This is a free article you might find interesting. It’s also a sample of our knowledge and how we can help you get a bit better at your job, and/or how we can help you fix a problem. If you’re interested in our consultation services, contact us.

This should go without saying but disclaimer: The information provided below is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or other professional advice. You should consult with a qualified professional for specific advice tailored to your circumstances.

If you’re interested learning more about this topic, we have courses: the basics of disciplinaries covers this, or you can find all of our courses here.

Sometimes an article proves too big a topic, so this one I’ve had to chop into two, and this one is about the difficult support person.

Please bear in mind, everything below is not coming from a place of hate for you, but support (maybe love) for the employee, so always remember- it’s not personal.

Not magic

I talk about how they don’t have special powers in my last article, but always remember- their bringing a lawyer to the meeting doesn’t actually change the rules of the situation, the facts in front of you, nor is the lawyer now the judge who gets to decide the case instead of you. They may be better, more experienced, more likely to ask good questions or stop stupid statements, but the facts don’t change.

How they can be difficult: Uncomfortable truths

It pays to remember that the representative isn’t likely going to say something that the employee disagrees with. The employee asked them to be there, and wants them to back them up in the way that they are. If the representative is being really belligerent, this mostly likely how the employee feels, but may not be able to articulate this, or is bringing in a ‘bad cop’ so they can preserve their relationship with their boss.

Bringing outside issues

We see this one a lot, where the representative brings into the conversation issues that they think are relevant, but aren’t really. This can either be with the employee’s agreement (e.g. the employee has suggested dramas such as workplace injustices or unhappiness), or their own opinions on ‘what a good employer would do’ (e.g. unfair pay and pressures it puts on the community). These may be relevant, but very easily not, so you find yourself having to filter out their position for its relevance to the issue actually being discussed.

Serving their own interests

Some will come in with their agenda. This could be union delegates with a bone to pick about something else, a hyper-defensive family member with a grudge against employers, or an advocate or lawyer whose living comes from employment conflict. Sometimes the representative is speaking a truth to power, but it’s theirs, not the employees. This can be highly frustrating, because the path to everybody getting back to work in harmony is being torpedoed by this outside influence.

Taking your seat

Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes it’s subconscious, but some people will just imperiously take over the meeting. You’ll have been in discussions (whether work or social) where you wonder, ‘how did they take over? Why are we all waiting to hear what they decide?’ It’s a skill, it’s an art, and it’s hard to fight because it’s hard to spot.

A representative might do this- take over the meeting; and most importantly take over the decision-making role. You’ll find them asking for, analysing, and passing verdict of the evidence. Deciding what more information needs to be gathered. Essentially, subtly redefining what the issue is. It’s slick when you see it.

What to do: Don’t let them take over

The most important thing to remember is that the manager is the decision maker, and is wearing the decision-making pants. So don’t take them off. These are the key points to remember:

They are providing explanation only. They get to talk, they get to ask questions, but not decide. The purpose of these meetings is for the employer to hear their point of view.
Agreement is not needed. This is where a lot of processes stall; the implicit assumption by everyone that consensus needs to be reached. You only need to put a concern to them, seek their feedback, input, or response. Agreement is not needed.
If they identify a need for more info, go and get it. Where you do need to pay close attention, are any gaps they identify. If they don’t think you have all the info, you need to get it, or have a good reason not to. But you can adjourn the process to go get it, and thereby fix it. They actually won’t like this, but it’s good faith and fair process in action.
Reset the conversation. If you are losing control, go back to the agenda. Where are we up to? What stage? Pausing and going back to the step-by-step process of what is supposed to be happening is critical. Take adjournments if you need.

But overall, don’t think of them as your enemy. Think of them as the employee’s counterbalance to you, and that this is overall a good thing- the employer has a LOT of power in these meetings, so backup is critical for an employee. These approaches discussed above should not be viewed automatically as sneaky, nasty or evil; almost all of the time, they come from a good place- helping people get justice.

If you have 10 seconds, please complete this survey. It helps us know what people want to know.

Straightening or derailing- how representatives can be forces of chaos (part 2 of 2)