A number of years ago, lawyers made a lot of money because a rule enforcement / challenge about length of hair, ended up in a judicial process at the High Court. The lawyers for the student successfully argued the school was incorrect in its actions. The cost of that complaint would have been in the tens of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Fast forward to June, 2023 to see Papamoa College in the media, (Stuff article 22 June 2023 headed “School, family in standoff over teenager’s beard”). For those who did not see the news article, it was reported a student who had facial hair (beard) for the past three years had been told that as a result of a change in policy around uniforms that facial hair / beards were no longer permitted.

The student, with the support of his parents, challenged the ruling on the basis that it was culturally significant and therefore fitted under the Human Rights Act as an allegation of discrimination.

The school did report the student had been withdrawn from normal classroom attendance due to behaviour (citing gross misconduct) not related to his facial hair, and it was waiting to hear from the parents as to what cultural grounds it was relying on. In this age we know that not everything that is reported is factually accurate and there are other elements to consider when reading an article from media:

You won’t have both parties perspective. Schools are incredibly limited as to what they can make public about a complaint. The complainant can tell the media whatever they want, and the school has to be careful on its response.

We have to make some assumptions. This blog is only based on what has been in the public arena, and I am sure there is a huge amount of information only those directly or indirectly involved will have.

When a complaint escalates (such as getting media attention) sometimes it’s a result of poor communication or unclear processes that leads a complainant to take it elsewhere. At other times, it is simply because they believe they can get put pressure on a respondent by going to the media. As soon as something escalates from a conversation between two parties, then it becomes harder to resolve in a manner that is going to meet the interests of the parties. The challenge becomes how to de-escalate it to a level where parties can engage in a meaningful, productive, interest/needs based discussion. In other words, walk ‘em back down the hill!

When someone makes a complaint, there is often an interest /need that underpins the ‘stick in the sand’. The complaint from the school hair length High Court decision had an element in common. It appears in both situations, the schools had uniform policy already in place which were only loosely enforced and it was the change in enforcement that triggered the response from the student.

If standing in the student’s shoes, you may think this rule has been there for three years, never enforced and “sense of fairness” value may have been triggered for him.

If standing in the school’s shoes, you might have thought the rules were clear and it was within their right to enforce them. It appears the reason the school chose to enforce the rule of being clean shaven was to do with perceived “reputation” of the school, and that was the interest/need they were trying to address.

While this blog is not intended to discuss the merits of who was ‘right’ It am aware this issue certainly generates polarised positions, even from those who have no connection whatsoever with the issue.

It is amazing how quickly something becomes an issue, especially if it not handled effectively when it is first raised. The work I do with organisations, I spend time a significant portion of the time assisting people to respond effectively when a concern/complaint is first raised. When it is dealt with at low level it can avoid significant cost, whether that be financial or otherwise.

Recognise it as a complaint (a concern is the same thing as a complaint). Failure to do will lead you down a slippery and possibly expensive route.
See the person. Often people just see the complaint as problem to be solved (or an annoyance to their day) and forget its a person making a complaint. Seek to understand the person’s needs (for example, thank them for raising the issue and ask them to tell you what about this issue was most important for them).
Listen for key words. Words such as fairness, impact, reputation, security, justice, as they give clues as to what has triggered the response and the underlying interest.
Ask lots of open questions before you go down the road of explaining your perspective. They generally start with ‘what’ & ‘how’.
Make sure they know they are understood. If the person making the complaint doesn't feel (or believe) you have understood them, they will repeat their view or worse, escalate it to someone else until the feel heard and understood. (“I want to speak to your…”)

If you know of individuals within organisations who might benefit from training and/or coaching on strategies to respond effectively to a complaint, please pass on my details.

Alternatively, if you are currently (or know people who are) dealing with a matter in which having an impartial facilitated process would be beneficial, please make contact to see if we can provide assistance.

Simon@orbsolutions.co.nz +64 2134 9776 or ava@orbsolutions.co.nz +64 274 282 672