|
...and the Cost of “Faking It” Years ago, I was introduced to Amy Cuddy's TED Talk, where she shared her journey through adversity, feeling like a fraud at times, and the idea of “faking it till you make it.” To this day, I still pause to do the Wonder Woman pose for a few moments before stepping into a training or speaking space. It’s a small ritual—but an empowering one. What underlies that practice for me is not performance, but authenticity. William Shakespeare is often credited with the phrase, “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.” The quote has always made me curious about how we define mastery—and whether authenticity is part of it. How do authenticity and mastery align? And at what point do we cross the line from stretching ourselves into new capacity to genuinely faking it? This question becomes especially amplified when I find myself in roles that require me to show up in ways that don’t align with my professional values. For example, delivering a program in a manner that feels inauthentic to who I am. In those moments, I can feel the pressure to conform in order to be “successful” by someone else’s definition. That pressure often brings second-guessing, self-monitoring, and stress. Those reactions are data. Over time, I’ve come to see that this isn’t simply impostor syndrome. It’s a signal of misalignment. My conclusion—sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes clarifying—is that my mastery may not be aligned with the expectations of the role. If I choose to continue participating, conformity may be required. And that leaves me with a harder question: How do I remain both authentic and effective? My answer is twofold. First, I seek specific feedback about how I show up in the role. Not vague reassurance, but concrete information. This helps me distinguish between what is truly required and what I may be assuming is required. Second, I create my own process for showing up—one that meets the expectations of the role while staying anchored in my values. This is not a one-time adjustment, but an ongoing practice of reflection: listening to feedback, making intentional changes, and noticing how those changes land internally. One of my professional “superpowers” is authenticity. I strive to own my mistakes. I reflect on my impact. And I retain the power to decide how I want to proceed. That doesn’t mean I never stretch or adapt. Growth often requires some discomfort. But when I find myself faking it too much—when the performance becomes exhausting or values-eroding—that’s usually the moment authenticity is being compromised. Perhaps mastery isn’t about never faking it. Perhaps it’s about knowing why we’re stretching, how long we’re willing to stretch, and what we’re unwilling to sacrifice in the process. For me, authenticity isn’t showing up the same way in every room. It’s showing up with intention, integrity, and the courage to notice when the cost is too high—and to choose accordingly. 
0 Comments
...The Practice of Mediation It’s February 3, 2026. If we aren’t personally doing it, we all know people who see the new year as a signal to do something different—and if they’re still sticking with their resolution, they’re about one month in (hopefully). Often, that “something” is health-related: cutting out sugar, committing to “Dry January,” or resolving—once again—to use a gym membership. Other times it sounds like, “This year, I will start/stop ______.” The intention is good. The results are often short-lived. According to a Forbes Health/OnePoll survey (2023), the average New Year’s resolution lasts just 3.74 months. Only 8% of respondents stick with their goals for one month. Roughly 22% last two months, another 22% reach three months, and just 13% make it to four months. Research also shows that action-oriented goals—things we commit to doing—are more successful over time than avoidance-oriented goals, which focus on what we are trying to stop. The 3-Month Disconnect I’m not an expert in human motivation, but I’ve observed two patterns that matter. First, doing something consistently for about three weeks helps form a habit. Second, sustaining that behavior for three months can create a lifestyle change. So here’s the disconnect: if three months is enough time to establish a lifestyle shift, why do resolutions tend to fall apart right around that same point? I believe the answer lies in mental readiness and motivation—the same forces that often determine whether conflict escalates or gets resolved. Mediation Is a Lifestyle Practice, Not a One-Time Event Many people think of mediation as something you do after conflict becomes unmanageable. But in reality, mediation reflects a set of habits and behaviors—curiosity, accountability, self-awareness, and intentional communication—that function best when practiced consistently. If your resolution includes reducing stress, improving workplace relationships, or managing conflict more effectively, the work starts well before a formal mediation session. Begin by paying attention to patterns around you:
Just as with health goals, awareness comes first. After awareness, we can take action-oriented steps to make a lasting lifestyle change.  Why Interpersonal Conflict Cases Show Up in the EEO Office I have written previously about the ideals of mediation. Because of confidentiality, however, most people have little understanding of what actually happens inside a mediation session. For more than 15 years, I have served on neutral panels providing mediation at the informal stage of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. A bit of context about the EEO process: if a complaint is not resolved during the informal stage—which includes the opportunity to participate in counseling and/or mediation—the complainant may either withdraw the complaint or file formally. The EEO process is governed by strict timelines, and missing any of them can result in the loss of the opportunity for resolution altogether. Once a complaint moves into the formal process, the complainant largely becomes a witness to their own complaint. Investigators gather information from all parties associated with the case and issue findings. If the complainant disagrees with the outcome, additional steps are available—but the reality is that this process can take years. At that point, the complainant is no longer a decision-maker and must wait for outcomes at each stage. When an employee’s civil rights have been violated in the workplace, the formal EEO process may be the most appropriate—and sometimes the only—path to accountability and systemic change. But when an employee files an EEO complaint and the core issue does not involve a protected civil right, why does this process still feel like the only option? From my perspective as a mediator, several recurring themes help explain why EEO mediation often fails: systemic breakdowns, the wrong management or agency representative at the table, and the absence of any other meaningful mechanism for employees to be heard. Systemic Failures Systemic failures can lead both to civil rights violations and to escalating conflict between employees and management. Key questions often go unexamined:
When the answers to these questions are unclear or inconsistent, conflict doesn’t just arise—it compounds. No Other Way to Be Heard Systemic issues are closely tied to employees’ sense that there is no other viable way to be heard. I have seen situations where a supervisor’s behavior or a poorly implemented policy negatively impacts an entire team. Productivity declines. Employees leave. The issue becomes widely known—but remains unaddressed. In the complaint process, an employee may reveal that others have been affected and that they have taken it upon themselves to speak up. Feeling powerless, filing an EEO complaint can seem like the only remaining option—even when the underlying issue is interpersonal rather than a true EEO violation. Timing and Misalignment The EEO process moves slowly and the slowness can compound the issues. By the time a case reaches mediation, the original incident may have occurred a year or more earlier. Memories fade. Management representatives tend to approach mediation from a “facts and policy” perspective, while the employee may have been carrying the emotional weight of the experience—and possibly enduring additional incidents in the meantime. When empathy is absent, employees often leave mediation without resolution, understanding, or meaningful change—especially when the complaint centers on interpersonal harm rather than a clear policy violation. The Wrong Representative at the Table Finally, mediation can falter when the wrong agency or management representative is present. In cases involving clear EEO violations, the offender should not be at the table. But when the interpersonal conflict is between an employee and their direct supervisor, sending a representative who has no direct involvement—and limited authority—can severely restrict the possibility of resolution. Preparation matters. The decision to file an EEO complaint is not made lightly. Respecting both the employee and the process requires management representatives to take time to be informed, examine their biases, understand the context, and engage in problem-solving that addresses individual harm while also considering systemic implications. The Human Cost of Conflict I have yet to meet an employee or a manager who is eager to participate in an EEO mediation. Allegations of mistreatment, bias, favoritism, or discrimination—whether a civil rights violation or interpersonal conflict—create real trauma. Sitting across from someone perceived to hold power, telling one’s story, and hoping that person will truly hear the harm and offer resolution is not something anyone enters into lightly. As a mediator, my role is to create a space for constructive dialogue while minimizing further harm. Even when mediation does not result in a formal resolution, it can still foster shared understanding—and sometimes prompt meaningful change beyond the immediate case. There are also moments when a management representative recognizes that an employee’s civil rights have, in fact, been violated and encourages the grievant to proceed formally, acknowledging that accountability and systemic change may only be possible through the formal EEO process. Perhaps the most important question for organizations is not how to manage EEO complaints, but what conditions made filing one feel like the only option. When employees experience fairness, accountability, and genuine opportunities to be heard, mediation becomes a tool for resolution rather than a last resort. That reflection belongs not just in the EEO office, but in leadership meetings across the organization.  Last week, I spent time with my colleague and friend, Nancy Pionk (www.nancypionk.com), reflecting on 2025 and intentionally planning for 2026. Our life journeys and professional experiences are different, and that contrast has always been a strength. It shows up in how we think, how we challenge one another, and ultimately, how we succeed. As we talked, a theme emerged: abundance. I was still trying to make sense of how 2025 unfolded and how its ripple effects are shaping 2026. Nancy offered a different frame—one grounded not in what felt unresolved, but in what already exists. Abundance. My very layperson’s takeaway was simple but powerful: look for the goodness around you and be the narrator of your own story. As an optimistic mediator, I’m quick to help others see possibility, progress, and opportunity. This conversation reminded me that I can—and should—extend that same optimism to my own life. When I do, abundance becomes easier to see. Curious to go deeper, I explored ways to intentionally invite more abundance into daily life. A few practices stood out:
What I’m realizing is this: abundance already surrounds us. The work is noticing it, celebrating it, and sometimes sitting quietly long enough to feel it. Abundance is a mindset. And once we connect with it, the door seems to open—again and again—to even more abundant opportunities. Where might abundance already be present in your life, waiting to be acknowledged? Resources: www.calm.com/ morningupgrade.com/cultivate-an-abundance-mindset/  Mediation, Democracy, and Living Up to Our Ideals Modern mediation didn’t appear out of nowhere. Many of the practices we rely on today are rooted in Indigenous cultures that have been resolving conflict long before mediation became a professional field. In New Zealand, practitioners use Tūhono, a model based on Māori processes. In Hawaiʻi, Native Hawaiians practice Ho‘oponopono, a process focused on restoring balance and repairing relationships. The structure may differ, but the purpose is the same: helping people work through conflict in a way that honors dignity and connection. In the United States, mediation is guided by an ideal that shows up in the Universal Mediation Act (UMA). Some states layer on additional credentialing requirements, but many do not. Courts may require specialized training—especially in family or divorce mediation—but there is no single, uniform path to becoming a mediator nationwide. What does hold the field together are shared ethical standards. At the core are confidentiality, self-determination, voluntariness, and impartiality. The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators—adopted by organizations like the Association for Conflict Resolution—go further, addressing issues such as conflicts of interest, competence, quality of the process, fees, advertising, and advancing the profession. Confidentiality is what makes mediation feel almost idealized. Most mediations happen behind closed doors. Only the parties and the mediator truly experience what happens in the room. And because many people—including attorneys—have their own assumptions about mediation (or no real understanding of it at all), an uncomfortable question comes up: who decides whether a mediator is actually living up to the ideal? The standards are publicly available to anyone who wants to learn more. Professional organizations can hold mediators accountable when standards aren’t met, and most mediators carry professional liability insurance, often because their clients require it. Still, mediation largely depends on trust, ethics, and personal accountability rather than constant oversight. In that way, mediation has something in common with the United States itself. The U.S. is also built on an ideal. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights lay out what it means to be American and what sets this country apart from many others. Being American, at least on paper, is not defined by race, religion, ethnicity, culture, or wealth, but by shared principles and rights. Those documents are far from perfect. They never were. Over nearly 250 years, they’ve been amended, interpreted, and challenged as the country has tried—sometimes successfully, sometimes not—to move closer to its stated ideals. Mediation and democracy both rely on guiding documents. Both are meant to shape behavior, decision-making, and accountability. And in both systems, the ideals are supposed to be transparent, fair, inclusive, and grounded in the rule of law. Which brings us to the harder questions.
And when the ideals break down, what happens to the people inside the process—whether they’re mediation participants or American citizens?  Workplace Adjustments When I look back at my blogs and the themes that have emerged each year, change appears to be a constant. In searching for a different term, I came across these synonyms: alter, modify, transform, shift, and adjust. The old adage that “change is constant” feels less like a cliché and more like a simple truth of modern life. The ability to adjust has become synonymous with survival—and even more so, with the ability to thrive. I choose to focus on thriving. From an HR perspective, several key adjustments are already taking shape for 2026. These include the acceptance and integration of AI (artificial intelligence), attracting and retaining top talent, cultivating inclusive and creative workplaces, and strengthening conflict management skills. While we can’t say with certainty where AI will ultimately excel, we can agree on one thing: AI is here, and it is becoming part of the everyday workplace experience. According to PeopleManagingPeople.com, this may include generative AI (such as ChatGPT), robotic process automation, and predictive analytics that automate tasks, analyze patterns, generate content, and make recommendations. In practice, AI in the workplace typically serves one of three purposes:
Each of these brings both opportunity and disruption, requiring thoughtful leadership and intentional skill development. At the same time, attracting and retaining top talent continues to challenge organizations. Today’s workers are raising the bar on their expectations, seeking alignment with organizational strategy, mission, and values—both during the hiring process and throughout the employee experience. While Generation X is often known for quietly demanding work/life balance, this value remains strong across generations. What has changed is how work/life balance is defined. It is deeply personal, which creates complexity for management and underscores the need for inclusive and creative workplaces. Despite the value many organizations place on “we” over “I,” American culture remains largely individualistic. Building strong teams and workplace communities requires intentional effort. A culture of inclusivity and creativity brings employees together around a shared purpose—supporting, sustaining, and advancing the organization’s mission and vision. Leaders can foster this by creating space for individual differences, welcoming diverse perspectives, experiences, and ideas. This naturally leads to the topic of conflict management. How an organization values and manages conflict sits at the core of many of these challenges. Change often triggers uncertainty, fear, and resistance. Transparency from leadership, paired with a commitment to giving and receiving feedback effectively, helps build a culture of conflict competence. When hiring practices align with internal conflict management policies, employees gain a clear and accessible framework for navigating differences. Viewing conflict as an opportunity—rather than an obstacle—fuels innovation, strengthens inclusivity, encourages diversity of thought, and creates space for adapting to new technologies and ongoing transformation. What opportunities are you challenged with for 2026?  Creating Real Change As the year winds down, many of us begin thinking about New Year’s resolutions—plans to finally do the things we didn’t do in 2025 (or 2024… or 2023). While goal setting is valuable, it’s also common to fall short of the change we hope to create. There are many reasons for this, but one key factor often gets overlooked: change itself. Resolutions require us to do something different, and our ability to change—our adaptability—is closely tied to how we set and relate to achievement goals. Even when a goal feels realistic, it still asks us to shift habits, routines, or beliefs. That can be harder than we expect. There are very normal human responses to change. Many models describe phases such as denial, resistance, exploration, and new beginnings. Interestingly, we often experience them out of order. We may start with excitement about a “new beginning,” only to slide backward into resistance and, eventually, denial. For example:
This is where intentional support matters. Creating a Self-Care Plan or Resilience Map can help us stay grounded when change becomes uncomfortable. Thought leaders from Earl Nightingale to Jim Rohn emphasize the importance of writing down goals. Tools like vision boards, journaling, tracking progress, and visualization have all been shown to support successful change—not because they eliminate resistance, but because they help us move through it. As you wrap up 2025, I hope you take time to acknowledge what you’ve accomplished, reflect on what worked (and what didn’t), and care for yourself along the way. Building resilience isn’t just preparation for the new year—it’s what allows real, lasting change to take root. What is one small, specific change you can plan for now—including how you’ll respond when resistance shows up? *Adapted from Real People Real Solutions newsletter published December 2021  The Physics of Conflict: Action, Reaction, and Power Newton’s Third Law of Motion tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When one object exerts force on another, the second responds with the same strength in the opposite direction. In life, action often comes at us when we’re unprepared. We may not even recognize it as “action” until we begin experiencing a change we didn’t initiate. That impact may benefit some, but for those with less power—those on the receiving end—it can diminish quality of life, limit options, create risk, or cause real harm. Company policies are a clear example of action. When business owners, CEOs, or boards eliminate protections, shift policies, or allow inequitable work environments to persist, someone down the line absorbs the impact. Historically, unions are an example of reaction to those actions. Unions emerged in the late 18th century as workers organized in response to poor working conditions, low wages, and long hours during the Industrial Revolution. The first recorded labor strike in the United States occurred in 1768, and by 1794, the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers marked the beginning of sustained trade union organization. Metaphorically, when you push someone down, they fall. A union can be the structure that stops the fall—or catches them before they hit the ground. This blog isn’t about unionizing, though unions have undeniably improved working conditions for many American workers. This blog is about reaction—how we respond when action is forced upon us, and how we retain or reclaim our power. Reaction is power. We can’t control what others do or say, but we can control how we respond. Collectively, we hold power. When people react together, they can neutralize harmful actions. Equal strength applied in the opposite direction can redirect—or even stop—negative momentum. Individually, we also hold power. Personal power begins with recognizing what we do and do not control. While we may not be strong enough on our own to stop a harmful action, we always have agency over our reaction. When I’m faced with negative action, my instinct is to push back. In my experience, that rarely changes the outcome—and I often fall anyway. Instead, I have learned to pause. I step back to see the bigger picture. I consider what might be driving the other person’s behavior. I even ask myself why the action landed the way it did. Only then do I choose how to respond. That pause might look like taking a walk, meditating, researching, or sitting with my emotions—anything that creates enough space to move from emotion to logic. I’ve noticed that when I feel the least powerful, I often discover my deepest inner strength. I have also learned that I don't have to go it alone. Reaching out to a friend or trusted colleague reminds me of the power we have as a collective. There’s another saying: action creates action. If every action produces an opposite reaction (afterall, action is embedded within reACTION), that reaction becomes the next action—and the cycle continues. In conflict, this cycle often looks like: Harm → Defend → Harm. At the mediation table, this pattern can change. We slow things down. We examine underlying issues and impacts. We explore options for resolution—and importantly, how parties will react differently in the future. We create processes that help prevent escalation and address perceived harm before it becomes entrenched conflict. When organizations take action—through policy changes, restructuring, or cultural shifts—that create the perception of ill intent, unsustainable impacts, or actual disparate treatment, Newton’s Third Law is activated. Reaction is inevitable. If you are on the receiving end, you may feel powerless. But your chosen reaction remains within your control. Mediators and facilitators help create the safety needed for these difficult conversations. We help rebalance power, ensure voices are heard, and support reactions that lead to understanding, accountability, and meaningful change. Reaction is inevitable. Choosing it wisely is where power lives.  Gratitude Today, I needed help with a home repair. My experiences at a chain hardware store have been mixed—sometimes I’m greeted and pointed in a direction; other times someone asks thoughtful questions and helps me gather exactly what I need; and occasionally it feels like anyone in a store uniform is actively avoiding eye contact. Today was different. Before I even asked, four different employees took time to listen, ask questions, offer ideas, and ultimately go the extra step to make sure the items would fit in my vehicle. I walked into the store feeling stressed—uncertain about the solution I needed and whether I was making the right decisions. Instead of wandering aisles in frustration and second-guessing myself, each employee I encountered made eye contact, genuinely offered help, guided me to the right products, and even offered to load my car—in the rain. I made it home, installed everything without incident, and the problem was solved. Stress reduced. Happy me. I share this because my sincerest hope as a mediator is to help people in conflict find peace and solve problems. Rather than avoiding—or looking away—I strive to truly see my clients and their vulnerability. I want to sit with them in their pain and help them discover hope and resolution. Recently, I worked with a team that had been entrenched in conflict for over a year. A new supervisor inherited the situation, and despite efforts to resolve it internally, the conflict escalated. HR reached out to me and key team members agreed to mediation. In the mediation room, there was deep pain, hurt, and disappointment. Once that was acknowledged, something shifted. The team moved from a dark place toward a way forward—re-engaging as co-workers and continuing the important work they genuinely enjoy. Each day, I intentionally seek out three things: something that makes me smile, one kind thing someone did for me, and one kind thing I did for someone else. Today, my bucket is overflowing. I feel lighter, more confident, and I’ve been smiling all afternoon. For my clients, I strive to show up and meet you where you are. To see you. To sit with you. And to support you in finding a solution-based path forward that brings the peace you hope for. To every client who has sat with me in a mediation room or a virtual Zoom space: you have my gratitude. Gratitude for your vulnerability, your willingness to engage in the process, and your trust in me as your mediator.  Joe and Joanne are both strong performers—but they can’t stand each other. As their supervisor, you’ve tolerated the tension, made work-arounds so they don’t have to collaborate, and hoped the conflict would resolve itself. Instead, it has escalated. Team morale is down, and now other employees are complaining to HR about the toxic environment. In response, HR and senior leadership want you to step in as a mediator.
The Purpose—and Challenge—of Mediation Workplace mediation is designed to foster communication, rebuild trust, and empower employees to solve their own disputes. It relies on respectful conversations, listening to understand rather than blame, and staying focused on solutions and future communication. The mediator’s job is to create the conditions for a constructive dialogue. The parties themselves should lead the discussion and generate their own solutions. But this is where many managers struggle. Why Managers Often Fail as Mediators 1. Discomfort with Conflict Managers who avoid conflict—often the very reason issues have escalated—may lack credibility with employees. When a supervisor has ignored or minimized the problem, employees may perceive them as part of the dysfunction rather than a neutral helper. 2. Compromised Neutrality In mediation, neutrality is foundational. But a manager-mediator is never fully neutral; if the mediation fails, the manager is the one who must take corrective action. Employees know this, and it affects how open and honest they are willing to be. 3. Being Part of the Problem If employees previously sought help from their manager and felt unheard or unsupported, the manager may be seen as contributing to the conflict. Even subtle biases or past decisions can undermine trust. 4. Inappropriate Humor or Premature Problem-Solving Some managers cope with tension by using humor or by jumping in with solutions. Both behaviors derail the mediation process. Effective mediation requires listening, patience, and allowing employees to struggle productively toward their own agreements. 5. Lack of Training Mediation demands skill in emotional intelligence, conflict styles, communication tools, and facilitation techniques. Without this foundation, managers can inadvertently escalate rather than ease conflict. When to Bring in a Professional Mediator HR and organizational leaders can recognize when a trained, neutral third-party mediator is needed. Many organizations train internal mediators through EEO or EO programs, but often the most efficient and cost-effective solution is to engage an external mediator. An external mediator:
Building Managerial Mediation Skills We offer Managerial Mediation as an add-on to our Conflict Management in Organizations training. To be effective in a manager/mediator role, leaders need:
The Human Element Managers and supervisors wear many hats. And while we may wish employees, like Joe and Joanne, would simply get along and focus on the mission, humans bring emotions to work. Those emotions shape behavior—and sometimes, that leads to conflict. Until AI replaces all of us (and even then, conflict may find a way), organizations need skilled, supported leaders and access to professional mediators who can step in when conflict becomes too entrenched. |
Sunny Sassaman
Sharing experiences and insights of reflection and conflict management techniques. Archives
February 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed