|
CONFLICT RESOLUTION & RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT... … Appropriate Resolutions™ for home, work, community, and everywhere in between. |
|
© 1998-2008 Joseph Ravick and Appropriate Resolutions™ |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
Conflict is about differences! Differences about what people said, did, and about why they did that which triggered someone. And from the 'other's' perspective, "why does someone keep doing those things which they must have known would be triggering?" As humans, however, we have that amazing ability to rationalize what we do, regardless of the consequences. From there, it is only a short step to an alternative reality where others deserved what happened them, and anyway, "it wasn't so bad." Relationship-focussed resolutions require that first, people accept responsibility for at the very least, the consequences of their actions. For example, if the words hurt someone, that's a consequence which needs empathy, acknowledgement, validation, and if necessary, an apology for the 'discomfort' experienced. Although accepting responsibility in this way will not solve the problems, it will kick-start the bridge-building necessary for a lasting resolution. When mediating, interveners often hear widely differing tales about what took place between the disputants. Since it isn't up to mediators to be judges of truth, I often had to facilitate some reality-checking about outcomes and consequences to help disputants move past their 'hurt'.
JANET AND AGNES: TEAM-MEMBERS WITH A "SHE HATES ME" PERSPECTIVE:
Two co-workers, Janet and Agnes, both well-educated professionals, had reached the stage where Janet fearfully refused to talk to Agnes without a witness present. She also believed that Agnes made it a point to constantly check with other team-mates about what and how Janet did her job, including "breaking into" Janet's computer. She told me that she "knew Agnes hated her and was out to get her." Agnes on her part denied the allegations, also aggressively stating that "if Janet did her job the way she was supposed to, checking wouldn't be necessary." As I say, the first three 'going nowhere' sessions only served to highlight their differences.
So, by the end of the third session I had decided to apply some immediacy, also known as 'reality checking'. With both women tensely frozen in their seats having articulated nothing different from what had surfaced so far, I posed a question to them both. "Clearly the two of you have a problem. My question is who will leave and who will stay. As I understand it, the staff on your integrated 24/7 team needs to be interdependent if it is to be useful and effective. And that involves ongoing and functional communications. That's non-negotiable according to your supervisor. For the next session I'd like you both to consider who's prepared to leave and move on before discipline is applied. Or, if you prefer, write down any personal needs which, if fulfilled, might make working together possible." The silence was deafening. |
