests:

Millennials and Gen Z average just under 5 productive hours per day
Gen X averages around 5½
Boomers can sustain up to 6

At the same time, hybrid work continues to evolve—shaped by both necessity and policy. For some, it’s a benefit. For others, it’s essential.

So here’s the bigger question: What does it really mean to create a flexible, inclusive workplace?

Do we pass on the most qualified candidate because they need a hybrid schedule to support their family? Can two high-performing employees share one full-time role? Are we designing systems that support autonomy—or forcing productivity into a one-size-fits-all model?

Because when people are supported in how they work best, they show up differently.

And yes—I'm writing this on a Monday, after 3:00 p.m.

Not my peak time.

But I’ve been thinking about this topic all day. And now, it’s done—a full day before my deadline.

That checked box?
Still incredibly motivating.

So I’ll leave you with this: What’s your go-to strategy when you have to show up—but just aren’t feeling it?

]]><![CDATA[When Talking isn’t Communication]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:01:37 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/when-talking-isnt-communicationHave you ever encountered someone at a gathering or in the office who launches into a negative monologue? Or someone who, despite your attempts at conversation, only wants to complain?

I recently spent time with an acquaintance who loves to talk about themselves. It left me with the impression that they are clearly their favorite subject and feel the need to be the most interesting person in the room. There was also an undercurrent of negativity—as if someone else had to be diminished in order for them to feel elevated. I found myself both unacknowledged and the target of subtle put-downs.

I did my best to show interest in some of their topics, ask follow-up questions, and occasionally offer my own viewpoint. I tried not to hijack the conversation or make it about me. I tried to be polite, respectful, and patient.

But it was exhausting.

Kahlil Gibran, in The Prophet, reflects on talking:

“There are those among you who seek the talkative through fear of being alone. The silence of aloneness reveals to their eyes their naked selves and they would escape. And there are those who talk, and without knowledge of forethought reveal a truth which they themselves do not understand. And there are those who have the truth within them, but they tell it not in words.”

Most of us carry some level of unresolved trauma—moments in life when we felt unseen, unworthy, uninteresting, or unqualified. When negativity spills out in conversation (or in a monologue), it often reveals more about the speaker’s internal world than the subject they are discussing.

The longer someone stays inside that negativity bubble, the less aware they become of their impact. Logic quietly leaves the building, and emotion takes the microphone.
As the recipient—or sometimes the unwitting target—our choices in the moment are limited. We can listen. We can be silent. And we can set boundaries around how much time and energy we are willing to give.

If we choose to move into a more active listening role, we can also name what we observe, describe how it impacts us, and make a request of the other person. Sometimes this reflection allows the speaker to see themselves as others are experiencing them. It disrupts the pattern and gently calls attention to what is happening.

In the case of my acquaintance, this person spent many years feeling unconfident and undervalued. In their effort to become who they want to be now, they may be overcompensating—unaware of how their words land on others.

Instead of creating space for silence and meaningful dialogue, they fill the space with commentary, criticism, and self-promotion.

Unfortunately, talking does not equal confidence.

Confidence is often quieter. It shows up in reflection, self-awareness, and thoughtful communication.

And sometimes the most confident thing we can do…is allow silence to speak.

]]><![CDATA[The Power of the Pivot:]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:57:49 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/march-10th-2026Seeing Conflict from the Other Side
As a mediator, one strategy I coach my clients to practice is putting themselves in the shoes of the other person. This involves brainstorming what the other person’s values and needs might be, what goals they hold for themselves, the relationship, and the resolution of the conflict. In essence, I’m asking my clients to pivot—to step outside of their own perspective and briefly step into the perspective of their conflict partner.

Anyone who has participated in a debate understands the value of studying the other side. A strong debate is not won simply by presenting your own argument well; it also requires understanding the views, data, and emotions that support the opposing position. Successful preparation includes researching not only your side of the issue, but also anticipating the arguments the other team will bring.

I have often found that arguing the less popular side of a topic—sometimes one I personally disagree with—actually makes me a stronger debater. It forces me to dig deeper into perspectives I might otherwise dismiss. By doing so, I become more informed and more thoughtful in both my presentation and rebuttal.

Interestingly, when audiences or judges are strongly aligned with the more popular view, challenging that perspective can provoke a surprising amount of emotion. The better prepared I am to present the opposing side, the more it can unsettle the room. It is a curious juxtaposition: thoughtful disagreement can feel threatening when people are deeply invested in their perspective.

In the workplace, differences in life experience, communication styles, and beliefs can easily create friction between colleagues. We may feel threatened by the other. The pivot approach mirrors the preparation used in debate. As a conflict coach, I support clients using a proven approach developed by Cinnie Noble, the creator of the CINERGY model. Through a one-on-one coaching process, clients explore the sources of conflict, identify their own needs and contributions to the situation, and then practice pivoting to consider the perspective of their conflict partner.

In debate terms, if you are preparing the “pro” argument, conflict coaching asks you to thoughtfully explore the “con.” This process can be used on its own or as preparation for mediation or facilitation.

The pivot allows us to pause, take a breath, and approach conflict with curiosity. Just as in debate, the more we understand about the other person’s perspective, the more effective we can be in what we share and how we respond. It also allows us to test assumptions, discover common ground, and build solutions that create a stronger path forward.

When we step out of our own story and into someone else’s, conflict often shifts from a battle to a conversation.

]]><![CDATA[Curiosity and Understanding]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 17:03:54 GMThttps://www.adrgroupnw.com/blog/curiosity-and-understandingDo We Ever Really Understand Each Other?

Sometimes our greatest “aha” moments come from unexpected places. In my last blog, I wrote about the value of book clubs. It was in a work of fiction that I recently experienced one of those personal insights.

As we move through life with family members, friends, and colleagues, some relationships hold a deep sense of mutual understanding. Others operate on autopilot—we go through the motions without ever truly seeing the person in front of us.

According to Merriam-Webster, to understand is to grasp meaning, comprehend someone’s feelings or situation, or have a clear interpretation of what is being communicated. If understanding includes comprehending another’s feelings or experience, then it requires action. We build understanding by asking thoughtful questions, listening to comprehend rather than respond, and keeping the focus on the other person rather than ourselves. When we believe we understand, we can summarize what we’ve heard and create space for agreement, clarification, or correction.

In the novel I read, the protagonist struggled with her mother for years. It wasn’t until a third party intervened that they realized the true source of their rift: they had never taken the time to genuinely understand one another. Assumptions had quietly shaped their story. Hurt feelings hardened into distance. When they finally “ripped off the bandage” and acknowledged their mutual pain, they began to see each other—not as caricatures built from assumptions, but as complex individuals with their own needs and fears. From there, deeper and more meaningful conversations became possible.

Though fictional, the lesson resonates deeply. I see it often in the mediation room. What is initially labeled as “difficult behavior” begins to soften when people explore both impact and intent—when they share the values, needs, and experiences underneath their reactions. As shared understanding grows, defensiveness often gives way to curiosity.

We thrive in our individuality. We want to be seen and accepted for who we are, not who others assume us to be. And while our uniqueness matters, so do our commonalities. Understanding lives in that space—where individuality and shared humanity meet.

Perhaps the question is not whether we can ever fully understand each other. Perhaps it is whether we are willing to slow down enough to try.

]]>