You may be sitting with an employee or a manager in front of you. He or she talks about a conflict at work, which swallows up all energy, and which contributes to the fact that a longer sick leave could be imminent.
Stress, illness, loss of energy, frustration, depression, powerlessness, etc. are often the result of a conflict that has not been dealt with in time. To avoid this, you as a manager should know how to approach conflict resolution before it ends badly. You can ask yourself the questions:
Here you can read about different techniques, systems, models and mindsets, which may bring you closer to an overview and an insight into conflict resolution.
Conflicts and solutions
In order for a conflict to be resolved, work must be done on both the case and the relationship. There must be an agreement that all parties can live with, and the relationship between them must be relaxed and become clearer, perhaps even friendlier. Only then is the solution sustainable.
Not all conflicts are equally sensitive. However, the different types of conflict are often entangled in each other.
When you can identify the type of conflict, it is easier to arrive at a possible solution. If you don't try to find a solution, the conflict can escalate in different steps, which the conflict ladder below shows.
The conflict ladder shows the course of a conflict if you do not stop and try to repair the relationship that has been damaged.
Discrepancy
At this stage, the conflict is barely a conflict. The parties find it interesting to exchange views and can benefit from listening to each other. Person and matter are still separable.
Personification
Now both parties to the conflict feel that, despite all good will, they can no longer close their eyes to the fact that the other party is incompetent, malicious, etc. The conflict is now about the person (or group). Perhaps, officially, the matter is still talked about a lot, but in reality it now functions more as an excuse to deal with the other party's bad qualities.
The problem is growing
At this stage, the parties are really no longer interested in understanding each other. What they are individually concerned with is how they can find holes and weaknesses in the other party's argument, and possibly even find the decisive argument that can checkmate the other. (At least in one's own eyes. There is also a tendency for the other party not to admit that he/she is dull). There is therefore no development in the discussion, and when it ends, both parties are effectively where they have been all along. At best, they have discovered certain weaknesses in their own argumentation, which they will try to cover in the future. Perhaps tactical argumentation is being conducted.
Conversation is abandoned. The parties avoid each other and they seek allies. At this point, one of the parties decides to "cut through" and carry out what he/she himself thinks is sensible. (You can possibly take advantage of the other person's absence, holiday etc.) When he/she finds out about this, he/she becomes angry.
Enemy images.
The original problem is forgotten. The good and the bad are scratched out, and as a result of this anger, the victimized party gradually forms an enemy image of the other party, which, however, very quickly follows with a similar image. Both seek to win proselytes and those who try to remain neutral may risk being pressured to choose sides. When the parties separately describe the process so far, their descriptions now begin to diverge strongly from each other. Now we go after the man, not the ball.
Either enemy images are reinforced to such an extent that one of the parties to the conflict runs its course, or one or the other arranges a situation that humiliates the other. (This can be done, for example, by putting forward an argument which is admittedly difficult to refute, but which also humiliates the other party vis-a-vis third parties). Anyone who loses self-control runs the risk of being scapegoated or sidetracked.
Open hostility.
At some point one of the parties seizes. It is often he or she who has felt humiliated by regular threats. The goal is to damage the opponent. It can, for example, be a written warning ("On the occasion of ... it must be emphasized that...") or bitter words ("There will be consequences").
Now both parties find it necessary to let action follow words and give the other a taste that can show that you mean it seriously and that you possess the necessary strength to carry out the threats made. Now the war is being escalated with the aim of rendering the other party incapacitated at the least possible cost to oneself. This is approached with the same dogged rationality and professionalism as a "real" war. It is about paralyzing the other party's nerve center and uprooting the evil, both parties believe.
Polarization. At this last stage, the parties become so embittered that they don't care if they go to court themselves, as long as they can add new pain or suffering to the other party. The war is no longer waged "professionally". This is the 'suicide pilot' stage, where there is no room for both parties. The conflict is intractable and the parties can only move forward by geographically separating themselves from each other.
Now you know roughly the phases of the conflict, and you have the best chance of resolving the conflict if you intervene as early as possible. One of the methods that can be used in conflict resolution is Giraffe Language ®.
Non-violent communication, also called "Giraffe Language ®", is more than a method of communication. It is also a process that is about training and developing our ability to empathize. In this way, we can achieve a contact with each other that makes it possible for both our own needs and those of others to be met with voluntariness and joy.
Giraffe language can be used to prevent and resolve conflicts in both personal and work contexts.
Girafsprog ® can help us achieve greater joy, satisfaction and gain understanding and deeper contact between people. It becomes possible to tackle stress, conflicts, misunderstandings, condemnation, burnout and depression in a different way. Girafsprog® can be used to
prevent and resolve conflicts in both personal and work contexts. Girafsprog ® can contribute to a clearer dialogue, better cooperation and openness between people. The Girafsprog ® method is used in educational contexts, in the social and health fields, within the legal system, in the business world and in international peace mediation. So there is good help to be had in this method when it comes to conflict resolution.
The giraffe and the wolf
The giraffe and the wolf are chosen as symbols for two ways of speaking.
Wolf language symbolizes the criticizing, demanding, blaming and condemning way of conveying one's messages. The wolf language has the most words to describe what is right, wrong, what is wrong with others and whose fault it is. We see wolf language as a tragic, inappropriate expression of feelings and needs, because wolf language rarely arouses other people's dislike.
The language of the giraffe, on the other hand, symbolizes the language of the heart. I stay in my own half of the court and tell honestly how I feel and what I want without criticizing and making demands. At the same time, I listen empathetically to the other. The giraffe language makes it possible to express oneself and to listen to the other with openness and trust for a fruitful contact.
The model
The design of the basic model is: To honestly express how I feel - without blaming or criticizing, and to clearly request what will make my life richer without making demands. This is done concretely by presenting these 4 points:
Based on the model, a query on Giraffe language sounds e.g. such:
These 4 "steps" are used both when speaking and listening to another person.
Success stories and failure stories have a very special power. They contain the seeds of self-fulfilling prophecy. We make the stories come true. If you have once been successful in resolving a conflict, why not dig deep into history and understand the secret behind this success so that you can repeat it again and again.
Appreciative Inquiry is an organizational development theory that is firstly based on the basic assumption that in all organizations and with all employees, there are success stories, and that in these success stories, there is a great potential for development.
Secondly, that development always takes place on the basis of experience, and by taking the most positive experiences as a starting point, the path to development becomes easier. The challenge is to make these experiences visible and active in the organisation.
A third assumption is that we cannot separate inquiry and change. When we initiate an investigation, we will also initiate the change process. Appreciative Inquiry focuses on what works in the organization. By thoroughly studying the success of the organization and the individual employee, you find when and how the organization and the employees work best and, not least, what it is that makes a success a success.
This allows you to further develop the organization when it is at its best and not on the basis of problems when it is having a hard time. Once you have studied the successes thoroughly, it is a matter of finding out where you want the organization to move to, so that together you can create the desired future.
In relation to handling conflicts, appreciative inquiry says that you must notice what happens when you resolve a conflict in a good way.
Think about what the circumstances were like, how you handled them and how you might have can use this knowledge in future conflict.
Two leaders are at each other's throats. They sit in the same leadership group, but there is ice between them and they work against each other. You are the boss, and the conflict has started to spread in both departments. The employees have started to carry on the fight.
You could consider mediation
When you find yourself in the middle of a conflict, you have often lost trust in the person or people you are on edge with. Perhaps one has almost lost faith that a solution to the conflict can be found. In such situations, mediation may be an option. The mediator is impartial and helps the parties find common ground and ways out of the conflict. Mediation is a meeting between two or more people in conflict and an outside person, which ensures that both what you disagree about and the consequences it has had for the individual are discussed.
The parties find the solutions themselves
Mediation is something completely different from law, where it is often about getting right and winning over the other party. Instead, dialogue is used to get to the core of the conflict, so that the parties come to understand each other's motivations and see their own share. The mediator does not judge right or wrong in the conflict and does not make any decisions, but helps the parties to find the solutions themselves.
Mediation/conflict mediation is a way of handling conflicts, where a neutral third party through a structured process helps the disputing parties to find a satisfactory solution themselves. It is voluntary for the parties to participate, and what takes place before, during and after a meeting is confidential. This way of dealing with conflict has many names. In addition to mediation and conflict mediation, it is also called judicial mediation, conflict council or simply mediation. The fundamental thing is the parties' voluntariness and active participation in finding solutions to the conflict themselves.
The mediator/conflict mediator does not normally come up with proposals for solutions and does not make any decisions, but only acts as a process manager. The parties can withdraw at any time if they no longer wish to participate.
All conflicts between people are basically suitable for mediation.
Mediation/conflict mediation can be carried out both as direct meetings, where the parties meet together with an impartial mediator/conflict mediator, and as indirect mediation, where the mediator/conflict mediator holds separate meetings with each of the parties and, by agreement with them, conveys messages between them. In Denmark, direct mediation/conflict mediation is most widespread. All conflicts between people are basically suitable for mediation/conflict mediation. However, there are people who do not have the necessary ability or willingness to try to understand the other party's situation, and here mediation/conflict mediation is not suitable as a conflict resolution method.
Proceedings of the meeting
A mediation/conflict mediation process can proceed in slightly different ways depending on the mediator's working style. A typical meeting process is described below:
The mediator welcomes the meeting and explains what needs to happen and reiterates that participation is voluntary. Confidentiality and rules of the game are agreed upon for the meeting, the most important of which is that the parties agree to listen to each other and not to interrupt the other party when he or she has the floor.
When the parties have accepted the rules of the game, they each talk about their experience of the conflict. These stories can take a long time, and the mediator/conflict mediator supports the parties in expressing what they have experienced, what needs and interests they have and in understanding each other.
When the parties have told each other everything that is important to each of them and have nothing more to add, they move on to the next step in the mediation process, where they agree on what the most important issue or issues are for them to have solved.
The parties then come up with proposals for solutions to the conflict. This is based on the brainstorm method, where the parties propose all possible ideas, which the mediator/conflict mediator writes down without taking a position on them. When there are no more ideas for resolving the conflict, the parties evaluate the various proposals and negotiate solutions that both find good and realistic.
Finally, the parties may enter an agreement which is written down. Both parties receive a copy of the agreement, and the mediator/conflict mediator ends the meeting by thanking the parties for their efforts in reaching a concrete solution that both can live with.
A mediation/conflict mediation meeting can last a few hours, a whole day or be divided into several meetings.
Fill out the form to book a 30-60 minute session.
We will respond within 24 hours
Contact us today and hear about your options
