Dealing with workplace conflict

8/11/2012

I was speaking with a colleague recently who felt trapped in unresolved conflict. It was a key relationship, one that couldn’t be avoided, and all previous efforts had failed. As a consequence, both parties were feeling frustrated, de-energised and despondent about the future. As we explored how they had attempted to fix things in the past, it became clear they had focused on all the negatives…a long list of annoying and painful experiences from the past. Their conversations were characterised by blame and demands. It felt intractable.

The problem with such patterns of behaviour is that they create a negative expectation of the future. Both parties now felt stressed before they even spoke with each other. The stress affected their perspective and their resilience, their ability to hear and to cope. So we decided to try a different approach. How to build a positive expectation in order to create a different focus, a different conversation and, ultimately, a different relationship. It wouldn’t be easy but it felt worth a go. My colleague felt sceptical but, nevertheless, willing to give it a try.

Firstly, we agreed that next time they spoke, they would meet off site in a physical environment (e.g. café, park) that they both found positively stimulating and energising. This helped to break them away from the current environment that held such negative memories for them. Secondly, we agreed they would speak only of the positive moments in their relationship together. They found this hard at first. The negative experiences felt so overwhelming that they could hardly think of any positives. Nevertheless, they managed to remember some examples.

Thirdly, we agreed that after sharing such positive examples, they would each share future hopes for their relationship: ‘what we would like our relationship to be more like, more of the time’. They reflected each others’ hopes back to each other: ‘So you would like…’ Fourthly, we agreed they would move on to discuss ‘what it would take from me to make this work in practice’. This shifted each party’s focus from the other onto themselves. ‘This is how I would need to change…this is what it will take for me to do it…this is the help I will need.’

This kind of approach demands openness to fresh possibilities, humility, a willingness to forgive. It demands imagination and courage too, an ability to envision and embrace a new future. It’s not easy and the support of a friend, counsellor or coach can help make the journey possible. I would be interested to hear examples from others who’ve worked on conflict resolution too. What was the issue? How did you approach it? What happened as a result? What made the biggest difference? What did you learn? What would you do the same or differently next time?

88 Comments

Dave Burton link

9/11/2012 02:55:29 am

I like your approach and I hope it works out for your colleague. It's in line with appreciative enquiry principles that we should concentrate on the positive.
The technique you've used is quite similar to one I used with the Directors of an operational unit of blue chip company who had asked me to help them change the organisation's culture towards one where team's collaborated more readily and people felt encouraged to come up with improvement ideas.
It was clear quite early on that the relationships in this top team were not ideal and that this was a major influence on the behaviour and attitudes of people throughout the organisation.
I asked them to start by defining their own management values and they had an enjoyable workshop agreeing these.
Having agreed the values, I asked them to identify what positive behaviours would exhibit these values.
They were then set the individual task of assessing (1) how well each of their colleagues did on each of the behaviours (2) how well they thought they did themselves and (3) how they thought colleagues would assess them on each of the behaviours.
We then arranged a session off-site at which each of them received very well structured feedback from all their colleagues. The people giving feedback were asked to phrase everything positively, and to include praise as well as areas for improvement.
I worked with each of them beforehand to make sure that they used positive language and were providing clear examples of behaviours that would be helpful.
At the end of each feedback, the subject of the feedback was asked to summarise and acknowledge the points being made and to thank her/his colleagues.
They were nervous! However, by this stage they were all fully committed to seeing the process through and demonstrating to the whole workforce that they could change the way they behaved.
The session was intense, but everyone took great care to ensure that their colleagues were positively encouraged. By the end of the session they committed themselves individually to working on aspects of their behaviour.
I help debriefing meetings with each of them individually to help them with any challenges arising from the session and several of them had two or three more coaching meetings with me.
A year later, when we reviewed progress, they all agreed that they had worked hard and with commitment and that the atmosphere between them as colleagues and between their teams had improved,

Nick Wright

10/11/2012 02:10:46 am

Hi Dave and thanks for sharing such a great example of using an appreciative approach to team development. It sounds quite solutions focused too (see, for if interested: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2012/01/seeking-solutions.html).

It strikes me that the people in the top team you worked with were willing to take up the challenge and courageous enough to do it. What do you think influenced their decision to give it a go, to work on this together, in spite of how challenging it could feel for them?

I really liked your 1,2,3 steps. I used something similar with a top team where I invited them to draw sketch images of each other and to write against each, 'This is what I imagine keeps you awake at night' and 'This is what I imagine gets you up in the morning.'

Once they had done this, they each shared what they had written with each other, one at a time. After each person had listened to what others imagined, he or she had opportunity to say what really caused them stress/angst and what energised/motivated them.

It was a powerful way of surfacing projections, raising awareness and building empathy and understanding. At heart, they had a desire to work together as people sharing a common goal and carrying considerable shared organisational responsibilites.

I like that you prepared and followed through with coaching in order to help those involved to approach the process in the most constructive spirit. In my experience, it's often about helping people manage anxiety in order to create openness to new possibilities.

With best wishes. Nick

Jackie Bissonette

9/11/2012 03:27:59 am

I like your approach and have found AI helpful in most situations except for the most toxic work relationships. A toxic work relationship is when an individual or team refuses to improve their communication and continues to rebel against the team or a particular member of the team. In the most toxic situations it is imperative that the boss provide support and similar expectations to the parties involved otherwise there is no incentive to improve unless of course both parties are equally motivated which takes high emotional intelligence and unfortunately this is not always the case.

Nick Wright

10/11/2012 02:39:31 am

Hi Jackie and thanks for the note. I think you raise a really important point about willingness to engage in any attempt at conflict resolution. What kinds of thing, in your experience, influence a person or team's willingness to engage?

I found your description of a 'toxic work relationship' very helpful. I once experienced a very difficult, conflicting relationship with a colleague. I tried hard to resolve it, without success, and over time found the situation confusing, diseartening and frustrating.

In the end, my colleague admitted that she didn't care enough about the conflict or the relationship to make the effort it would take to address or resolve it. She simply didn't experience the conflict or the value of the relationship in the same way that I did.

I found that experience illuminating because it raised my awareness of how different people value different things, are motivated by different things, experience the same situations differently, are impacted differently or to different degrees by the same issue etc.

I think you raise an important point too about the role of the workplace manager in such situations. If unresolved conflict is having a negative impact on team morale, health or performance, the line-manager almost certainly needs to intervene.

In such instances, I advise the line-manager to make explicit his or her expectations before exploring with the individual(s) or team what a great (or even satisfactory, live-able!) outcome or solution could look or feel like, or what it would take to achieve it.

Do you have any examples of this kind of toxic situation from your own experience? I would be very interested to hear more about what the behaviours were, what you saw as underlying contributing factors, how you intervened, what happened as a result etc.

With best wishes. Nick

Karen Bailey link

9/11/2012 03:54:26 am

Hi Nick

As you know I spend my time working with people to help them resolve their conflict. Mostly I mediate. In mediation the approach has some similarities and differences to the one you described. In mediation parties are encouraged to openly and honestly discuss ‘what went wrong’ and to describe the associated feelings emotions and impact. This is quite often a highly charged session – often known as ‘the exchange.’ The mediator will reflect back to the parties the emotions and feeling being described. The purpose of this is to facilitate both parties hearing the words. As you can imagine sometimes when a party hears their own words back they will say “actually what I meant was….” The mediator will ask open questions, such ‘what was the impact on you?’ By describing the feelings, emotions and impact the parties start to develop empathy. From empathy comes a willingness to approach each other differently. The parties start to express what is important to them - their needs. The mediator may highlight commonalities and differences in their respective needs. At this point the language of the parties changes, and they start to tentatively explore developing their own positive solutions.

So basically the difference with mediation as an approach - the parties go to the darkest depth of their conflict, face it, know it and hopefully never return to it.

best wishes
Karen

Nick Wright

10/11/2012 02:52:23 am

Hi Karen and thanks for sharing such a powerful contrasting approach from your experience in mediation. I'm thinking about the relative pros and cons are of 'appreciative' vs 'go to the darkest depth' approaches in the same kinds of situations.

I'm wondering if it's partly a question of depth. An appreciative approach can sometimes build fresh vision, energy and solutions where more conventional problem-solving approaches have failed. It creates a different climate and focus for the client or client group.

In more toxic situations such as those described by Jackie above, it may require a different kind of intervention to evoke any desire or motivation to change. I wonder if that's where the approach you use could create a shift, e.g. by facing the 'darkness' and its full impact.

I would love to hear any examples you would feel happy to share from your experience, e.g. what the issue was, how the different parties framed or experienced it, what approach you used, what kind of shifts took place, what the outcomes were etc.

With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Raisa Sommers

10/11/2012 02:56:56 am

They will return to past behaviors unless they are monitored a few times a year. Some couples are in and out of therapy to save their marriage. Change is a long process.

Nick Wright

10/11/2012 03:05:28 am

Hi Raisa and thanks for the note. Yes, some situations are based on repetetive, entangled, self-reinforcing patterns of behaviour, sometimes compounded and reinforced by wider systemic factors beyond the immediate relationship itself.

Examples could include family, team, community or cultural relationships or dynamics. In such cases, it is likely to take on-going work to create new patterns of behaviour, and this is likely to need on-going support from an 'independent' third party.

Do you have any examples you could share from your own experience? For example, what the issue was, what the underlying factors were, what approach you used, what happened as a result etc? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Raisa Sommers

10/11/2012 06:16:18 am

In my personal life I know a couple who have been married 25 years. The wife's parents committed suicide. She was "institutionalized" briefly but am uncertain for the reason. She has been in therapy on a weekly basis since then. Her husband started individual therapy Would their marriage have lasted without therapy?

Another couple, both now deceased. The wife has been in therapy since the age of 14 for anorexia and at that time had electric shock treatment (1950s?). She married an epileptic. Having no children, both were devoted to each other. They were in and out of marital therapy and she was in and out individual therapy. Did this save their marriage?

paul searle

10/11/2012 09:15:44 am

this is not necessarily true, if the coaching or "brain training" has been done correctly you will find that people do re-program for positive thought and it sticks for life, once the switch is turned on the brain should like/prefer the positive thought rather than negative! admittedly some individuals thrive on negative thought and try to promote it within a group, these need extra attention to change them to subconscious positive thinking positive action people.

Bridget

10/11/2012 10:28:53 am

Hi Nick

A thought-provoking blog.....

I like the focus on the positive & on hopes for the future. Sometimes, though, it is not possible to do that without resolving some of the past. It’s not good to live in the past and keep digging up negative memories but sometimes we need to visit the past, deal with stuff and then move on.

It’s as if you need to get the infection out of the wound before it can heal. In fact, for the wound to heal with an infection still there leads to disaster. The infection doesn’t disappear because we have decided to look to the future - it is still there festering away.

I love the qualities you mention that are necessary for this process: openness to fresh possibilities, humility, willingness to forgive, imagination and courage, ability to envision and embrace a new future.

To achieve healthy relationships is tough and it strikes me that, from your list, we first of all need the vision, hope and imagination in order to fuel the hard work of humility, forgiveness and courage! (Or maybe this is just me finally understanding what your blog is all about!!)

I once read a fascinating book called “The Five Languages of Apology” by Gary Chapman and Jennifer Thomas. (I think it is a spin-off from the Five Love Languages – also written by Gary Chapman). It talks about genuine reconciliation being a result of genuine apology and genuine forgiveness which then allows continued building of the relationship. In other words, deal with the past and then move on.

When the conflict is at stalemate, I do think mediation is helpful, if only for a neutral party to help the parties process the conflict within an agreed framework. If the conflict is deep, one party is not likely to agree to a process suggested by the other party.

I was also interested in the setting up of negative expectations in the relationship. I remember, in a previous job, being constantly stressed about my perception that someone did not respect me. I decided to deliberately change my attitude and chose to belief that they did respect me. This then led to me thinking, “Given that they respect me, what now do I believe that they would want from me?” This led to me being able to give more of myself, believing that it would be appreciated rather than being paralysed by insecurity in the relationship. I guess this is an example of choosing hope.

Yep, let’s keep encouraging each other to choose hope. It’s the only way.

Bless you, Nick

Bridget

Nick Wright

10/11/2012 11:48:31 am

Hi Bridget and thanks for such a thoughtful response. I think you make a good point that it's sometimes important or even necessary to face the past (e.g. hurts, disappointments, frustrations) in order to move on from it. Your analogy of a wound is a helpful one.

The approach I suggested isn't at heart an attempt to deny or avoid the past. It's a different approach that may work in some situations where a more past-orientated, problem-solving approach hasn't resulted in change, or may have even compounded the issue.

My sense is that, sometimes, a shift in perspective and approach can build sufficient energy, confidence and hope to cope with facing and addressing the past, where that may be beneficial. It can shift the focus, reduce the anxiety/stress and create a different platform.

The apology issue is an interesting and in some circumstances controversial one. For example, how to address an issue where there is a genuinely innocent party who has been wronged. Apology from the protagonist and forgiveness from the victim can help.

In all honesty, I sometimes struggle to understand or exercise forgiveness, in spite of injunctions in my Christian faith to do so. At the same time, I recognise the value in doing so, the way it can free me as well as the other party, the way it can restore fresh hope.

I really liked your closing example of choosing hope. We can become trapped in our own 'fixed Gestalts', our fixed perceptions of a situation that exclude alternatives. Yours is a great example of a cognitive-behavioural shift. What happened as a result?

With best wishes. Nick

Bridget

10/11/2012 12:38:56 pm

Hi Nick

The person concerned was a staff member, who covered in my absence. She did a superb job when I was away which made me feel very insecure! However, the cognitive shift allowed me to genuinely express my gratitude & tell her how well she had done as, given she respected me and my opinion, that is what I figured she would want to hear. I might have been more begruding (at least inside) with my praise if I hadn't got myself into a better frame of mind. I don't know if she noticed any difference but I certainly felt a lot freer!

I struggle with forgiveness too and I suspect we are not alone!

Love your blogs

B

Nick Wright

12/11/2012 11:47:39 am

Thanks for the encouraging feedback, Bridget, and pleased that situation worked out well for you. :) With best wishes. Nick

Kathy Harris

12/11/2012 11:46:26 am

Nick: We have discovered that the tools we use to help people define their 'work that fits' - which we do to help them lay out their career journey - are equally effective in identifying the source of conflict between two employees. The tools include their Intrinsic Motivator (the unique driver that gives them a very specific lens on their world); as well as a number of tools that define their preferred ways of interacting with their work (which, as it turns out, is also their preferred ways of interacting with their world, in general). These include tools that define such things as where they prefer to stand in their world, the condition they prefer things to be in when they are working with them, among others.

We discovered quite by accident the usefulness of these tools in dealing with employee conflict. During a session where we were innocently facilitating employees setting their personal development plans, a significant conflict came to light between two people in the room. Both were are a management level. We took them aside, used the tools as a way to objectively discuss what was happening, and we were quickly able to move them both to a place of appreciation for each other's gifts. We were quite surprised at how effective these tools were. Just goes to show you that surprises are always right around the corner!

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:24:41 am

Hi Kathy and thanks for sharing such a fascinating example of applying insights and techniques from career coaching to conflict resolution. It sounds like the tools you use help to surface underlying values, motivations, preferred behaviours etc. as well as wider environmental preferences. I can imagine, therefore, how they could be reapplied to deal with conflict situations. I was interested too how you used the tools to provide a more 'objective' lens on the situation between the managers who were in conflict, thereby providing both parties with a shared insight and frame of reference to help deal with it. With best wishes. Nick

Martin Birt

13/11/2012 08:18:39 am

We used de Bono's "six thinking hats" model and exercises to overcome obstacles in project planning. In your approach you are asking both parties to wear their yellow hats. http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:29:38 am

Hi Martin. What a great cross-reference to de Bono's six hats. I hadn't thought about that link before. I wonder if the approach I used was a combination of yellow and green hat thinking? With best wishes. Nick

Alan Arnett

14/11/2012 11:53:49 am

Nick. I like your approach - if you're interested I would recommend exploring a book called The Communications Catalyst from a US form called Conversant. They don't generally use the term conflict but look at difference, and how to treat it wastefully (disagree, defend, destroy) and usefully (align, act, adjust). Rather than positive vs negative, they teach finding the neutral space of facts and possibility, where both parties have things they are trying to achieve and avoid, and looking for points of intersection. The approach has been used a lot inside business, but also in situations as extreme as hostage negotiations. Once you understand the principles, its very flexible and adaptable. Primary thing it does for me is stops people reacting either automatically (from their habits or biases) or unthinkingly applying a fixed filter - it teaches you to inquire and adapt. The Conversant website has a page of resources including a series of around 18 videos interviews with the CEO.

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:39:21 am

Hi Alan and thanks for the note. I haven't come across that book before so will have a look at it. I like the sound of the principles you outlined, e.g. the notion of choice (wasteful or useful); the relatively neutral space of facts and possibilities; avoiding fixed filters; inquiry and adaptation. Do you have any examples of applying this to practice that you would be happy to share, e.g. what the situation was, how you applied this approach, what happened as a result? With best wishes. Nick

Robert Crosby

14/11/2012 11:54:57 am

Richard Walton pioneered in 3rd party conflict ( not mediation ). A 7 page appendix to my latest book, "Third Party Conflict Resolution", written by Chris Crosby, details the helper's role, step-by-step, to deal effectively with conflicts at work. Powerful in the hands of consultants, it has been taught to steelworkers with astounding success. At one plant grievances dropped ( in one year ) from 200 to 17 due to interventions BY OTHER STEELWORKERS who were trained in these steps! Send me your Email: rcrosby1909@hotmail.com

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:44:39 am

Hi Robert and thanks for the note. Would you be willing to share any of the principles in this forum so that I and others can learn from your insights and experiences in this area? I would be very interested to hear more about the peer conflict resolution approach you alluded to. With best wishes. Nick

Robert Crosby

18/11/2012 03:07:35 pm

I'd love to Nick. The best way is for me to Email you the two articles I referenced above. Email me your Email.

Rick Johnson

19/11/2012 12:12:30 pm

@Robert Crosby: Thanks for sending me the appendices to your book that you mentioned in an earlier post. These are very well-written and contain rich tactical counsel that would be useful to any manager, and especially for new promotees.

Paul Searle

14/11/2012 11:55:48 am

Conflict is a strange thing, all parties need to have a willingness to resolve or it will fail, once willing they can achieve anything they put their minds to.

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:47:22 am

Hi Paul and thanks for the comment. I agree there is a relationship between the likelihood of success in conflict resolution, and a willingness to engage with it. Do you have any examples from your own experience that you would be willing to share? With best wishes. Nick

Gary

10/4/2013 06:43:41 am

I know firsthand what you are saying about all parties being willing to resolve conflict. I had conflict with a former supervisor almost from day one. I tried countless times to work with him, but he would only work with certain people in the department. Finally I brought the matter to the attention of upper management. They suggested sitting down with the supervisor again. I did and he said in so many words, for me to go. At this point, I no longer cared or even wanted to be at the company. I worked my 2 weeks' notice and left..

Jim Waters

18/11/2012 02:50:12 am

Have a look at the book Handling Difficult Conversations. A Client Company of mine used a training company (U.S.) that had developed a pogramme based on this book. They trained people throughout their organisation and they had excellent results.

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 02:52:56 am

Thanks Jim. I will have a look out for that book. Would you be happy to share any of the principles or approaches the training company used, e.g. what the issue was, how they applied this approach and what happened as a result? With best wishes. Nick

Alan Arnett

18/11/2012 03:10:08 pm

Nick. Mmm - I use this every day so bizarrely I find examples difficult - its become the way I see the world :-) I often teach it to 'technical experts' - anyone who has focused on their own professional discipline and expertise and perhaps left their empathy and interpersonal skills to one side. They tend to 'avoid conflict', so that often means avoiding anyone who disagrees with them because they take challenge to their ideas as a personal attack. Some key aspects of the approach make a difference.

Firstly, that they deserve an opinion, a voice, but so does everyone else
Secondly, that neither person is right - there are 2 opinions and then the facts of the situation, and that once you strip out opinions there are few facts
Third, that under stress or conflict people often spend a long time polishing their argument before pushing it at other people who see things differently, so the act of preparation actually creates the conditions for disagreement
Which finally leads to the truth that the only way out is for everyone to:

- have an opinion, but hold it lightly
- ask questions of others, to try and distinguish facts and understand the motivation that drives bias and opinion
- pace and lead to help the other person see the connection between their view and yours, and to see that you probably both need to get creative to find an answer neither of you had before - the new possibility

Does that help?

Nick Wright

18/11/2012 03:29:30 pm

Many thanks, Alan, for explaining more about this approach and how to apply it to practice. Something about it reminded me of Marshall Rosenberg's 'Nonviolent Communication' (NVC). Have you come across it?

Identifying motivations, opinions, biases and facts and distinguishing between them can be quite a challenge, especially if one or more parties are feeling emotionally charged.

I think this links to your point that preparing and polishing an argument can, itself, create the conditions for disagreement. We can become so fixed in our own views that it's hard to see alternative possibilities.

With thanks again for sharing such a helpful explanation. Nick

Kathy Harris

19/11/2012 09:27:23 am

Nick - I'm happy to explain how the objectivity happens in conflict resolution conversations when using our career decision-making tools. I will use one of our tools that actually brought one of the sources of the conflict to light in order to demonstrate how the subjective became objective.

The tool is called "The Condition Continuum". It refers to the condition you want the things you are interacting with (and there are also preferences here) to be in when you start working with them and what condition they need to be in when you are comfortable letting go of them. One of the managers had a strong preference for working with things that were in a very wounded or broken condition and helping them move toward being closer to normal. The other manager's preference zone was much closer to things being in nearly a perfect state through to better than perfect.

It was the latter manager who was left in charge when their boss was away, but you can easily predict which manager employees went to when something was wrong. They intuitively recognized they would get more empathy from manager # 1, leaving manager number 2 feeling disrespected - and maybe even personally sabotaged by manager 1.

We simply put their completed tools on the table in front of them, had a discussion about the value that each preference zone (not the person) brings to a team, and then discussed (very objectively) why employees would be naturally pulled to someone with a preference zone like Manager 1 had when something was wrong, but would turn to someone with a preference zone like Manager 2 for advice on how to make things even better than they were.

Neither manager felt attacked; there was no need to bring 'you' language into the conversations. We simply discussed what the tools explained about the situation. Both felt valued and respected, and even shook hands and said they had gained a whole new appreciation for each other's gifts.

I hope this is helpful Nick.

Nick Wright

19/11/2012 09:34:03 am

Many thanks, Kathy, for sharing such a clear example of what the condition continuum could look like in practice and how you used it with these managers to such a positive effect. I like the emphasis on 'how you like things to be when you start and finish working on them' (I haven't come across that before) and can see how that proved so valuable. It sounds like the continuum you used gave both parties a shared frame of reference for their conversation and relationship which thereby helped to 'objectify' things for them. And what a heart warming result! With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Dale Perryman

19/11/2012 12:13:54 pm

I have done conflict resolution as a mediator when it became too large to handle alone. Here is a summary of the intervention. The two parties will give a presentation to each other complete with flip chart. Here is the content of the presentation. 1. What is the other person's strengths. Give examples. 2. What is getting in the way? Give examples. 3. What specifically are you asking for?

Ground Rules:
1. You cannot make your point until you rephrase the others' point to his/her satisfaction.
2. Don't agree to do anything that you don't intend to do, but if you say you are going to do it, then let's hold each other accountable.

All agreements are documented and signed. The boss is then informed of the commitments. Have a 30 day, 60 day, and 90 day follow up where the agenda includes:

To what degree did we meet our commitments.

If topics like this sound interesting, visit my blog at http://www.jackofalltraining.com/blog

Nick Wright

19/11/2012 12:20:15 pm

Hi Dale and thanks for sharing your mediation approach, including the step by step process and ground rules. I like the questions you posed, emphasising positives as well as challenges and change requests. I like how you emphasise examples too to make it specific. I've used the technique of 'saying what the other person said to their satisfaction' too with positive effect, even though it felt challenging for the parties involved at the time because they had become so wedded to their own perspectives and assumptions. I was interested to see how you use signed agreements and the boss' involvement to ensure accountability. With best wishes. Nick

Dale Perryman

24/11/2012 08:54:29 pm

I remember when I facilitated a workplace conflict at a West Texas oilfield. The group had inappropriately labelled each other as "Fair haired boys" which were guys from Alaska who were trying to implement some new oil extraction technologies and "Homers" who were people from the small town perceived to be resistant to change. The town was so small that I had to wake up the hotel from desk people one night to get arrange for a wake up call. I acknowledged the categories and put a piece of gray tape down the center of the room. I said, "if people think of you as a 'Homer', get on this side of the room. If people think of you as a 'Fair haired boy', get on the other side of the room." I put them in groups equally represented by both stereotypes and had then propose ground rules to create a Denver City Operations Team.

Karen Bailey link

19/11/2012 01:13:02 pm

Hi Dale, mediation as a process has mary variations. I am interested and curious in our different approaches. I tend towards the transformations style of mediation - which has very little structure. Instead the process I use allows the parties to determine what they need, for example, what their dialogue/conversation will be about - what if any solution there will be and what if any feedback or check up there will be. This is facilitated by lots and lots of time; questions to parties about their feelings and the impact of events on them. Parties are encouraged to speak about themselves not the other person. Take ownership of their feelings. Exposure of feelings is a path to empathy which quite often leads to a meaningful way forward emerging. :-)

Rho Sandberg link

20/11/2012 02:29:55 pm

Dear Nick and others
Great to see such rich dialogue. It strikes me that not all conflicts are the same; the places individuals and systems get stuck differ.
My initial training was in the field of neuroscience and I am fascinated by what enables deep behaviour change in conflict situations. I found my practice as a mediator and conflict facilitator was greatly enhanced by a new approach to dispute resolution known as Conflict Coaching. The coaches role is to help the individuals develop insight into what led to and maintains the conflict, from their own and the other's perspective and then to explore strategies for managing the situation. The use of coaching questions broadens the clients way of thinking, beyond the narrow focus that develops when we're in flight and flight mode. Usually coaching allows individuals to see the other person or situation as more than the conflict only, freeing them from assumptions they have made and recognising their own contribution, prior to exploring the way forward.
Sometimes individuals decide to do nothing – by understanding their triggers the heat dissipates. At other times they may plan the best way to have a conversation, or may engage in mediation or formal complaint processes. Clients have great insight into what is likely and unlikely to work, when they get help to detach from their conflict story, interrogate their options and recognise and manage risks. For individuals and workplaces the latter is an important consideration. Clients gain real confidence and motivation through making informed choices, they can congruently stand behind. At times their wouldn't always be my preferred option, but then I'm not them. For those who are interested more information is available at http://www.conflictcoaching.com.au/conflict-coaching
A coaching approach regards the best way forward is unique and contextual to each situation.

Nick Wright

22/11/2012 10:23:08 pm

Hi Rho and thanks for the note. I'm interested to hear about your work as a mediator and conflict facilitator and your reflections on what leads and maintains conflict, how to manage it and how to achieve deep change. Thanks too for the helpful link to the conflict coaching website. Two questions come to mind: how does the conflict coaching approach differ from the behavioural modification approach (TKI) advocated byThomas Killmann and do you have any examples you would be happy to share from your experience, e.g. what was the issue, how did you approach it, what happened as a result? I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Rho Sandberg link

24/11/2012 02:59:26 am

Dear Nick
I'm familiar with Kilmann's conflict styles, but not the behaviour modification approach - would be interested to hear more. The conflict coaching method really relies on a series of questions that while broadly structured in their sequence (following the cognitive and emotional dynamics that people tend to go through) is very open to what the client comes up with as the way forward. The coach listens for risks in the clients strategy and asks questions which bring pros and cons to the surface in order to elicit insight into potential risks. Cheers Rho

Donna Brown

21/11/2012 01:48:57 pm

During mediation processes I find it useful to ask the participants how they will handle it when they reach a "bump" and go off track. usually I pose the question once I've brought them to an agreement. Sometime, if there is a written agreement at the end of the process I'll incorporate that piece into the document as well.

Nick Wright

21/11/2012 01:52:20 pm

Thanks Donna. I think that's a really helpful comment. I sometimes pose a similar question when working with leadership teams, e.g. 'Since from time to time you will experience conflict as a team, let's discuss and agree in advance how you will deal with it when it does happen.' The advantage of addressing conflict proactively in this way is that it helps the team establish ground rules or rules of engagement when they are not feeling emotionally charged. With best wishes. Nick

Ken Hultman

22/11/2012 08:09:33 am

I've had good success using an instrument such as the Myers-Briggs as a tool to promote greater mutual understanding (other personality instruments would be just as useful). The results presenter by a facilitator or mediator provide a neutral context to examine how differences in temperament may trigger conflict, so they can stop personalizing some issues and look for areas of compatibility. When people have conflict they often have mistaken perceptions of other's intentions, so the instrument results allows them to move toward more accurate perceptions, which then can lead to deeper discussions of genuine differences in values, beliefs, and behaviors.

Nick Wright

22/11/2012 09:59:36 pm

Hi Ken and thanks for the helpful comments. I too have used MBTI as a conflict resolution tool. As you say, it can provide a shared frame of reference that enables both parties to step back and make fresh sense of what is happening between them and why. I've also used the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) which has some similarities with MBTI. Have you come across it?

I liked your emphasis on perception, how we sometimes attribute an intention to a person's action that's based more on projection than reality. It reminded me of cognitive behavioural coaching or therapy. Would you be happy to share an example of working with perception from your experience, e.g. what the issue was, how you addressed it with the parties concerned, what happened as a result? With best wishes. Nick

Leonida Reyes

22/11/2012 09:50:52 pm

Workplace conflict impinges on individual morale, motivation and productivity, not to mention its rippling effect to the rest of the organisation. As there are various tools and interventions mentioned in this thread, I would like to add the works of Daniel Goleman's on Emotional Intelligence and the Executive EQ, Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organisations by Cooper and Sawaf. Both have equally helped hundreds of organisations improve relationships at work based on the premise of self-awareness and that of others. From this evolved training and seminars which introduce the participants to measuring one's EQ, EQ Competencies, EQ Map, et.al.

People cannot change their beliefs, perceptions, or paradigms overnight. We can only influence or re-direct their behaviour through a gradual process of conditioning or re-conditioning their pattern of thoughts by giving them the right tools, environment, and empathic leadership. My personal opinion.

Nick Wright

22/11/2012 10:12:32 pm

Hi Leonida and thanks for the note. I think you make an important point about the impacts of unresolved conflict on the individuals concerned and on the wider organisation. Unresolved conflict is one of the most common causes of workplace stress.

I've read some of Goleman's work on EI but haven't yet read Cooper and Sawaf's work so thank you for the reference. Two of my own favourite books on conflict resolution are Cornelius and Faire's Everyone Can Win and Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication.

I agree with your comments about cognitive and behavioural change as a gradual process. You may be interested to glance at this blog too: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2012/06/cognitive-behavioural-coaching.html. With best wishes. Nick

Jagat Sarkar

23/11/2012 12:37:28 am

It is really a very interesting topic what I have seen and observed that conflicts are being created to satisfy once interest and many a times leadership uses the same to shape out his strategies ... whatever it may be I feel in majority of cases if leadership shows concern for such conflicts and know how to handle them it gets resolved, with creating a stressful work environment. Also if such things are not tacked in the beginning, it can spread like an virus and create a de-motivating work place.

Nick Wright

23/11/2012 12:41:30 am

Hi Jagat and thanks for the note. I agree with you that leaders have a particular role and interest in ensuring that damaging conflict is resolved before it spreads and demotivates people. Perhaps, in other situations, leaders also have a role in initiating and enabling constructive conflict, e.g. by challenging the status quo to produce innovation. What do you think? With best wishes. Nick

Jagat Sarkar

24/11/2012 12:20:26 am

Hi Nick, Thanks for your valuable inputs. I believe when ever someone tries to brings in change within a system, it increases the entropy of the system leading to more chaos, and the bi product of the same is - positive ( constructive conflict ) or negative(destructive conflict ) conflict .
The Challenge with the leader is how he / she manage the system to contain the chaos while retaining the energy with in the system.
My personal experience has been when ever a leader behaves in maximizing his /her own profit ( concerned about self) the conflict is generally demotivating and positive energy goes out of the system , however, on the other hand if the leader is concerned more about organisation as a whole and employees could relate to his ideas/vision.....conflicts can be resolved effectively leading to positive work environment.

Ken Hultman

23/11/2012 05:57:31 am

Hi Nick. I have a theory that people have two basic interpersonal needs: to be accepted and to be understood. When people feel accepted as persons, they open up more so they can be understood. When facilitators or team leaders create conditions conducive to trust, people feel accepted and share more. If people feel rejected or marginalized, however, they either tune-out or become contentious. There's a difference between the need to be understood, which is key to building productive relationships, and the need to be right. People who need to be right are often insecure and dogmatic in their thinking. In conflict situations they strive to win, sometimes by any means possible. They can be very destructive factors in teams and other relationships. In "The Third Alternative," Stephen Covey asserts that the major barrier to synergy between/among people is pride or hubris, which prevents the creative mixing of human abilities. He argues that, “The main problem of hubris is a lack of conflict." In an environment, where people feel accepted and understood, they feel free to disagree over ideas and this type of conflict can lead to creative results. Interpersonal conflict (where people don't feel accepted or understood), however, prevents synergy and leads to negative results. Some sort of individual or team intervention is necessary to deal with interpersonal conflict, so that synergy and the productive exchange of views can take place.

Nick Wright

23/11/2012 11:58:10 am

Hi Ken and thanks for such a helpful note. I really liked your notion of being accepted and being understood. It reminded me of Carl Rogers' core conditions in person centred therapy, or the need to find ways to reduce emotional arousal in order to think and behave rationally in Joe Griffin & Ivan Tyrrell's human givens therapy. I agree with Stephen Covey's view of pride that leads to arrogance or defensiveness rather than space for dialogue. I was also reminded of Adam Kahane's solving tough problems, where he speaks of the needs for generative listening as well as honest speaking up to build the kind of teams where conflict can be constructive rather than destructive. I would be very interested to hear more about any examples from your experience where you have applied these principles, e.g. what was the issue, how did you approach it and what was the result. With best wishes. Nick

Patrick Trottier MS

24/11/2012 12:19:06 am

In ‘conflict’ situations I have used a paradigm of: 'What do you 'really’ want to create'.

Here is an example: In one town in California there was so much conflict that the whole town was divided into two camps... the conflict escalated to the point of 'death threats' and burning of 'things' on people's lawns ... the 'town council' brought in a number of 'conflict resolutors' - each had their 'conflict resolution model' and they focused on resolving the 'conflict'...the more the ‘conflict resolutors’ and groups focused on their engaged conflict, the more they entrenched themselves in their reasons, stories and rationalizations ... nothing changed… the readiness was not there to move way from ‘their truths’……

They brought me in and asked me what to do and I told both the town council and the ‘groups’ that I did not care about what the ‘truth’ was, about their stories, nor were we going to focus on 'resolving the conflict'...

I then met with the two groups separately in the town center ... I just asked them what they really wanted – what they wanted to create – what was of real value to them... and captured such on flip charts –in their words ...

I also 'prepared' them separately to meet with the other 'group' at the end of the process (creating readiness). I brought both groups together and I mixed all the flip charts together .. I then asked each group to identify their statements - they couldn't because each group's statements were about 90% the same. They began looking for differences as was their normal orientation to each other. You see they all wanted the same thing for their kids, their families and their community as a whole - they were just 'stuck' in their 'truths'... .... as a total group, we had a number of dialogue sessions that facilitated ‘acceptance of ‘self’ and opened the process of ‘letting go’ to move to ‘creating something’...

Through the process, both groups forgot about their stories and 'truths' and their energy about 'creating' something ... as the process moved forward, they stared to 'see' each other as people again, not 'truths', or stories... they started to 'see' and experience each other in a different light - found common ground and they started to create something together... then we all worked together to put their creation into action by working together - and creating even more 'different experiences' that broke the bounds of ‘their mental framework’...

I do believe that the underlying ‘dynamic’ is that each individual shifted their ‘mental framework’ about themselves first, then about the ‘other’, then about the situation…

Moving into ‘creation’ vs. problem solving or ‘resolving the conflict’ realigned the ‘mental frameworks’, energy and focus but most importantly everyone was having different ‘concrete’ experiences and those ‘experiences’ were reinforced by other ‘new experiences’… I first learned this when living on the streets of Detroit when I was a kid…

I have used this approach with street gangs, within organizations, between individuals, groups, departments and in 3rd world countries...

Just another approach…

Nick Wright

24/11/2012 12:33:06 am

Hi Patrick and thanks for sharing such a vivid and dramatic account. I could definitely hear resonances with appreciative inquiry and solutions-focused approaches in how you dealt with the situation. I liked how you helped the groups shift their focus from problem to solution and from position to people, thereby creating fresh hope, possibilities and relationships for the future. I share your view that creating new experiences can build confidence that things can be different and motivation to persevere with and sustain the change. I've had similar experiences with groups that have easily agreed to shared values/behaviours etc. at a conceptual level, but it's only when they've experienced how it feels to do it that they've engaged at a deeper and more meaningful level. It sounds like we've had some similar life experiences with street gangs, organisations, in different countries etc. :) With best wishes. Nick

Patrick Trottier MS

24/11/2012 03:20:42 pm

Hi Nick - it is all about the authenticity and the sincerity of the human spirit embedded within the human connection - with self, and others... as you know ...

Thanks for the 'connection'... sounds like we could share some interesting street-level stories...

All the best...

Ysaac J. Chabo link

24/11/2012 10:33:27 am

The first question should be: What is conflict? The reason is that many people don't know the difference between conflict (Your INTEREST puts my INTEREST in jeopardy; in other words, if your interest prevails mine fails) and disagreement (different points of view about something). There are four basic ways of solving conflict:
1. Accommodate. (It creates a lose-win situation)
2. Aggressive. (It creates a win-lose situation)
3. Compromise. (It creates a lose-lose situation)
4. Cooperate.(It creates a win-win situation)
However, conflict could be avoided if the situation may be identified as just a disagreement which is much easier to resolve. Most situations that we call conflict are simply disagreements.
(Understanding and Managing Conflict is one of my 8-hour seminars as described in my website.)

Nick Wright

24/11/2012 03:45:27 pm

Hi Ysaac and thanks for the note. I like your point about distinguishing between conflict and disagreement. I wondered if you have come across the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) which helps explain how different people behave when they are in conflict. Sometimes, especially in cross-cultural situations, one person may interpret another person's disagreement as a conflict position. I found your four categories helpful. They reminded me of Thomas Killman's four categories: avoid, accommodate, compete or collaborate. With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Patrick Trottier MS

24/11/2012 03:22:16 pm

Jagat- excellent: "I believe when ever someone tries to brings in change within a system, it increases the entropy of the system leading to more chaos..."

Thus, my theorem is that 'chaos' is a natural part of transformation ... I see many orgaizations, when they hit this breach, the leaders fall back to the comfort of the 'status-quo'... or, try to 'mangage the chaos' rather than understand 'chaos' is an indication that real change is occuring... and natural 'forces' will emerge to generate new experiences to form and realize....

Not sure of the 'positive' and 'negative' framework... as the old man in the park says: "We'll see what transpires..."

But then, organizations in their present framework, are so fearful of 'letting go' and allowing openness, readiness and adaptability for emergence to be realized...

just my thoughts...

good stuff...

Nick Wright

7/12/2012 11:00:03 pm

Hi Patrick and thanks for your comments. Your perspective reminded me of compexity theory (e.g. Margaret Wheatley, Leadership & the New Science - Disovering Order in a Chaotic World). I agree that change experiences can sometimes feel chaotic, e.g. unpredictable and disorientating. Perhaps the sense of chaos can evoke anxiety, especially for those who feel responsible for leading or managing change or who feel more comfortable with certainty and control. This anxiety can evoke defensive routines, e.g. become more controlling or attempt to revert to the status quo. Anxiety can also be a source of conflict, e.g. when one party acts to manage their own anxiety in such a way that increases anxiety for another party. With best wishes. Nick

Manas Das

24/11/2012 03:23:53 pm

Hi Nick, I am scared to explain what I did after going through such thoughtful and brilliant approaches. At one point of time I was in the midst of a conflict between two of my senior colleagues, which was taking the business in a negative direction. Both of them were equally important to us. I used a simple technique. I asked both of them to write down what are their expectation from each other separately. Later on I called both of them and showed that thier wasn't much difference in thei expectations. Later I took them to a coffea house and reinforced their responsibilites to them. It helpe. My learning out of the entire episode was: - 1. Conflicts are often influenced by child ego stages, which often overshadows our sense of responsibilities; 2. It needs an approach from nurturing parent ego to get over the situation.

Nick Wright

24/11/2012 03:35:29 pm

Hi Manas and thank you for your note. I'm pleased you have contributed to this discussion. I found your reference to child and parent ego states helpful as it reminded me of Transactional Analysis as a helpful conflict resolution insight, approach and tool set. It sounds like you approached your conflicting colleagues, whom you saw demonstrating a child ego state, in a nurturing parent ego state in order to draw them into an adult ego state. Thank you for your reminder to consider ego states and their impact on transactions between people as an important factor in conflict resolution. With best wishes. Nick

Wayne Eells

27/11/2012 04:27:29 am

@manas - I have found that when a culture of safe communcation takes place, and individuals are able to communicate what the desired goal is, the conflict rarely ever appears. you see, we live ina culture where we are always put on the defense - our jobs, our budgets, our children, our mates and more. We need to get past that. Once safe communication takes place, creativity, innovation, solutions, and more start to take place. This is not a new idea, there is a ton of data for this. The problem is - it takes time and investment to create this culture.

For example, in hospitals where this safe communication culture takes place, medicine and other medical accidents are almost non-existant. Why? Becuase they realise that no one is attacking another person. They know that with this open communication they are trying to ensure patient safety and prevent millions of dollars in lawsuits. Nurses frequently communicate with Dr's when in the past that would create a war because how dare a nurse discuss the care with a Dr?

If people are able to focus on the goal at hand, and are able to speak and share without danger - wow. Conflict is gone.

Bill Brendler

24/11/2012 03:25:21 pm

My wife and I just completed our second e-book which will be available by the second week in December. It's a 32 page e-book with specific tools and templates titled "From Conflict to Cooperation - A Team Leader's Survival Guide". It will be up on our website at http://www.team-building-techniques.com/ for purchase at a very reasonable price. We have spent the last 20 years working with more than 400 teams at all levels of organizations dealing with conflict and the difficulties of resolving or reducing potential conflicts. We have seen conflict create innovative ideas and improve growth and profit. We have seen significant consequences of unresolved workplace conflict - often related to problems it has caused shutting down team members - disengaging people. We have seen unresolved conflict impact the decision making process where companies have spent millions on the aftermath of poor decisions. There are so many stories. We have traced unresolved conflict as the core issue to the number one problem companies haven't dealt with today. One thing we know is that the process to resolve conflict is about the same no matter whether it's with our spouse, significant other, team member or co-worker.

Nick Wright

24/11/2012 03:47:05 pm

Hi Bill and thanks for pointing us to this resource. With best wishes. Nick

John McCormack

24/11/2012 03:27:14 pm

Quite often, when people strongly disagree or take a genuine disliking to each other over something that should seemingly not be such an issue, it can be traced to a strong difference in personality …. the participants are literally “poles apart” in terms of their key personality traits. Their personality make-up translates into their communication style. All they perceive is the behavior emanating from the other person, but they don’t understand why the other person is compelled to behave in such a way.

Personality assessment can be used as a tool to first of all help the individuals understand their own unique personalities and related behavior, and then to take it to the next level to illustrate and understand the differences between the two persons and the related differences in behavior. Finally, use it as a tool to learn to adapt one’s behavior and communication style to that of the other. It may not be easy, but when both combatants adapt to each other, their communication gap shrinks significantly. Perhaps most important, they understand in a most objective fashion why the other person is the way he/she is and can even come to appreciate the differences and the value the other person brings to the organization.

Nick Wright

24/11/2012 03:52:47 pm

Hi John and thanks for the note. I think you make a helpful point that people tend to interpret and evaluate other people's behaviour based on their own personality-preferences and that this sometimes results in confusion, misunderstanding or conflict. I have found the Myers Briggs Type Indicator particularly helpful in this respect. Have you found any other tools helpful? With best wishes. Nick

Wayne Eells

26/11/2012 04:54:31 am

I have found that workplace conflict usually arises because the organization has created cultures of silence, or worse yet, hostile communication. The organization needs to make a committed effort to create a culture of safe communication. Once communication becomes safe, it is less hostile, less defensise.

Manas Das

27/11/2012 04:29:15 am

Hi Wayne, I though agree that the organization culture creates the basic platform for workplace conflicts, but what becomes more obvious is the 'esteem need' of individuals to prove self importance. On the process most often the individuals tend to forge the business importance and the purpose of their being at the positions. Ultimately the basic three factors become imprtant to these conflicting individuals: - 1. Who has the best access to the senior most person in the organization, 2. How many people are influenced/ affected by their decision and 3. What amount of budget one is handling. Obviously each conflicting individual tries to prove that he is better than the other one in either all or any of it, rest appart the business goals. I do agree, that communication plays a vital role in resolving them, particularly from the apex chair, but I feel other facotrs like delgation and control systems also need to be carefully examined.

Wayne Eells

7/12/2012 11:10:32 pm

Nick Wright

7/12/2012 11:05:50 pm

Hi Wayne and thanks for the note. I've found Adam Kahane's book, 'Solving Tough Problems - An Open Way of Talking, Listening and Creating New Realities' particularly helpful when working with leaders to help create a culture of safe communication. Do you have any examples of approaches you have found helpful to creating this kind of culture? With best wishes. Nick

Wayne Eells

10/12/2012 02:12:47 am

It takes a long time. I have found that working with Sr managers and getting them to get their minds wrapped around the concept of Safe Communication and its benefits has had the most success. One I get them onboard, I start working with their direct reports, teaching both of them the skills, and getting it really fired up. As they begine to get good at it, I take it down one more level. There are many other methods but it is one I have found most succcessful for implimentation.

Christine Milicich

26/11/2012 04:55:26 am

Too often we only consider the personal or interpersonal element of conflict. My questions would be: What is present in the system and the context that is contributing to conflict in the role to role situation?

Nick Wright

7/12/2012 11:20:58 pm

Hi Christine and thanks for the note. I think that's a great question. I've sometimes found that, for instance, cultures that intentionally or inadvertently foster competition (e.g. for influence, resources or rewards) can create an environment that engenders unhealthy conflict. I've also noticed that conflict sometimes arises from e.g. unclear differentiation between roles, scopes of relative authority etc. Did you have any specific examples in mind? With best wishes. Nick

Patrick Trottier M.S.

26/11/2012 04:56:10 am

.. the last few comments bring up interesting questions:

Can the 'culture' ( as well as communication norms) of an organization be considered a source of, or an 'influencer' of, the patterns of conflict distinct from the actual behaviors of people?

Is 'culture' considered an 'entity' in itself?

Does such thinking come from Kurt Lewin's Field Theory; B = f (P, E), meaning that ‘behavior is a function of human and environmental dynamics’.

If people change their behaviors, does this change the culture? Or do you 'change the culture' to change people's behavior?

Hmmmmm....

Nick Wright

7/12/2012 11:25:51 pm

Hi Patrick. Great questions on culture. I particularly liked your quotation from Lewin. You may be interested to have a glance at this blog which aimed to speak to similar questions and received some very interesting responses: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/11/what-is-culture.html. With best wishes. Nick

Manas Das

7/12/2012 11:40:28 pm

Hi Patrick,
It all depends how does onedefine 'culture'. To me, whatever a mand does in a given set of environment is an outcome of his/ her culture. And a sum accumulation of individual behavious creates a 'culture'. Therefore, individual and sulture of an organization/ society mutually influences each other. In an organization, where an individual is joining on board with aspiration of making a career, often finds himself in conflict with the environment itself, and that results in attition.

When we talk about Lurt Lewin's Field theory, the environment definitely encompasses the behaviour and culture at large.

If the eh change in behaviour would have not resulted in change in culture, I suppose the entire theory of Group Dynamics and OD would have become meaningless to the business.

Rick Johnson

27/11/2012 04:31:29 am

@Patrick: Your comments could have been (and perhaps should be) the stake in the ground for a whole new thread. You might want to consider that :-) (Patrick opened up the “culture” part of the conversation)

@Manas: Your brief comment opens up a few dozen really fruitful topics. :-)
I found your last statement to be especially provocative and would offer an insight that has been useful to me for many years. All cultures leave some room for individual variation, which manifests as observable behavior. Thus, changes in observed patterns of behavior do not necessarily imply that the "rules"--loosely defined, a culture consists of rules that are maintained and enforced by "members"--have changed. For me, a culture has "changed" if one or more of its rules have been changed. This means that at least one behavioral pattern that was forbidden before the change has become a template of "good" action, or has at least become acceptable by the "members." Or alternatively, behaviors that were “OK” or even “good” before become forbidden. A good example of this, one that I have lived through many times, concerns the behavior of "bullies" in managerial jobs. It is possible to expunge this behavior through the use of (basically) Lewinian group methods, and in fact such methods are the only means I know of to accomplish that. When bully behavior is changed from being acceptable to being grounds for adverse sanction, a real change in "culture" will have taken place. The engine of change, in my experience, has always been some derivation or other of Lewin’s theory of group dynamics, as outlined in his seminal paper, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics " (1947).

I hope you find this helpful.

Best wishes to you.

Rick Johnson

7/12/2012 11:49:12 pm

Hi Rick. I found your comments on culture stimulating, especially the notion of individual variations of behaviour within a wider culture of prevailing norms or 'rules'. You may find some of the comments under this associated blog interesting: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/11/what-is-culture.html. I was intrigued by your mention of Lewinian group methods. Could you say something more about what that entails and do you have an example of what it could look like in practice? With best wishes. Nick

Marie Miyashiro

27/11/2012 04:33:46 am

Hello Nick - I'm inspired by this thread about empathy in the workplace. You referenced Marshall Rosenberg and the Nonviolent Communication (NVC) process last week. For me as a consultant for team process, empathic connections at work is the one driver of all the stuff people say they want more of - productivity, profits, personal meaning, collaboration, innovation, etc. (There's a bunch of growing research on this - see below.)

NVC describes empathy as a two-way street of empathic listening and honest expression. In this mutual flow where we can connect to each other's "needs," defined as universal needs, not specific to a person, place or thing (which makes it a strategy instead of a "need,) no conflicts exist because there are multiple ways to find strategies that meet all needs. The two-way-ness is what makes empathy a practical productivity booster and not a "soft" process - it's all about meeting more needs, those of the team member to the customer/client.

Example, if you want a project rollout to have certain elements, and I want different elements, we might have conflict because these are many different specifics to meet the same needs for progress, efficiency, impact, etc. If we start with the needs instead of the strategies, we'll arrive at strategies that meet more, if not all needs. The key in our work with teams and group decision making is that one of the highest needs people have is the need to contribute to others. So, when they see/hear what matters to others, their threshold for flexibility around their strategies shifts while still maintaining integrity and connection to the needs behind their strategies. It's a both/and approach, not either/or. This is the basis of not only successful strategies but the "Wow! It feels great to be unified," kind of collaborative responses we see in our work - often with teams that start in conflict or with multi-stakeholder projects where there might not be a shared sense of purpose or direction.

This is the basis of mediation - needs awareness and voluntary shifting of thresholds of agreement to meet the needs of what we call the "We." Perhaps this is why William Ury, founder of Harvard Law School's negotiations program says, "NVC is one of the most important processes you'll ever learn." Marshall and I co-authored a chapter in the 2nd edition of The Change Handbook, a resource guide for whole system change, and my book, The Empathy Factor - Your Competitive Advantage for Personal, Team and Business Success was published last year by his publisher. It's about how to meet the needs of the "We" while holding the needs of the "I" and "You," too. This process overrides personality differences to see what matters to each other. The system dynamics - agreement on shared reality, as we call it - supports or hinders the connection to individual needs and the needs of the We.

For this reason, we focus on helping teams and groups articulate and agree on shared reality as a backdrop for harmony among individuals. I'm amazed by the results we see in the room - often we're the second or third intervention to a challenging situation, and this approach works "miracles" for them, by their own account.

The research I referenced above as well as a list of "universal human needs," is in The Empathy Factor and on our website, www.EmpathyFactorAtWork.com.

I'm wondering if this is helpful to you, others?

Thanks for this conversation and best wishes for stimulating positive change in workplaces.

Nick Wright

8/12/2012 12:07:40 am

Hi Marie. Thanks for your encouraging feedback and for sharing more about NVC and the empathy factor. I found your explanation and examples helpful and I would certainly be interested to see your book. One thing that struck me about the attention to 'needs' and need-fulfilment in the approach you outlined was the similarity to insights and approaches I've encountered and worked with in Gestalt coaching and group work. Is that an area you are familiar with too? You may be interested to have a glance at this blog as an example: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/10/more-on-meetings.html. I would be very interested to hear any responses. With best wishes in the good work you do. Nick

Dennis Kripp

2/12/2012 12:41:23 pm

Maybe some conflicts are not meant to be resolved? I have a conflict that has been going on for over 10 years. The small business client has unoffically agreed to be cordial but that is about it. Is this an opportunity for "Polarity Management?"

Nick Wright

7/12/2012 11:37:02 pm

Hi Dennis and thanks for the note. I found your comment intriguing, especially concerning the idea of 'polarity management'. I too have experienced conflict personally and in organisations that, in spite of all attempts to resolve it, remained alive and unresolved. I think I've become less idealistic and more pragmatic over the years, focusing on 'what does this situation call for' (e.g. a minimum degree of civility and cooperation in order to meet customer expectations or other demands) rather than 'how can we create perfect harmony'. The next questions leads from the first, 'what will it take to achieve what the situation calls for.' If you have any examples of how to work out polarity management in practice, I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

George Anderson MSW BCD CEAP

9/12/2012 05:40:24 am

This is indeed an interesting thread. However, some consideration should be given to situations in which only one of the parties is willing to participate in mediation or conflict management. I provide Coaching for "disruptive physicians" which is focused on Emotional Intelligence Skill Enhancement in self-awareness, self-control, social awareness and relationship management.

Nick Wright

9/12/2012 05:45:50 am

Hi George and thanks for the note. I agree that a precondition for most conflict resolution situations is that all parties involved are willing to participate in reaching a resolution. In my experience, some parties are often more willing than others to engage, particularly at the outset. This is influenced by, for instance, how badly a party feels affected by the conflict and what a party believes he/she/it will win or lose by reaching a resolution. I would be very interested to hear if you have any examples of dealing with such a situation, including how you approached it and what happened as a result. With best wishes. Nick

George Anderson MSW BCD CEAP

10/12/2012 09:25:29 am

Nick,
I am sorry. I have simply not been successful with conflict resolution.

Robert Crosby

9/12/2012 12:44:40 pm

Being willing is not the issue in business,
only in volunteer organizations. In business,
if a conflict between two persons is
creating lack of productivity then the boss
must take the responsibility and order
them to solve the conflict. He cannot order
them to like each other, but he can order
them to work together well. I have done
at least 100 third-party conflict sessions
in business. They are not about being
willing. They are about the boss being
unwilling to tolerate the loss of productivity.

Nick Wright

9/12/2012 12:55:01 pm

Hi George. I agree that the workplace is an arena within which unresolved conflict, insofar as it is proving detrimental to the organisation, can not or should not be tolerated (hence my caveat in my response above: 'most conflict situations'). In such situations, those involved may agree to different ways of working together to avoid sanctions being imposed against them, rather than through some positive desire.

Having said that, I haven't often seen situations where the line manager has been prepared to take such proactive and definitive action. Often, conflict is left to simmer until, unfortunately, it becomes both entrenched and detrimental to the parties involved and to wider teams or the organisation. This is usually because the line manager is anxious about becoming involved in conflict or believes he or she lacks the skills to deal with it. With best wishes. Nick

Robert Crosby

10/12/2012 02:10:56 am

Conflict is often left to simmer. What a waste! While managers most often do not have 3rd party skills, the bigger problem is that their power differential makes it difficult to manage a conflict between two reports. The 3rd party must be neutral, skilled in behavioral specificity, low in power over the two in conflict, and highly skilled in 3rd party conflict steps as Richard Walton developed them and Chris Crosby has written about them. Request these steps at: rcrosby1909@hotmail.com

Internship training in chennai link

15/5/2014 02:41:21 am

VLSA Global Services specializes in final year projects training and guidance, based on the very latest research publications in journals of international reputation like IEEE. Every year we revise our project offerings to the latest publications.