Key Issues and Principles in the Implementation of Harassment or First Contact SchemesThe fundamental principle of First Contact schemes based on best practice and research outcomes is that the contact person is not an advisor and should not seek to influence or direct the client into any particular course of action. For this reason contact persons should not be called advisors as it is their primary function to empower clients to make their own choices and to take responsibility for those choices; not to assume responsibility for making an assessment of the options on behalf of the client. In this way the First Contact is not meant to be an expert on harassment or a pseudo legal advisor or psycho-therapist but is instead a trusted colleague who has received training in the policies and procedures and communication skills and so can provide support and information for the client- but not advice. 
[ Top of page ] Going hand in hand with the principle of empowerment is that of impartiality. As Contact Officers are only ever hearing ‘one side of the story’ they are not in the position to determine whether or not bullying or harassment has actually occurred. It is therefore extremely important that the scheme operate in such a way that its officers are supportive and empathic with their clients but also impartial in responding to any questions about whether or not they believe that the client has in fact been harassed. Related to this is the need for the First Contact not to attribute feelings or labels to the client that the client has not expressed in their own words or to try to dissuade the client from the view that they hold about their situation. That is, the First Contact should not be ‘diagnosing’ the problems for the client and needs instead to be responding to the person’s own perception of what is happening to them. Nor are such schemes meant in any way to resemble any kind of investigation or complaints process in and of itself but is instead meant to be used as a way of providing information about how an employee can either attempt to resolve their situation or take a complaint. [ Top of page ] 
Best practice approaches involve the use of a confidentiality contract between the client and the First Contact that is completed prior to the disclosure of any information by the client to the First Contact. This affords the First Contact and the organisation with the protection needed in the event that a duty of care or reporting issue arises during the contact that the First Contact believes must be passed on to an appropriate person within HR such as the EO or Diversity Advisor. Without clarifying the parameters in this way prior to the contact, problems can arise when clients disclose matters of a serious nature and then expect that nothing will be said or done by the First Contact if that is what the client wants. 
[ Top of page ] It is extremely important that the First Contact does not see themselves as a mediator. Occasionally the First Contact may be asked by the client to attend a meeting with the client and the other party and it is in this situation that they can be easily drawn into a mediation role by either party. First Contacts need to receive very good training in knowing how to resist this kind of intervention role as they are not trained or qualified to undertake such a role. In addition they do not know the whole story and have not met separately with the other party and so can only know or understand the issues from the client’s perspective; in this sense they are totally ill prepared to perform the role of an impartial mediator. The other role they can be drawn into is that of an advocate for the client whereby they speak on behalf of the client and attempt to resolve it on their behalf. This is fraught with danger and is again not a best practice approach for a First Contact to adopt. First Contact training must therefore emphasise the importance in these situations of being involved in such meetings as a person who is there to provide moral support for the client only and that they cannot speak on their behalf for the other party. They can of course address the other person in the meeting if they feel that they can provide some clarity for the process or if there are concerns about the way the meeting is being conducted. If the client finds this unacceptable then the First Contact needs to be able to set the boundary and explain that this is all they are able to do. 
[ Top of page ] All good First Contact schemes involve a monitoring role as clients may sometimes choose not to take any action and the First Contact needs to monitor these cases on a regular basis with the client in order to determine if the situation is escalating or is improving. This can be a difficult stage in some cases as at some point the First Contact may need to report a situation that is escalating or going on for too long but where the client still chooses not to act. The monitoring role may also be seen to be leaving line management ‘out of the loop’ and this is certainly where First Contact schemes are at their weakest as a number of problems may remain ‘hidden’ or silent within the First Contact scheme that may need to come to the attention of management. However the fundamental flaw in these situations is more often than not with the complaints procedures of the organisation as the client is choosing to do nothing as there are insufficient or poorly executed informal procedures for resolving the conflict. As a result of this the client instead chooses to just ‘let someone know’, being the First Contact and does not want to escalate the situation into a formal complaint but does not see any clear or effective way to reach resolution informally. It is only through careful review and evaluation of the First Contact scheme that a situation can be identified whereby too many clients are being monitored over a period of time without any action being taken. If this were to occur then the First Contact scheme runs the danger of effectively becoming a smokescreen for the organisation and a way for avoiding dealing effectively with inappropriate behaviours or conflict situations. As persons self select for the role it is a high risk category for attracting some people who have unresolved issues of their own or past issues with the organisation and they may see this as an opportunity to redress past injustices. It may also attract some people who have an ‘evangelistic’ approach to harassment or who may want to counsel colleagues or ‘rescue’ them. As such the recruitment process needs to screen out as far as possible these people and select those people who have good boundaries as individuals and who are comfortable with the limits of the role.
[ Top of page ]
For more information on workplace mediation training or to arrange a mediation with professional mediators please go here. For details of our emotional intelligence (EI, EQ) consultancy please go here. If you are interested in dignity at work training or consultancy, please click here. | 
