confronting workplace conflict term definition introduced in · 2017-12-07 · now your aggressive...

Confronting Workplace Conflict

Glossary

Term Definition Introduced in:

Active Listening Looking at somebody, letting them know with our eyes that you're really listening Module 3

AggressiveTypically displaying the behavior or tendency to make his own feelings paramount and willing to hurt feelings and break ties to serve self; individual is often brash and abbrasive particularly in a conflict Module 2

Angry Bellowers Often need to vent, to blow off steam Module 4

Body Language Gestures and physical movement used to consciously and unconsciously communicate with others Module 3

Communication Styles The way in which an individual communicates with another Module 2

Conflict A disagreement between two or more people Module 1

Directors Task-oriented, lower-energy who avoid conflict by always have the answer - aggressive Module 2Mediation A form of facilitation to assist two or more people in managing conflict Module 5Misunderstanding Someone said something that was not properly understood Module 1

PassiveTypically displaying the behavior or tendency to regard others feelings as paramount and lacks active display of negative feelings or emotions; individual is often quiet and walked over Module 2

Passive AggressiveTypically displaying the behavior or tendency toward negative feelings, resentment, and/or aggression in an unassertive passive way; examples include stubbornness and procrastination Module 2

Personality Styles Passive and aggressive personalities broken down in to four different types Module 2Reflective Listening Reflecting back what they did not say - so what the motions are behind the words Module 3Relaters People who are people-people and are always willing to help others - passive Module 2Rephrasing Repeat what they're saying so you make sure you understand it Module 3Silent Steamers Someone who is upset, you know they're upset, but say nothing Module 4Six-step Process An effective process for managing conflict Module 5Socializers Upbeat, high-energy people who tend to avoid conflict by promoting their ideas - aggressive Module 2Thinkers Often engineer types or people who like to work with numbers - passive Module 2

CONFLICT - CWK120927-Module 1 Page 1

CONFLICT MODULE ONE – UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT Module number one – Understanding Conflict. A company called me to mediate

the conflict between two employees not too long ago. And one of the employees

had been there for 16 years, and the other for 17 years. These employees had

worked well together, and had cooperated throughout their career in this

organization. One managed a department on one floor of the office, and the other

managed a different department on a different floor. Well, the company went

through a reorganization and relocation, which meant that these two employees

now had departments located on the same floor, and they were sharing the same

space, and they were supervising some of the same people. And it just wasn’t

working. When we have conflicts in the workplace like this one, or other situations

that you’ve been involved in, what’s behind it? I mean how did two people who

used to work great together, all of a sudden you find them at each other’s throats?

How does that happen? Let’s take a look at it. There’s multiple causes of conflict.

The first is misunderstandings. Sometimes we misinterpret a conversation. We

misinterpret what somebody’s saying. Sometimes it’s because of rumors, you

know, the office gossip mill. But misperceptions cause conflict because people

often feel attacked or blamed in various situations. We have conflict in the

workplace like this or other situations. What’s behind it? What causes it? Well if

we look at some of these causes and understand it, we mentioned one of the

basics is misperception. But this can also lead to a second cause, which is fear.

Sometimes we’re afraid of failure. We’re afraid of change. We’re not sure what’s

going to happen, and that scares us. Then that creates confusion. Confusion can


also be a cause of conflict – not knowing what’s happening or not understanding

why something is happening. And then of course there’s difference of opinion.

Sometimes it’s because we’re passionate about what we think the way it should

be, and sometimes it’s because we’re really not open to other possibilities. And

all of these can lead to conflict. And how we handle this conflict is different for

each of us, because the thought and communication processes are different. So

stop and consider the possible causes behind the conflict that you might be

occurring. Is it misunderstanding? Has someone said something that was not

properly understood? Is it fear? Is it maybe confusion or misperception, or

maybe difference of opinion? See, once we understand that, we can start

considering how to resolve the conflict. For example, if you think about a conflict

you’ve been involved in, most of the time is the result positive or negative? Well,

let’s be honest. Most of the time conflict is negative. And that’s why we don’t

really want to talk about it. Until we start to discuss it and understand it, we can't

resolve it. So until we can resolve it, we can’t move forward. And unfortunately,

the truth be told, ignoring conflict doesn’t make it go away. In fact, usually when

conflict is ignored, it gets bigger. It becomes more of an issue, and it’s almost like

the 800 pound elephant sitting in the room. Everybody knows it’s there, but

nobody’s talking about it. So our first steps to handling conflict is we have to

understand it. We want to start by looking at the root cause. So if you’re currently

involved in a conflict, take a look at what is your root cause. And then second

thing, I want you to make a commitment after today that you’re going to address


that conflict, whatever it is. We’re going to show you a step by step process to do

that. But sticking your head in the sand certainly won’t resolve the conflict.

[End of recording.]

CONFLICT - CWK120820- Module 2 Page 1

CONFLICT MODULE TWO – ADJUSTING TO PERSONALITY STYLES Module number two – Adjusting to Personality Styles. And I’m sure If you’re like

many folks who have taken many other courses, you’re familiar that different

people have different styles. Commonly there’s four different styles. And

depending on the system that you may have learned, there might be as many as

16 different personality styles. For today’s course, we’re not going to get real in

depth about the different styles, but use a brief overview. The styles can be

broken up into two different ways – let’s say passive and aggressive styles. The

passive style – let’s call them the relaters and the thinkers. The relaters are

people who are people-people. These are the folks who often have the candy on

their desk. They love helping each other. They are always there to help others,

and they love being a part of a team. Your thinkers, well they’re a little different.

They like to think about things. These are often your engineer types, your folks

that like to work with numbers, and they tend to be more individuals. Both are

passive in the fact that they don’t like conflict. They withdraw at all costs to avoid

conflict. Now your relaters, they avoid conflict by giving in. They placate.

Whatever the other person wants, they just give it to them so they don’t have to

deal with the conflict. The thinkers, on the other hand, they withdraw and go

think about it. So if they don’t want to be confronted, they often say you know

what? I’ve got to think about that. They’d rather think about it than put

something out there that could potentially be a conflict. So you want to consider

that when you’re looking at the conflict that you’re having to deal with. Now

aggressive styles, they deal with conflict just a little bit differently. Sometimes


they will handle a conflict. But they each handle it just slightly different. Now

your socializers, these are your upbeat, high energy people that are excited.

They tend to be more out there if they’re people-people. And they tend to avoid

conflict by promoting their ideas. They’ll often talk louder than others. They’ll get

more excited about their ideas, and they’ll try to convince others that their way is

the right way. Now the directors, they’re more task oriented, a little lower energy

– not quite as high as your socializers, but they’re certainly very strong

personalities. They tend to say, “Get it done.” And they avoid conflict by always

having the answers. They know what needs to get done. They’re highly

competent. And sometimes their high competence level – over confidence, if you

will – is how they avoid conflict. They just become more confident than anyone

else so people just believe them, and they don’t have to deal with the conflict.

But notice, each of the four different styles handles it differently. So I want you to

take a moment, if you’re involved in a conflict right now I want you to think about

which style are you dealing with? Depending on the style will depend on how

you handle it. Certainly a director who is trying to convince you of his answer is

right, being very, very strong, very in-your-face, very bold, is a very deferent type

of conflict than the relater who just says, okay. You’re right. Two different

personalities. And oftentimes what happens is what works with the director will

not work with the relater. And what works with thinkers won’t work with

socializers. So you want to start thinking about what’s the style of the person

that you’re encountering, and how do you need to address that? So let’s take a

look at the communication styles as well. We have a couple different


communication styles. We have passive, we have passive aggressive, and we

have aggressive. Let’s start with the passive communicators. We talked about

the passive and the aggressive and the personality styles just a few minutes ago.

Your passive communicators tend to give in, and they tend to violate their own

rights. They tend to let everybody else have their way, and just kind of be a

doormat sometimes. And you see that with passive communicators. So when

you’re dealing with a conflict with a passive communicator, becoming strong and

walking on them, becoming stronger, and trying to convince them – they’re just

going to lay down and go, okay. You’re right. That technique will never work

with them. Your aggressive people, you can be a little stronger with them.

Certainly you would never want to get into an arguing or yelling match. But you

can be a little bit stronger with your aggressive communicators. So you want to

be able to know which type of communication style they’re most likely to use.

Now your aggressive communicators – they’re going to walk on the rights of

others. They’re going to make sure their rights are respected, but they’re going

to take advantage potentially of other people’s rights. Now the passive

aggressive person – nobody’s rights get respected there. They tend to kind of

lay down when the conflict confronts them. But behind that person’s back,

they’re going to act all strong and talk and appear to agree, even if they don’t

later. So we have to be cautious of the passive aggressives. And passive

aggressives often come out when the individual they’re dealing with has a

stronger personality than they do. So you’re going to see oftentimes a, for

example a socializer can become quickly passive aggressive, or a relater


becomes quickly passive aggressive when you have a director that they’re in

conflict with. They’re certainly not going to go head to head against a director, so

they might appear to agree. But then behind it, when the conflict seems to be

over, they’ll have their way. So again, nobody’s rights gets handled there. So it’s

important we understand the communication styles that each of those have to be

handled just slightly different. But we have to start with basic skills here, and that

starts with being assertive. If you’re a communicator and if – excuse me. If the

person you’re communicating with happens to be passive or aggressive or

passive aggressive, you need to be assertive. Assertive means that you respect

their rights. When you’re assertive, you assure that the person you’re talking to

feels heard. It empowers them to envision a win-win situation. See, there are

some specific assertive skills that are very, very effective in managing conflict.

So let’s look at a couple of those. The first is, when we’re communicating, the

tendency to want to say our side – our point of view, and express what we’re

thinking and feeling – tends to be stronger than wanting to hear the other side.

But if you’re not allowing the other person to get heard, they can often feel taken

advantage of. So I mean think about it. As a human being, we think what’s most

important to ourselves – knowing that we’ve been heard and understood.

Another thing that listening does, it empowers us to start envisioning a win-win

situation. If we know that somebody else’s wants and/or needs, then we can

start thinking about how we can make that work, and balance that with what we

want or need so we can start anticipating possible win-win outcomes. It also

opens the door to someone else to really listening, hearing, and understanding


us because they know that once they’ve been heard and understood, they’re

more likely and open to hearing us and understanding us. So let’s take an

example of how what we’re seeing in these conflict situations, and learn a

technique that can be very, very effective in communication process, particularly

in conflict situations. Imagine for a minute that you and I work together and

there’s a problem. If you’ve ever seen somebody explode, get angry. Blow up.

That’s what we’re going to look at. So think about what happens. I’m going to

ask you to prepare yourself, and I’m going to get angry with you for just a

moment, and I want to talk about what your reaction is. Ready? You and I work

together, and I come at you and say, “You make me so mad! You messed up.

Now we have to spend time and money fixing it.” Now what is happening in your

mind when someone comes at you with that kind of approach? Well generally

speaking, the first thing we start to feel is shutting our brain down. We stop

listening. We’re thinking of other things, focusing somewhere else. What is it

that is said causes a reaction that way? Well think about when somebody says

“you.” When somebody says you, it feels like an attack. It puts us on the

defense. We feel like we have to defend who we are, what we’re thinking, what

we’re saying. Or we feel like no, wait a minute. That wasn’t me. So we don’t

really listen to the rest of what’s being said. So another key point to that

approach is if someone says to somebody, “You make me mad,” can you really

MAKE me mad? I mean we’re talking about this – and the feelings and

emotions. If I tell them they made me mad, then I gave them control over what I

was feeling. How much control do you really want to give to other people? I


mean what we’re going to do is in assertive communication, use an approach

that makes sure that we can keep the door open for the communication process,

and keeps control of our emotions within ourselves. That way, what we can do is

be in control – not get upset, not get angry – and we have the wherewithal to say,

“I’m mad when the project gets messed up because now we’re going to have to

spend money fixing it.” And when I used the words I, when, and because, this is

truly a formula that works extraordinarily well and produces phenomenal results.

Now if you think about it, what words did I change? I changed one word. Instead

of saying “you,” I said “I.” That means that the other person can actually hear

what I’m going to say without putting the barriers up and without turning their

listening off. Now we have an opportunity for a conversation. It also means that

I’m saying my feelings. My emotions are mine, and I’m not going to blame

somebody else for them. I’m going to maintain control of myself. So what can

we look at in this process? Well, we start using it and we say to somebody those

three words – I, when, because. Human nature is that we’re going to start this

and say, “Yeah, that works pretty well. I’ll try that.” And we’ll go to someone,

“I’m mad at you.” Wait a minute. You just said I’m mad at YOU. We’re back to

ground zero. Get yourself a quick note. Don’t say the word “you.” Avoid you

word you. The more you can avoid you and certainly not at the beginning of the

sentence, the more open the conversation process is going to be, and the easier

it is, you’re going to have to be able to resolve these conflicts and to be able to

move forward.

[End of recording.]


CONFLICT MODULE THREE – EFFECTIVE LISTENING SKILLS Module number three – Effective Listening Skills. In a conflict, have you ever

noticed that our tendency is to say whose fault is it? Who said that? Who did it?

And we end up getting trapped in this sea of blame and pointing fingers games.

And it’s ineffective. We’re not getting the results that we looked for. So what you

really want to do is focus on what’s happening – where do we need to go? And

what I’m going to share with you is a series of four different questions, and when

you can apply these four questions, you’re going to be able to start focusing on

the results and where you’re going instead of pointing fingers at each other. The

first question is ask, where are we right now? See, it doesn’t matter who said it.

It doesn’t matter who did it or whose fault it is. What really counts is where are

things at right now? And once we understand this, then we have a chance to

move forward. We say where do we need to go? What are we trying to

accomplish? This is our focus and our attentions. Where do we need to go?

The third question, what are the actions we need to get there? We need to get

specific. What is it going to take? What do we need to have to do? Who’s going

to do what steps to get the results we’re looking for? Then of course the fourth

question, how can this problem be prevented in the future so that whatever the

situation is, we can anticipate it? If it’s going to come up again, we need to make

sure it won’t be a problem in the future. And see by wrapping our conversation

around these four questions, what we’re doing is setting up for an opportunity to

say, okay, whatever this conflict is, let’s work out where we want to take it and

where we want to go. And we can become more effective in the outcome. Now


of course in this conversation, the listening skills are key. Not only do we need

assertive communication, which is how we say what we say, we need to make

sure we’re listening effective to be able to move through the conversation. So

let’s look at the key listening skills we’re going to need to use in a conflict

situation. The first one is what we call active listening. You’re probably familiar

with the term. Now the hard part about active listening in a conflict situation is

that it’s meaning I have contact – looking at somebody, letting them know with

our eyes that you’re really listening. It’s also about body language. For example,

if we cross our arms in a conflict situation, the other person might think we’re

angry – we’re closed off, we’re shutting down, and that we’re impatient and that

we don’t want to hear what they’re saying. We’re sending a certain signal. In a

case like that, we’re not going to get very far in our conflict. What we need to do

is make sure that we have awareness – what is my body language? What is the

message that I’m sending to anybody else? And open it up. Make sure you’re

not crossing your arms, not crossing your legs, you’re sitting relaxed, you’re not

in attack mode, you’re not in defensive mode, and you’re listening to what they

have to say. The next key in listening skills is what we call rephrasing.

Rephrasing is saying what they’re saying to make sure that we understand it.

When we do that, we want to use a few of their key words – not everything they

said exactly, because then it’s going to sound like we’re parroting, and that can

become very irritating to other people. So we want to rephrase using a few of

their key words, and then the rest of our own, and put it in our own terms so that

we’re clear on whether or not we’re understanding what’s being said. Now the


third key in listening skills is what we call reflective listening. This is very

powerful in a conflict situation. Reflective listening is reflecting back what they

did not say - so what the motions are behind the words. For example, I might

say to somebody, “It seems like you’re really frustrated.” And they may never

have told me they were frustrated. But I can recognize what they’re feeling and

reflect that back to them. They will know I really understand where they’re

coming from. Imagine for yourself how powerful it is if somebody else hears you.

They can rephrase what you said and then they reflect back what you’re feeling.

When you know that other person hears and understands your thoughts, that is

huge. And this is a big step in actually openly communicating – discussing any

concerns or issues, and coming up to the solution for them. Now let’s take our

assertive communication skills, the “I” statements, the four questions, and our

listening skills – active listening, rephrasing and reflecting – and let’s apply it to

some of those personality types that we dealt with. Now you can combine the

assertive skills by using “I” statements as well as asking the four questions, as

well as your listening skills, to be able to move forward in almost any conflict

situation.

[End of recording.]


CONFLICT MODULE FOUR – TAMING TOXIC TYPES Module number four – Taming Toxic Types. Oftentimes in the corporate

workplace, we come across many, many different personality types, and many of

them are very, very toxic. There’s the angry bellower, the silent steamer, the

drama queens, the great gossips, the lying deniers, and the crying culprits, and

of course many, many more. So let’s take a few minutes and go through each of

these and understand where they’re coming from and a little bit about them so

we have a chance to be able to move forward when we encounter them in a

conflict situation. So let’s take our assertive communication skills and we’ll apply

the “I” statements, the four questions, and our listening skills – including active

listening, rephrasing, and reflecting – and let’s see how we can deal with each of

these different personality types. Say for example you happen to be dealing with

someone who’s an angry bellower, and they get angry and loud. What can we

do? One thing I’ll share, just like anybody else, we can have a bad day. Angry

bellowers might need an opportunity to vent, to blow off a little steam. It can be

very effective if we simply give them an opportunity. So allow them an

opportunity to vent. They’ll be ready to move on to a productive conversation.

But keep in mind when somebody is so angry that there’s just no way you’re

going to have a productive conversation, we might have the desire, or the

thoughts that maybe we need tell them just to calm down. Now of course, if you

say to them, “You need to calm down,” those are fighting words. That means

escalate – get angrier. So it is back to those “I” statements we talked about

under assertive communication. We need to say to them, “I need 30 minutes.” I


know we’re thinking I don’t need 30 minutes. THEY do. We can’t say that,

though. But we CAN say I need the 30 minutes, and it’s very important to them

that we can talk at – and give a specific time. Because if we don’t give them a

specific time, they’re going to feel like we’re blowing them off and they’re going to

feel like the conflict was avoided, just putting it off, ignored. And that’s not what’s

going on. If we give them a specific time – and usually about 30 to 60 minutes

with someone who’s angry is appropriate – they will know that you’re ready to

talk about it. And because you say I need 30 minutes, it’s not you telling them to

calm down. It’s telling them, I’m going to take care of something right now, and

then we need to talk. This sets up a positive atmosphere to have that

conversation. What do you do about the silent steamers? You know the person

– they’re upset, you know they’re upset, but they say nothing. If you have

somebody at work that just stays silent in the conflict situations – they just shut

down – how do you handle it? One possibility is that in many cases, the person

who is silent really needs the time to think. They want to process it and take a

few minutes to do that. Give them that opportunity. Sometimes it’s just a few

minutes while they’re sitting there, and sometimes you need to reschedule with

them. The other possibility is this – when people are avoiding conflict, one way

some people avoid it is by going quiet. They just don’t say anything. They shut

down. Then they’re out of it. They don’t have to participate in the conflict

situation. Now that doesn’t mean the conflict goes away. So what we’re really

looking at is the conversation. If you ask somebody a question, what they think,

what the possibilities are, and they go quiet, and you’re concerned the possibility


is they’re shutting down to avoid it, I’m going to recommend to wait however long

it takes. They may really need 30 or 45 minutes. The catch is that we don’t

usually have that much time. Most of us can’t really sit quiet long enough for

somebody to talk, period. We feel like we have to fill the silence. If we do that,

the chance is we let them off the hook by talking – by taking over for them. So if

necessary, have something there that you can work on and just sit there. Work

on something quietly. If they get up to leave thinking that the conversation is

over, they have spoken to their action. You can say to them, “While I’m waiting

for you, please sit back down. Whenever you’re ready, we can talk about this.” It

gives them a very clear message that going quiet, shutting down, is not a way to

get rid of this conflict. We really do need to have this conversation. Now

sometimes, we have somebody who’s a drama queen. They go over the top in a

conflict situation. How do you handle that? Well, recognize for them that drama

is normal and natural. If we’re uncomfortable with it, it’s because it’s not our way

of dealing with something. It’s just a difference in behavior styles, and that’s not

a right or wrong answer. If we can say, you know, it’s okay. That’s how they

think and function and process, and I can accept that, it goes a long way towards

us handling it appropriately. Now what can you do with this person? You can

say to them, well I’m the kind of person that really wants to do a quiet, focused

conversation. If I said it like that, what did I do? Going back to assertive

communication, I said “I.” I didn’t tell them YOU don’t need to be so dramatic;

hey, calm down, set it down – that kind of thing instead of telling them what to do.

I’m simply setting my own boundaries. I’m saying for me, this is how I can


handle it. This is what I need to do. And I set the boundaries with them. We can

actually agree on a process. We can say, okay, how do we make this work for

both of us? We have different styles and different approaches to this. So how

can we have this conversation in a way that works for both you and me? Ask

them. You’ll find that because you care enough to ask the question about how to

handle it, they’re going to be more willing to work with you on setting a process

so they can follow it as well. Now, what do you do if someone is just a great

gossip? They just want to talk, and they’re spreading those rivers that lead to

conflict, and we’re afraid of something escalating? The way to handle this is

when somebody comes in, I might say, “Thank you for telling me that. Now is

there anything that you and I need to talk about specifically that is a specific

approach we should take on this? What is your recommendation?” What I’m

doing is letting them know that we don’t just want to gossip. If we need to talk

about it, that’s okay. If it’s not something that I need to have a conversation

about because it involves somebody else, I’m letting them know that I’m not

going to participate in their gossip. Now what do you do if someone is a lying

denier? I mean whatever it is, they’re going to deny it. If somebody is denying,

contradicting, trying to argue about something, what’s really behind that? Well,

they typically want to pull you into an argument. If someone pulls you into an

argument, guess what? We both lose. I’m not going to allow it to happen.

There’s three steps for dealing with somebody who is denying or contradicting.

The first step goes back to listening skills. We said rephrase. So if somebody is

lying to me or they are denying, what I’m going to do is rephrase what they’re


telling me. I’m going to say, “If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is

...” and I use a few of their key words and put the rest into my own. When I say,

“Is that accurate?” I can ask them. That way, if they want to clarify something if

I’m misunderstanding, they have the opportunity. If it is somebody that is in line,

what could happen is one of two things. They could say, oh, this person is really

focusing on what I’m saying and repeating it back to me, and then they choose to

correct it right then and there. If somebody does this on a consistent basis, I

might even go as far as follow up our verbal conversation with a written email

conversation with my understanding. Now what does that do? If somebody’s

lying about something, it puts them on notice that I am very aware of what they’re

telling me now so if something comes back later, I can refer to our initial

conversation. It’s a process of turning that person from waiting to lie, or from

doing the lie, to looking at oh, wait a minute. This is going to come back to me.

And they start making choices to be honest and clear. So I start with the

rephrasing. After I’ve rephrased what they’ve said and give them the opportunity

to correct any of my misunderstandings, what I’ll say is, “From my perspective,

this is what I see. This is what I think. Here’s what’s happening.” And what I’m

going to do is give them an option. I’m going to say, “Now would you like to

handle it by doing A or B?” If somebody wants to pull me into an argument that

denies or contradicts, whatever it is, by handling it this way I’m not allowing

myself to get pulled into the argument. I’m rephrasing what they say,

acknowledging what they’re telling me, and I’m giving my perspective. And then

I’m putting options on the table. I’m not going to argue. It doesn’t matter who


said it or who did it. What I want to do is move forward without an argumentative

process. Now another possibility is if they’re in a conflict situation and you have

somebody who cries, the crier always takes it personally. They take it

emotionally those kind of things. What can we do? Well, in many cases it’s just

like crying. We can simply let them use a tissue and continue the conversation.

It’s okay to keep talking. Now if somebody’s really crying, it’s very emotional

from them, we really can’t keep talking, and we probably need to reschedule on

that case as well. I want to make sure I’m giving them the privacy they may

need, being respectful of what’s going on for them, and I don’t want to put it off,

because if I do, I might be giving the message that I’m blowing this off and I’m

not going to deal with it, and that can make it worse. What I can do is say to

them, “I need to go take care of something else. I’m going to come back in about

15 minutes. We can talk then.” By doing it that way, I’m letting them know in

saying I’m going to give you privacy and I’m going to respect what’s happening.

At the same time, we can still have the conversation. It lets them know that I’m

working with them and that we will be able to talk about it. So we’ve applied

some of our certification techniques, some of our listening techniques, and some

of our different personality styles there.

[End of recording.]


CONFLICT MODULE FIVE – SIX STEPS TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Module number five – Six Steps to Conflict Management. Let’s look at conflict in

general. What we’re going to do is walk through a six-step process for managing

conflict, and it’s very powerful. It’s effective in what it does, and I’ll share with

you statistics. When people go to court over a lawsuit or whatever the issue is,

better than 60 percent of the time, they walk out of the door of the courtroom

saying I don’t care what the judge just said. I’m going to do it my way. And

guess what? We know time and time again, people go back to court over the

same issues because they want to do it their way. Oddly enough, when people

go through mediation or facilitation, better than 90 percent of the time when they

walk through these six steps, not only do they resolve the problem, they follow

through with the resolution. So if you consider your odds of whether you want to

fight about it and let somebody else make your decision, or whether you want to

work through it, working through it is significantly more successful than getting

somebody to pick sides. So I’m going to walk you through this process and help

you to understand how to become an effective mediator through the process of

six steps. Step number one to managing conflict is make sure to give everyone a

chance to talk. Each person needs to know they’ve been heard, they’ve been

understood. Now if I’m involved in a conflict, should I talk first? Well, if you

remember in the assertive communication techniques, we always acknowledge

the other person before giving our own thoughts. It’s important to let the other

person go first. Sometimes people say to me, well wait a minute. I’m involved,

too. I want to go first sometimes. The bottom line is it’s going to take work. It’s


going to take work to let the other person go first. That’s their natural inclination

as well. So if you try to go first, chances are they’re not really going to hear you,

so you’re not really going to have the opportunity to start looking for some win-

win options. Always let them go first. Now if you’re going to act as a mediator,

you have two employees, for example, that are in conflict, who should go first?

The key here is let them decide. So you can ask them who wants to go first. If

they can’t decide, flip a coin, some neutral way of deciding who should go first.

When each person is talking, it’s very important to use all the listening skills

we’ve discussed. Specifically you need to actively listen, give me eye contact,

and be aware of what my body language is saying. I need to rephrase what

they’re saying using some of their key words and putting the rest into my own,

and give them the opportunity to clarify anything that I might have

misunderstood. And you want to reflect their emotions back so they really can

see and understand where they’re coming from. Now after each person has had

a chance to talk, the second step of the process is going to be to make a list of all

the issues, and then decide the discussion order. When I say one list of all

issues, underline that word ONE LIST. Very, very key. And here’s why.

Generally speaking, in a conflict situation, each person involved thinks we’re

talking about, arguing about different things. We don’t even agree very often on

what we’re arguing about. So what do we need to do? If we’re divided, we have

two separate lists, we often get confused and we’re still on separate pages. So

it’s the first step in bringing us together, is to actually have the conversation and

look at options. And because our list is something that we’re going to talk about,


that sets us up for the process. Anybody who’s concerned should put their items

on the list. Now as far as discussing discussion order, sometimes we can say,

“Well let’s talk about this first,” and then we can go through and pick. Sometimes

we can’t. So we look for a neutral way of deciding to talk about the order.

Maybe we turn out picking topics, flipping coins or whatever. But you need to

decide which items you’re going to talk about first. When we have the

conversation about the issues in step number three, conflict management is each

person must generate multiple solutions. Please underline MULTIPLE

SOLUTIONS for each person. Step three is generating those multiple solutions.

Let’s look at why this is important. For example, if I’m involved in a conflict, my

first solution to the conflict is going to be something I want, I need, and it’s not

necessarily and usually not going to be period dot, take it into consideration what

somebody else wants or needs. So what does that mean? If I just thought of

that one solution and stopped there, I would dig my heels in on that being the

only solution there is. If I’m required to come up with multiple solutions, what’s

going to happen to my mind is, oh. There’s more than one possibility. It can be

difficult to get me to generate multiple solutions. Sometimes you’ll say, okay.

That’s the first idea. That’s one possibility. What would a different option be?

What would a different possibility be? It might be something like, I don’t know.

Then you could look at me and say okay, how do I go from there? If I say, well I

don’t know, I would say if you did know, what would the possibilities be? It’s

sending the message, hey, it’s important to have multiple solutions. So continue

asking. You heard me right. Even if the two employees or the individuals


involved do not want to come up with multiple solutions, it is critical to the

process to have multiple solutions in this process. So continue asking. You

might even ask if you asked another person – your best friend, the boss, an

employer, whatever – what do you think they would say? What would somebody

else recommend? And continue asking questions until we generate multiple

solutions. Now this is true of each person involved in the conflict. After we’ve

developed multiple solutions, what we need to do is start looking for okay, which

of these solutions would we go with? Which ones are you going to use? In

some cases, it’s easy to say, okay, we’re going to use this one. We’re going to

use this one. But in other cases, we’re not sure. So what can we do, then, to

eliminate the solutions we’re not going to consider, discuss, or narrow it down?

We can look at the possibility of combining solutions or taking part of one solution

and part of another and working through what those solutions really could be.

Now once you know what solutions you’re going to go with, step number four –

we’re going to look at step number four. That is to make a list of action steps in a

timeline. Now on action steps, here’s an important detail. If we say, well we

need to communicate more. Is that an action step? Not really, because a week

from now when we’re back arguing, we don’t know what it meant. We don’t know

what it looks like and we don’t know how to make it happen. When we have

action steps, they must be specific and they must be measurable. So for

example, we say we need to communicate more. Okay, how do we make that

happen? Well, we schedule meetings. Okay, how often will the meetings be?

Well, every two weeks. Okay, which day of the week? Let’s do Tuesdays.


Okay, what time? And we set it every other Tuesday at 11:00 in the morning,

and we’re going to have a meeting. Now we have a specific action step. It’s

specific. It’s measurable. When we list action steps for solutions, if it involves

one person – a different person, whoever it is in the conflict – note that whichever

person is doing the action step, you have to have assignment to each step as

well. And if there’s a time on it, it needs to be done by, list that as well. Kathy is

going to do this by this time. We know exactly what it looks like, and we can hold

Kathy accountable to it as well. Now in step number five in the conflict

management process, we need to decide if a written agreement is appropriate. If

I’m involved in a conflict, we’ve done all the talking and we’ve worked out what

we’re doing and what the steps are. Then we’re going to say, do we need to

have a written agreement for this? Or having the conversation, have we handled

it? It’s going to be the option of the people involved in the conflict. If we decide

to have a written agreement, we’re going to write it out. If we decide not to, that’s

our choice as well. Step number six, destroy all notes. Many times I say that

and people look at me and say, what? Wait a minute. Here’s what I’m going to

share with you. If you’re involved in a conflict situation, and we think anything we

said is going to come back and haunt us later and create a problem, are you

really going to openly discuss the problem and solution? No. We’re going to be

afraid of it coming back and biting us later. In conflict management, it’s important

you know it’s confidential – that whatever we say here is really going to stay

here. We set it up right at the beginning. I’ll give you an example of how

important this is. In mediation, as a mediator, not even a judge can subpoena


me. You’ve all seen court cases where they make an attorney give privileged

client information, or they turn to professional counselors and they have a

counselor give up privileged client information. You cannot bring a mediator in.

It’s because it’s that important. Federal law and state law both protect the

mediation process so that everyone involved knows it is really confidential.

There is no record keeping on this. Of course then questions become, well wait

a minute. The HR department or whatever it is, we document all this stuff. What

I can share is that in this example as I stated earlier, when the company called

me, what was the documentation? Simply whether or not we met. That’s it. And

what does it let the people involved know? That you really do care about the

confidentiality and that it’s okay to openly discuss what is going on. Now let’s do

some examples. Let’s look at those steps, the different skills we’re discussing

and applying it to conflicts. The first one, imagine for a minute being involved in

a conflict personally, and you yourself are involved in the conflict. Have you ever

had a situation where someone else who’s not your boss or supervisor is telling

you what to do and how to do something? I mean this can be a complex

situation. So if we’re going to take and apply these steps to that situation, what

could we do? Well, if someone is telling me what to do and they’re not my boss,

if I start with my assertive communication techniques, I’m going to acknowledge

what they’re saying. I’m going to let them know that they’ve been heard, and I’m

going to actually ask to share my perspective. I’ll make sure that I’m using my

“I” statements. I’m not going to attack them and I’m not going to use the work

“you.” I’ll make sure all of my listening skills come into play, and I’ll go through


the steps. So they told me, Kim, you need to do these files, or you need to

handle that customer service, or you need to do that report. And I’m looking at

them saying, wait a minute. You’re not my supervisor. Who are you to tell me

what to do? I’m not going to say that, but I’m certainly going to think it. What I

am going to say is if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re telling me I should

be doing this report. I’m going to rephrase what they said. After I’ve done that,

I’m going to say, can I share my perspective on this, because I know what my

supervisor wants me to do, and that report is not on my agenda. And so I don’t

tell them, hey, I’m right. You’re wrong, or anything else like that. I simply state it

from my perspective – my point of view. If they continue to say no, you need to

get it done, I’m going to say, well let’s talk about this. What do I need to know?

What is the concern or issue from your perspective? And I’m going to ask them.

I’m actually going to get out a paper and pen and write down a note. Okay, so

you’re concerned about this, you’re worried about that. Tell me what else. And

I’ll say okay, let me list what my concerns are as well and I’ll jot them down. I’m

concerned about making sure my boss is happy with what I’m doing, making sure

I complete whatever task that I’ve been assigned to, and I’m going to list those

issues. And then I’ll say, okay. Looking at these different concerns that we both

have, which one do you think makes sense for us to talk about first? And I’ll ask

them. They may not know, but I’m going into my conflict management stuff. It

doesn’t matter. I can use the process informally and have it work. So I’ll ask

them, okay, which do you think the possibilities are? That’s one option. What

other possibilities? What could be another? And if I have my boss, what do you


think my boss would recommend? What do you think my boss would tell me?

And I would continue asking questions so that they give me multiple solutions.

And I do the same thing for myself. Okay, I think here’s a possibility. And I got to

make myself look at different options of what possibilities are so that I can make

sure I’m being open to more than one solution. After we’ve done that, if it’s

obvious which way to go, we’re going to say okay, here’s the action steps. How

can I handle this? Then I’m going to go into the four questions. Remember?

Where is it right now? Well, we’ve had that part of the conversation. Where do

we need to go? And I’ll say how can this problem be prevented in the future? If

this person has a tendency to come to me and tell me what to do, how can I

prevent this from becoming a concern in the future? Guess what I’m doing? I’m

empowering them to figure out how not to give me instructions if they’re not my

boss. So instead of me telling them, they develop themselves. If we continue

our process, do we need to have a written agreement? Yes or no. It depends. If

it’s the first time, chances are he’s going to say no. We’ve had similar

conversations multiple times, okay, let’s work something out. Let’s write it down.

And we’ll tear up any notes about the rest of the conversation. The only thing

that’s written agreement is what we’ve developed. So that’s the conflict process.

But let’s take a look at how to apply this if we have two employees who are

arguing. If I’m the supervisor, I’m going to act as a neutral mediator in helping

this conflict situation. What do I do? How do I handle it? What steps am I going

to take? I’d like to share with you a key starting point foundation. If I’m the

manager to employees in conflict, I’m going to walk through the management


conflict process. It’s very important for me to stay completely neutral because if

I’m not neutral, I suddenly become part of the problem. And if I’m not neutral,

then it’s not going to work. Now how am I going to stay neutral? When I was

trained in mediation, I learned what I call the four nos. What are the four no’s?

The four no’s are I have no opinion. I never give an opinion. No side. I do not

take sides in the situation. No advice. I do not give them advice on anything.

And no solutions, because if I give a solution, it’s not theirs and it won’t work. So

no opinions, no side, no advice, no solutions. If I make sure to follow the four

no’s, I can stay neutral. Let’s take a look at an example. Two people that report

to me are arguing over how to organize the work place – where the files are

placed, where the computer is set up, desks, chairs, whatever – because they’re

reorganizing the office. So we’re going to start out with step number one.

Everyone gets a chance to talk. So I will simply ask them who would like to go

first. If I decide who goes first, then that’s taking sides. Silently decide and ask

who is going to go first. Flip a coin if you need to. When the person is talking, I

use all my listening skills. I’m actively listening. I’m rephrasing. I’m reflecting

back any emotions. When I turn to the second person, now it’s their turn to talk.

If you’ve ever been involved in a conflict, you’re going to be aware that the

tendency is to start arguing with anything and everything the first person said.

And that’s not what I’m looking for. At this time, I simply need to hear their side

of it – their perspective, what they think and feel. Now if I turn to them and say,

don’t worry about what the first person said, what are they going to worry about?

They’re going to worry about what the first person said. I don’t want that to


happen. So instead, what I tell them is what I do want. Communication is very

effective. Specifically I turn to the second person and this is what I’m going to

say. “Pretend like I haven’t heard anything, that I really don’t know anything

about this. In your own words, tell me what’s happening.” That way, I can be

focused truly on their words using all my listening skills actively listening to them,

rephrasing what they’re saying, and reflecting back their emotions. Now in

addition to each person involved, now really seeing that they’ve been heard and

understood, we can start to talk about it, and there’s another benefit here. When

the first person is talking, chances are the second person really doesn’t want to

hear it. And they’re not really focusing and listening. Now when I rephrase and

reflect back what the person is saying, they can hear me. The main reason I

hear the person they’re arguing with – sorry. They can now hear the person

they’re arguing with because they hear it through me, which means both of them

are more likely to start understanding what’s going on, and this is a big part of

having them work out what is happening. In step number two, we’re going to

make a list of the issues. I can even do the writing on one side saying, okay, you

tell me what you think the concerns are. And one person says, “I want the file

cabinet here.” Now how do I list that as an issue or concern? If I say putting the

file cabinet here, that’s really their solution. So I want to instead list the location

of the file cabinet is the issue. What I’m doing is neutralizing what the concern is

and opening the door to multiple solutions. The other person might say, “Well, I

think the monitor should be located over there.” And I’ll do the same thing –

location of monitor screen. That way, what we’re doing is having a list of issues


that we can talk about, yet doing it in a way that is not state direct answers. Let

them decide what issues they want to talk about in what order. We talked about

this. Sometimes they say, well let’s go this way, and they can pick. Sometimes

they say, okay, we don’t agree on the discussion. We’ll flip a coin and each

person chooses the next topic. Give them that option, but let them choose.

What we’re going to do is move to step three – generating multiple solutions. So

I might say, okay for talking about the location of the file cabinet, what do you

think the possibilities are? That person is going to tell me what they want. Say

for example, Kim, that’s one possibility. What would another be? Well, I don’t

know. It doesn’t make sense to put it anywhere else. Okay, what’s an option

that doesn’t make sense? What would a different possibility be? What do you

think the other person wants? Where are they saying it should go? So I ask for

multiple solutions. After one person has given me multiple solutions, I need

multiple solutions from the other person. So I’m going to say, well what do you

think the possibilities are? Well, I like it here; or I think it should be over there. I’ll

ask what’s another, and what’s another and what’s another, until we have

multiple solutions from both individuals. I might say something like, okay, of

these multiple solutions, which one seems likely? They may agree right off the

bat, or they may say well she wants this one; he wants that one. Or I want this

one. Okay, well let’s eliminate solutions that we’re not going to consider. We will

slowly go through in a process of elimination. So we’re going to start narrowing it

down. If we don’t get all the way down, we can say something like okay, we’re

down to these two possibilities. Let’s set it aside and come back to it. We can


move on to another issue. Sometimes what happens is they say, okay, the

monitor screen. If I could put the monitor screen here, you can put the file

cabinet there. And we start combining solutions, tying issues together, and

letting them get some give and take. The other possibility is that we discuss

through the issues and they generate solutions on the different issues.

Sometimes what will happen if someone will come out and it becomes clear to

both of them, hey this is really a better answer. The center is going to work best.

If we tie all of these together, now we’re starting to get lots of – we’re starting to

look at those possibilities of options. We’re going to look at step number four,

which is the list actions step. We’re going to ask them in this example we’re

doing right now, it’s fairly sample. Okay, so you’re going to set this up, you’re

going to set that up. It can be pretty easy. Specifically it’s a little more complex,

but we’ll dig in with questions. How do you make that happen so there are

specific a measurable actions? Now written agreements. On this, maybe the

only thing you need for a written agreement is a check list. What is getting

moved where, and who is going to do it? We really don’t need to have a lot of

detail on the whole conversation. We just need a simple check list. Sometimes

the conflict is a little bit more involved. It’s about personalities and differences,

those kind of things, and we say yeah, we want a written agreement. And we

start getting into it – here’s what we’re going to need to accomplish. We get a

little more detail, and it’s going to be based on the needs of the people involved

in the conflict. Our last step of course is to destroy any notes. So other than a

written agreement, check list, whatever it is we need to decide, the rest of it


where we all listed the differences, where we listed the solutions, we’re going to

tear up those notes and throw them away. It lets them know we really do respect

them and their confidentiality. Let’s take a look at a conflict and apply it to a

group situation. How do we handle that? Let’s imagine for a minute we have a

group of employees. They’re very angry at management because there’s going

to be a new dress code. What do we do in a case like this? If it’s a large group,

you get up to 15 or 20 people or more, it would be very difficult for each person to

talk. In a case like that, we’ll have them get into groups themselves based on

what their opinion is and what they think. And then each smaller group can have

a spokesperson so that if one person says, well we think it should be a different

color or different style or whatever it is, they can be in groups based on that, and

the groups select the spokesperson. We really want to let them know that each

person is going to be heard and understood, and we’re just being realistic based

on the number of people involved. So the spokesperson talks, and that’s our

step one. Step two is to make a list of issues, deciding everything we’ve talked

about. So specifically we have a pad of paper, a flipchart on the wall, and write

out the different concerns. We ask the groups for solutions. And we do the

brainstorming sessions. Then we start narrowing it down to which solution we’re

going to go with. Then we’ll list specific action items on a timeline. With a case

like this, it would be very important to the management to get involved and have

them participate in this conversation. They’re open to what the process will be

for making it work, open for having some give and take. You might say okay, we

need a new dress code. What are the possibilities for the new dress code to look


like? What are the possibilities on a timeline for implementing it? So we want to

work with the employees in making it work and deciding if it’s going to be a

written agreement. Order for changing anything that’s been up as far as a dress

code is going to have to be written. If we’re going to change anything as far as a

timeline, we’re probably going to have to write that as part of the policies and

procedures. Then any other notes – the flipcharts, the rest of it – we don’t really

need that, so that’s all going to need to be destroyed. So we need to walk

through the same steps in each case, whether involved in personal conflict or

whether acting as a neutral mediator for other people. This can be formal or

informal, then with the group as well. So the keys to this process in making

management work is the first part is we have touched on this already. It’s every

single person knows they’ve been heard and understood. That’s so important for

each of us as human beings. Many times we go to court, walk into the

courtrooms thinking I’m going to have my day in court to speak. And the bottom

line is we don’t really listen. So many times when people get frustrated because

they haven’t been heard and understood, because of that they’re not really open

to what the decision is. In a case like this with the steps we’re taking, where we

really give each person a chance to talk, we’re really listening to them and using

our listening skills, they know they’ve been heard and understood. The other

part of this, the reason why it works, is it’s their decision on the solution. Instead

of me telling them, they’re going to tell me, and they’re the ones who have to

make it happen. So when we manage conflict effectively, what are the benefits?

Well, the benefits are that we know the conflict doesn’t go away. It just keeps


coming back. We lose productivity; we lose a lot of time. And we often have a

lot of frustration and anger. So we effectively manage it. We’re demonstrating to

the employees that we really do care, we’re going to listen, and we’re going to

make it work out. When we can apply these six steps, it’s amazing the result that

we can start to achieve.

[End of recording.]

confronting workplace conflict term definition introduced in · 2017-12-07 · now your aggressive...

Documents