Receiving and Responding to a Complaint: A Training Module

By Chris Kirschner

Author’s note and acknowledgement: This part of the document has been much improved in both style and content by the editorial assistance of Lisa Maxwell of the National Conflict Resolution Center. However, any errors, omissions or other failures are entirely my own.

Links:

AGA Code of Conduct

AGA Code of Conduct Definitions

 

This component of the resource materials is intended to provide guidance to those who will be on the receiving end of a report of a code violation. 

This training module is aimed at AGA leaders dealing with issues related to their roles leading, organizing and regulating tournaments and other Go related activities such as club meetings, and outreach teaching. However, the principles apply anywhere. Nearly everyone gets involved with a dramatically difficult situation – a crisis – occasionally. These ideas should help you become more able to respond constructively anywhere. We hope you will – or have – read our companion paper, “Intervention – the first 10 seconds”, which discusses a person’s initial responses to a crisis or other sudden disturbing event.

Here are the prohibited behaviors you may encounter or that may be reported to you, as the authority figure:

• Harassment or intimidation by words, gestures, body language, or any type of menacing behavior.

• Physical contact with another person in an angry, aggressive, or threatening way.

• Verbally abusive or offensive behavior, including angry or vulgar language, swearing, name-calling, or shouting.

• Sexually explicit conversation, behavior, or sexual contact with another person without their affirmative consent.

Examples of these behaviors can range from race-based jokes, to yelling or shouting at tournament volunteers, to sexual harassment or even in an extreme case, assault.

While we hope that the publication of the code is a deterrent, that doesn’t prevent violations entirely. The AGA is committed to providing a robust and responsive infrastructure to support the code whenever a violation occurs. The Code of Conduct Committee will always be ready to provide assistance as needed.

We want you, as TDs and chapter leaders, to understand that this infrastructure is available to you not only as a potential victim of these behaviors, but also as a leader who may be faced with a report from one of your club members or a player in your tournament. You can send an email at any time to CodeofConduct@usgo.org. 

 

This training module is a component of our “robust and responsive infrastructure”. Limiting harassment in the workplace and punishing it when it occurs has become a major issue in the last few years. Legislation has been passed, requiring training, and there is now a healthy industry providing advice and training on the subject. Most of what is written about managing these complaints assumes a relatively constant environment such as a school or place of employment or other institutional setting, a strong supervisory hierarchy, and most particularly, a corporate department dedicated to receiving such complaints and dealing with them appropriately. The writings and training are based on those assumptions; and are valid and constructive in those environments. But they do not speak directly to ours.

We write separately here because our circumstances are very different. Our suggestions spring from an assumption that our environment is likely to be temporary such as a tournament, or club meeting place, that there is no supervisory hierarchy such as in a workplace, and no trained human resources department dedicated to encouraging, receiving and constructively managing reports. Also significant is that the institutional HR folks have an inherent conflict of interest. They get paid to limit the damage to the company, and in some cases, to protect those in power. Helping the reporter is still a primary function, but the countervailing influence is inevitably present. That is far less of an issue for us.

AGA Model

The model here is crisis intervention, which may sound strange. But the principles apply very well to what we want to do: and while the event provoking the intervention may seem less than earthshaking, the sense of crisis – spoken or not -- will permeate the conversation as a report is made. And if the event is more serious, that sense will dominate the conversation.  

Imagine yourself confronting any authority figure – boss, foreman or the HR department at your workplace to make a complaint about some harassment, or equal pay issue. How would you be feeling? Initiating a complaint of any kind is difficult for the reporter. People generally have a strong inhibition against “making trouble”; and when we override that inhibition a high level of stress is natural. Making such a report has inherent risks. You know going in that, “This could change my life forever”. It may not be on the scale of a death in the family, or loss of a job or a home, or going to jail; but crisis is the right word.

As the receiver of such a report, you too will be stressed. You may feel unprepared, that you are in some way responsible, or that you will be blamed. The report itself may be very disturbing. Your first task is to manage the stress – yours as well as the reporters’. Note: this applies about the same whether the report comes immediately during a tournament, or much later -- days or even weeks or longer after the event.

We hope that the crisis – and the related stress will be moderate; but that may not be the case. The good news is that the principles of managing it are the same. 

First Contact

Yes, the science fiction reference is intended. Dealing with a person formally reporting a conduct violation puts both of you in a very different world: one in which the usual rules of social behavior are not quite suspended but are significantly shifted. Issues not usually discussed in “polite company” may be central. Confidentiality will be very important. Emotions may be high, accusation a major component, and strong action may be needed. These are the issues that that make both the giving and receiving of such a report such a high stress event for all involved, even if the primary issues appear to be moderate,

The order of presentation here is by time, not importance. In any given case, any issue may be more or less important depending on the local circumstances, the emotional states of those involved and the seriousness of the complaint. The amount of time for each step can also vary widely – from a few seconds on up.

STEP 1 -- INITIAL RESPONSE

The first step is to manage the environment. If you are in a public place, offer to move to a more private space that is more comfortable. Assess the stress level – yours as well as the reporter’s. Remind yourself, “This is not about me.” Your first effort is to reduce that stress. This is obvious if the person is hyperventilating, incoherent and crying; but it is just as important for you to recognize that it is there even if the approach is calm and rational. Be supportive and open about your own feelings without imposing them. 

 “Thank you for coming forward”.  “Are you comfortable talking about this in a restaurant like this? Or, “I would like to deal with this in a more private setting”

If the stress is very high, “I am really sorry to hear about this, but I want to focus on how I can help you right now.”

Use whatever skills you have to get the person calm and coherent. “I want to hear everything, but I want you to be more comfortable when you do so.” 

One component of this should be communicating that you will treat the conversation as a private communication you will not share without permission.

If you have another highly trusted person available to help deal with this, get that person to join if possible (but only with permission of the reporter). Two minds and sets of ears and eyes are better than one. This is a general rule. Outreach crisis intervention people always go out in pairs. If necessary, schedule a second meeting to give you time to consult with others (i.e. the AGA code of conduct committee, or another wise and trusted person. Note: you can do this without breaking confidentiality if necessary. 

 STEP 2 -- ASSESSING THE ISSUES

When you have established a “psychologically safe” setting, start finding out what the issues are. Issues – not necessarily hard facts, and there is no reason to ask for grizzly details. Those may come out but let them come naturally from the reporter rather than prying. 

There is a hierarchy of concerns you want to address right away. Is there any injury, or imminent threat? Is the reporter a child or an adult? If a child, is a parent available? Is the reporter mentally capable right now? These are not so much questions you ask as assessments based on what you see and hear. The good news is that you will usually be able to make these assessments within a few seconds, or at most a minute or two. 

The goal at this point is to help the person achieve emotional stability in the moment to enable them to report in a thoughtful, coherent way. This may take 10 seconds (best case scenario), or considerably longer. Use as much de-escalation time as needed (for yourself too) to get a calm report. Begin when it feels right to you, “Can I ask you a few questions?” Don’t start without this explicit permission. If you can’t get that, continue dealing with the stress level. The rest can wait. 

If you haven’t already, Thank the person for having the courage to step forward and let them know that your job is to help them. If you feel you are in over your head, remind yourself that you have people who will support and help you if you need it. 

Keep questions open ended. Avoid direct questions with yes/no answers. “Tell me what happened.” Is open ended. “Did he grab you?” is suggestive of a positive answer and implies that one answer will elicit more support while the other may not. On initial contact, you don’t need a lot of detail, and probably should not ask for it unless it is needed to make decisions about what to do right then. 

In overwhelming likelihood, at this point, you have already decided you don’t need outside help right now. (i.e. a 911 call, which we will deal with separately below.) Your primary task is to be supportive, help the person de-escalate as necessary, provide information about what you can do, and identify other appropriate resources.

Thus far, you have only asked “What happened?” and got (most likely) a 1 or 2 sentence response, from which you made all the assessments above. As you continue, practice “active listening” (See description below.). This is a communications technique used in a wide variety of situations where it is important that both parties to a conversation can agree on what was meant. It is commonly used in training, therapeutic, and conflict resolution situations, and any complex communication requiring complete understanding. The basic idea is to focus on what the person is saying; and help them explain it in such a way that you are sure you are hearing what they mean – which is not necessarily the same as what they may initially say. “Tell me more” is a simple starting implementation, which you follow up by paraphrasing what you think they mean. This is a standard way to ensure common understanding of intended meaning. Stress degrades both expression and understanding, so expect corrections of your paraphrases.  Do not defend your interpretation when corrected. And DO NOT say, “but you said …” That sets up conflict. To be literal about it, you don’t care what is (initially) said. You do care what is finally meant. Avoid immediate judgment. Extreme statements are usually an expression of emotion rather than a statement of fact, so check them out gently. Keep your sentences short, simple, and focused; both when you ask a question and when you respond.

Conversely, if you come to some agreement about what each of you will do, ask the person to paraphrase that, so you know they heard what you meant. And that they can state their planned action in a way that gives you confidence that you understand what they intend to do.

Continue to refrain from any leading questions and provide an indication of what you can do to help. If the issue falls under the Tournament Regulations etiquette provisions, you can identify that, and be more direct. “That is a clear violation of Tournament regulations. “When did this happen?” “Where did it happen?” “Was the game still in progress?” “Is anyone else involved?” You may have answers to these questions from the initial recounting but the purpose here is to lead you to other questions more specific to the case and circumstance at hand. Before acting, however, make sure your reporter is OK with the idea of employing the regulations and either issuing an admonition or warning, or taking stronger action. There can be many reasons for the reporter to ask you not to intervene directly. Fear of retribution is high on that list, but simple shyness, feeling of guilt about getting someone else in trouble, and not wanting to be identified as a “tattletale’ are also common. You must respect that wish, even if you feel it is wrong. What you should do in that case is reassure your reporter that you will keep the confidence. You can (and probably should) say that you will keep a weather eye out to notice similar behavior independently, and act on the basis of that, without revealing who the original reporter was. (In that case, you identify yourself as the reporter, and act directly on your own authority as a leader.) You can identify your feelings and give an example or two of what you feel would be appropriate; but you should not pressure the reporter to change the decision. Something like, “I feel like I could act on this pretty strongly, as I described, but I will absolutely respect your wish to stay anonymous. Let me know if you change your mind; or if you get some other idea of something I could do.”

If the issue is more a Code of Conduct event, avoidance of leading questions is even more important. The issues will likely be more personal, emotional, and sensitive. “This sounds serious. Can you tell me a bit more about [something mentioned in the original report]? If there is reluctance, be patient. Keeping the questions in the form of asking permission, rather than demanding answers is a good way to keep things going. It leaves the reporter in control, which provides comfort and enhances trust. If you feel you must ask a direct question such as “Are you hurt?”, or “Are you afraid?”, do so only after substantial trust has been established. Make it clear that your official response is not dependent on a “correct” answer, but rather a means of managing the situation at the moment.

 

Having gotten a better idea of what happened, the natural follow up is “How did you respond?”  This will lead to more details, from which more questions may arise. The important thing is to keep them neutral and open ended rather than tightly focused, judgmental, or leading. “How did you feel when he didn’t leave you alone.” is open. “Did you feel trapped when he approached you again?” is not. The principle here is that you want to get an unprompted recounting, not the confirmation of a story bubbling up in your mind.

And such a story WILL bubble up. Keep in mind, no matter what experience of your own this brings to mind, this is not about your reputation as a leader, not about your feelings, and not about your history. You may feel and express empathy, but even if you have experienced a similar outrage, you don’t really know what the other person is experiencing emotionally. Rather, say something supportive but not specific. “That sounds really tough to bear. I am sorry you are stuck with this.” If you do want to refer to a personal experience, say something like, “I had a similar experience, and also found it hard to manage”. Not, “I had exactly the same thing happen to me, I know exactly how you feel.” You don’t. Even if asked, limit your identification to something that is similar, not identical. And if they say something like, “So you know exactly how I feel.”, gently deny it. “It does sound similar, but our feelings and reactions are going to be different.” Avoid getting into a comparison. It’s not the focus here. (It’s not about you! Remember!) If the question is persistent, this person is asking you to tell them how to feel – probably because they are psychologically unable to do that for themselves at the moment. This is not a problem you can deal with, and a gentle suggestion to obtain professional help is in order. You aren’t qualified, and if technically you were, you would refer to another because of the clear conflict of interest. Your role is supportive, not therapeutic.

STEP 3 -- MOVING FORWARD

It’s time to think more about confidentiality – not just here, but in your interactions in the situation. Confidentiality is an important issue in these communications. Even though the incident may be known to some or many, you give up your right to engage the rumor mill when you accept your role as a leader responding to a report related to the Code of Conduct. If asked, you refer them to the person they are asking about. “Did JJ complain about what KK did?” “You should ask JJ,” This is only slightly less obnoxious than the oft used official response, “I can neither confirm nor deny.” But it is important for you to recognize that the choice to ask you rather than the person involved is a clear indication that the question is not idle and likely not well intended. Note that you should give the same answer even if you haven’t had a report from that person or anyone else. You should follow this rule even if the person has told others and has given you explicit permission to talk to others. To do otherwise undermines your authority as a TD or leader and opens up the possibility (likelihood really) that what you say will be reported to others – probably inaccurately, and possibly with malice.

If you want to consult with someone about it, that person should understand the principle, and agree to abide by it. The AGA Code of Conduct Committee will maintain that confidentiality as a matter of policy. With anyone else, even a professional such as a doctor, lawyer or social worker, you should make it clear that your consultation is to be confidential. Making the point clear is never wrong.

Keep in mind as you read this, that most issues are relatively minor. Things like inappropriate jokes, persistent annoying comments, or offensive put-downs. In our environment an actual assault is extremely rare. But the feelings aroused and the concerns about speaking out will be similar no matter the degree of outrage.

For an extended discussion of how difficult this can be, see https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/jed-rubenfeld-amy-chua-yale-law-school.html. We are of course not deciding people’s future careers, but social consequences are a serious business no matter how small the venue. The critical point is that the offensive behavior described is so far from being criminal that it would be most appropriate for the offender to be “educated” into reformed behavior, with an implied sanction if the instruction is not heeded. Fortunately, we have greater flexibility than the Yale Law School.

When you feel you have the information you need to formulate an immediate action plan, move the conversation toward that end. “OK I think we have a good idea of the situation now. What do you want to have happen now?” You may have a plan in mind, but it is important to empower the reporter, and to pay attention to their needs. These may be quite different from your sense of appropriate response. The open ended question exposes you to an infinity of answers. You will be flying by the seat of your pants. 

“I don’t want you to do ANYTHING. I just want you to know.” is common. This may be born of a fear of retribution, which is often justified; and may yield a statement that they don’t want any reaction that would identify them. This may put you in a bind, as your reporter’s privacy is a primary obligation. Your impulse might be to drop the offender from the tournament or worse; but if doing so would reveal the identity of your reporter, who wishes to remain anonymous, you must not. You will be angry; but that’s OK. It’s not about you! Just don’t take it out on your reporter, who is in a significant state of fear. Find a safe way to vent elsewhere.

“What should I do if it happens again?” “Tell me” is obvious. Give your best advice, which will depend on your assessment of the seriousness of the behavior and the limits of the environment. If practical, you can be more protective by simply hovering as seems appropriate. Ask for permission to act independently if you observe the behavior directly.

“Just make it stop!” allows you to offer support for direct intervention, ideally by helping the person confront the offender directly, which may be either alone or with you standing by to provide moral support, reinforce the message if appropriate, and exercise control if necessary. Or you can deliver the message on your own if the reporter wishes that.

The only true commandment is to respect the wishes and needs of the person reporting.

This may put you between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and you may feel helpless and therefore angry. Find a trusted other to whom you can safely vent. Recognize that in most cases, your feeling is a reflection of what your reporter is feeling. You have not failed. Rather, you relieved your reporter of a major stress, and provided options, which remain available even if not exercised at the time.

ISSUES FOR MANAGING UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES

The principles above apply generally, but you will apply them under a variety of circumstances which will influence how you apply them.

Managing situations during a tournament

The process is the same as described above. You just have other demands that may interfere with taking the report and acting on it as necessary.

Taking the report is disruptive to an ongoing event, for which you probably have some responsibility. You will need a while to get information and figure out how to deal with it short term; so unless it is something that clearly does not require an immediate response (as defined by the reporter) get someone else to handle the normal event activities and move the action to a  private location. Note that this is not new learning for an experienced TD. You do exactly the same thing if there is a problem in a game requiring a TD ruling. The context is different, but the sense of crisis and your response style is similar. Get private. Get facts. Decide. Act.

In some situations, someone may feel they are being harassed when no harm was intended by the person they are reporting. It is important to manage these situations with calm common sense without escalating the situation or invalidating the feelings or experience of the reporting party. Assist the complainant to identify how they would like to resolve the situation, which may include helping them speak to the person, or speaking to the person yourself. This should be done privately to make them aware of the complaint and how they have made the reporting party feel, and to ask them to stop the inappropriate behavior. Given our generally respectful community, this will most likely end with remorse and adjusted behavior, and everything can progress from there as usual. If they do not adjust their behavior, then they are creating an unsafe environment for your other attendees and are disrupting your event and should be dealt with accordingly. If the issue is serious and risk assessed to be significant, a TD or Chapter leader has broad discretion to act, and the Committee will support any reasonable decisions made. The AGA safety and security policy giving that authority is available Here. Note that you may use this policy to act preemptively – either to set limits on behavior or to refuse or terminate registration.

Managing the very unlikely nightmare case

These are rare, but dramatic, and emotional maelstroms, so a brief rundown is in order just for the sake of completeness. In most cases, within a few seconds, you decided that there was no immediate threat requiring an immediate protective action by police, or that you did. The decision came without much “thinking” almost instantly. It usually isn’t a question asked explicitly, and you may change your mind as you hear more details. This is a place to trust your gut feeling. If you feel 911 is needed, you are almost certainly right. Make it happen. But, if possible, get someone else to do so. You were confronted with the issue and are seen as the primary resource. By keeping in direct contact, you are maintaining control and retaining the power to be in control and most importantly, helping the reporter feel you are going to stand by them and maintain that control. Anyone aware of the situation can call 911. Your job is to be the central resource to keep things on an even keel as much as possible. In all cases, if you are not comfortable handling the situation by yourself, say so, and get help. “I think we need some help on managing this, I want to call Jane Helper. Is that OK with you?” This is not an admission of weakness. It is an expression of strength. Remind yourself, “This is not about me.” Repeat as needed. In our context – a tournament or other Go playing activity – you will probably have other obligations, but for the moment at least, this should take precedence. If you think for a moment, there will be some other person who can take over the mundane elements of running the event. 

If the issue is medical, ask 911 for a fire department aid car. Police will probably respond anyway, but it puts the focus on the medical element, which can be comforting. Those folks are well trained to manage the issues surrounding these disasters and will help the person get into a more thoughtful frame of mind. 

You have a few questions in your mind that you probably won’t ask explicitly unless prompted to do so. Do you need 911 now? Almost certainly not, but it is the first question in your mind. 

i.e. “This guy knocked me down and I feel like I am going to throw up.” And your answer is probably yes.

Is it important to gather evidence that may be lost if not gathered now? Also probably not.

i.e. “I was raped!” If it’s within the day, a medical exam should be done, and professional counselling. Let the hospital handle calling police, unless the person wants 911.

Is there an immediate – ongoing -- problem you should address. This is not likely but possible.

i.e. “There is a guy (or gal) being inappropriate in the restroom.” Or “So and so is harassing me”.

Conflict resolution

In some cases, two (or more) people may be in conflict: perhaps each accusing the other of some misbehavior. It is important to understand that you are not there to decide who is less right or more wrong. If there is a clear violation or questionable behavior on both sides, deal with them separately, and similarly. “You need to understand that this, this and this is not acceptable here. And you (the other) need to recognize that that that and that is not acceptable either.” Then require their agreement to let the dust settle and avoid contact for the remainder of the tournament. Try not to pair them in the next round!

If the dispute relates to a game, the issues will probably be muddy, with an issue of judgement being prominent, and any decision a close one. The rules and standard regulations should generally prevail during the event. The etiquette regulations are quite robust, and a TD has broad discretion to use them to regulate competition. A person wishing to pursue the issue as a Code of Conduct violation is free to do so at any time later. If a ruling will result in an admonishment (your decision) that should end the matter for the duration of the tournament using the technique described above. If the game will be affected, use of an appeals committee is amply justified and strongly recommended. See the regulations about how to do this. 

These conflicts invariably are public, and the careful approach will ensure respect for the final decision. 

Managing a report after the event

If you get a report long after the event, you will have a calm environment and – more importantly – time to get the information you need to respond, and to carefully consider and research resolutions.

The first thing to keep in mind is that in spite of the relatively calm current circumstance, the reporting person is in a state of crisis (more or less so depending on the nature of the event, and psychological characteristics of the reporter, but in all cases, some degree of crisis stress). Your first response is to identify the crisis as experienced by the reporter and provide some means for them to de-escalate. “Thanks for coming.” “How can I help you?” Next, you want to get more detailed information about what happened. After you understand that, you need to find out what the person wants you to do about the situation. Finally, you will need to decide what you can do, and communicate that clearly to the reporter.

Managing your own reactions

Managing an event like this, no matter how minor or serious you may perceive the situation or behavior to be, can be gut-wrenching. It is likely to arouse strong feelings for all concerned, yourself included. It may bring sharply to mind events in your own life that raise your consciousness and lower your objectivity. Remind yourself “It’s not about me.” Nevertheless, you are there, and stuck in the middle of a dicey situation, perhaps not by your own standards, but definitely so in the eyes of others.  Pay attention to what you see and hear and be respectful of the feelings and attitudes that may differ strongly from your own. But remember, you have no need to accept them for yourself. “Actively listen” to yourself too. A good rule of thumb is that whatever emotions arise in you are probably reflective of the emotions aroused in others. With the strong, dominant emotions, i.e. fear, anger, and confusion, it’s pretty much a guarantee. 

Keep in mind, you are there to resolve another person’s issues, not your own. Ideally, you are working with a respected partner. Later, you should compare notes and discharge energy pent up during your intervention. If you are alone, whether you feel strongly affected or not, make a point of finding someone else in whom you can confide later. This is always a good idea. Helping others manage a stressful situation is invariably stressful for the helper too.