Solutions

If you leave burning logs unattended on dry grass, you should not be surprised if a dangerous fire builds up and gets out of control. However, if you put them in a circle of stones, then you can fan the fire as much as you like: it will make a lovely big campfire for a barbecue and keep you warm.

You may be wondering what this has to do with the subject of conflict management. This example can be understood figuratively: if you leave a conflict to simmer for days, weeks or even months without addressing it, you will soon discover that it becomes destructive and almost impossible to control or restrain. If, on the other hand, you deal with it, then the discussion process this entails can produce creative ideas leading to solutions that no-one would otherwise have considered.

Thus it is precisely when you are looking for harmony, and afraid to cause an argument, that the number one rule of conflict management is to talk about it, as soon as possible!

What is it all about?

However, before you act spontaneously, stop for a moment and check what the problem actually is. There are different kinds of conflict, and it can be helpful to be aware of which type is involved.

A conflict of ideas occurs when opinions differ. The people involved have different points of view. If the conflict really is just about the subject of discussion, this should not be a major problem. Even if the discussion is heated and lasts a long time, it should be possible to find a solution.

A conflict of values occurs when the people involved have different values. As this is all about fundamental outlooks which cannot be dismissed out of hand, there is no point in arguing. Tolerance is called for.

Structural conflict and conflicts of power are not about ideas or values, but about social position. They occur, for example, when people do not argue on the basis of facts, but instead use their position of power to get their way. They can also come about when people are trying to work their way up the ladder, so push their way to the front. In this case it is important to lay down the rules of the game and make sure all structures are clear.

What are my needs?

Once you have worked out what type of conflict it is, you should think about your own feelings, then consider what your own needs are. What is disturbing you? Why? What is it you want to change? You can then formulate a request based on these facts.

Above all, accusations and blame should be avoided, as should personal attacks. The focus needs to be on the problem, not the person. “You always let me down and then I’m left holding the baby.” Anyone confronted with an accusation of this nature will defend themselves – creating a verbal exchange that is bound to escalate. Formulating this statement as a request – such as “I have far too much to do. I would like to talk about how we share the work” – allows you to discuss the matter objectively.

Put-downs such as “You don’t get it, so that makes the whole team look bad.” also lead nowhere. After all, this comment is hardly going to improve the performance of the person addressed. The point is to achieve something – not to belittle the person you are talking to. So “How can we share our workload so as to make the team successful?” would be a more useful approach.

“You have to do your part by tomorrow, and that's that. How you do it is your problem.” Instead of putting pressure on people, it is better to persuade them with argumentation. If people know the stakes that ride on keeping an appointment, they will get to it with greater motivation.

“That’s a completely irrational argument. I just explained that it can be done this way and no other.” Sticking dogmatically to your own position from an early stage, and simply ignoring others’ points of view, can lead to squabbles and dissatisfaction throughout the team – and prevents any constructive discussion which could open up new paths.

Then there are always discussion-stoppers which stifle any fruitful debate and do not help find a solution, and should thus be ruled out. Some examples are: We tried that ten years ago and it didn’t work. We don’t do that here. You don’t know anything about that. That’s a stupid idea. You don’t have the experience. We really can’t do that. Do you have too little to do? That’ll never work.

Comments such as this should not go unchallenged. Something that failed to work ten years ago might very well be the right path today: after all, the world has changed. Things that are not done here should perhaps be introduced, as new methods can bring new vitality. If people do not know something as they lack experience, they should be informed – and not cut out of the discussion. They might also have other experience which could be of use. And comments such as “we can’t do that” or “that’ll never work” can be countered with a simple “why not?”

One more tip: be very careful how you use the word “but”; it provokes resistance. “You've done a good job, but…” “That’s a good idea, but…” “We can do it that way, but…” The first half of the sentence is devalued by the “but”. The other person is just waiting for the criticism to come – and starts sharpening their knives in their defence. This can be avoided by formulating it as “That’s a good idea. How about if we …”

When things get worse and worse

Sometimes the situation gets so complex that the people arguing can find no way out. In that case, they need to seek outside help. What is needed is a neutral person to step in as a mediator and – without making judgements or taking sides – helps the people involved to find a solution themselves. If you need support, turn to your superior or the works committee. A mediator will always cost the company less money than a dysfunctional or non-functioning team, workers who are mentally elsewhere – or even staff being lost.

Image: aboutpixel.de