Conflict man­age­ment – a way out of the crisis

Conflicts sometimes arise in working life. They are un­de­sir­able, but often un­avoid­able. Pro­fes­sion­al conflicts often lead to stress, and it can be hard to come to a mean­ing­ful com­pro­mise. People may say things they do not mean and small arguments can turn into big crises. Of course, the best thing for a peaceful work en­vi­ron­ment is if they don’t arise in the first place. However, since they cannot always be avoided, it is important to solve existing conflicts. Good conflict man­age­ment helps to find solutions and deal with crises.

De-es­ca­la­tion is the main goal of conflict man­age­ment. Disputes or even quiet, simmering dis­agree­ments must not simply be ignored. This is because they not only influence the company’s mood, but also its pro­duc­tiv­i­ty – which is why rapid conflict res­o­lu­tion is the way to go. Conflict man­age­ment offers methods that have proven their worth in various conflict sit­u­a­tions to ensure that an honest, factual dis­cus­sion does not turn into a concrete dispute. A solution cannot always be achieved by the warring parties by them­selves, however. In these scenarios, a third person should act as a mediator who works towards resolving the conflict without es­ca­la­tion.

However, conflict man­age­ment is not about winning an argument or ordering a prover­bial ceasefire. Both would interrupt the conflict only briefly, but in the long run it would flare up again. Therefore, good conflict man­age­ment works to ensure that both sides un­der­stand each other and make con­ces­sions. Conflict man­age­ment is less about finding an actual solution to the immediate problem – rather, it offers strate­gies and methods that help the two parties to com­mu­ni­cate pro­duc­tive­ly with each other and thus find a solution to the problem.

There is a dif­fer­ence between conflict man­age­ment and conflict res­o­lu­tion. This is because conflict man­age­ment is only used in sit­u­a­tions where something can be ne­go­ti­at­ed. The par­tic­i­pants have different interests and there will have to be a ne­go­ti­a­tion to what extent certain interests are taken into account and others are abandoned. If, however, it is less a matter of interests than of basic needs, these cannot be ne­go­ti­at­ed, only mediated. This is where conflict res­o­lu­tion comes in. Since both are often connected, a clear de­mar­ca­tion is not always easy and usually one uses both methods in business settings.

Conflict res­o­lu­tion must be dis­tin­guished from conflict man­age­ment and conflict trans­for­ma­tion. Its aim is to find a solution as quickly as possible that prevents the conflict from es­ca­lat­ing and allows work to continue seam­less­ly. However, the causes of the conflict are not in­ves­ti­gat­ed, since conflict res­o­lu­tion does not aim to address the root causes.

If you want to use es­tab­lished strate­gies for conflict res­o­lu­tion, you should first un­der­stand what a conflict is – not every dispute is au­to­mat­i­cal­ly a conflict. In par­tic­u­lar, small disputes – usually about banal things (like the tem­per­a­ture in the office) – resolve them­selves quickly. If both parties are well-in­ten­tioned towards each other, they usually reach an agreement after a short time. On the other hand, there are problems that are so profound that they do not simply work them­selves out.

It is par­tic­u­lar­ly hard to avoid conflict if different values, goals and ide­olo­gies collide. In addition, pro­fes­sion­al conflicts often mean that third parties must continue to work together despite the dis­agree­ment. Among col­leagues, it is rarely possible to just avoid each other forever and avoid con­fronta­tion that way.

Not every conflict affects several parties. For example, an in­di­vid­ual employee often has a problem with them­selves, so this conflict is hidden. If, for example, difficult decisions must be made, employees can ex­pe­ri­ence internal struggles. These dif­fi­cul­ties in decision-making often result from the fact that both choices appear equally good or equally bad – or bring both ad­van­tages and dis­ad­van­tages. Although this form of conflict rarely leads to disputes, it does create problems. If an employee is strug­gling and hesitates to make decisions, their work will suffer as a result. This harms not only them, but the entire company.

When people come together, minor or major conflicts often arise. Even if an employee does not start off with bad in­ten­tions, un­ex­pect­ed factors can come to light that escalate a situation which had pre­vi­ous­ly been harmless. These com­mu­ni­ca­tion conflicts are by no means rare. In order to manage the conflict, it is necessary to uncover com­mu­ni­ca­tion errors.

The situation is different if there are no ra­tio­nal­ly com­pre­hen­si­ble reasons for the conflict. Sometimes conflicts arise simply because different per­son­al­i­ties collide and people can’t be together without problems arising. These re­la­tion­ship issues are human nature and are difficult to avoid. This makes it all the more important to work with mean­ing­ful conflict man­age­ment steps when two different per­son­al­i­ties clash.

If it’s not the per­son­al­i­ties, then it could be the par­tic­i­pant’s role that can cause a conflict. In a group of people, like a pro­fes­sion­al team, you au­to­mat­i­cal­ly take on different roles – either planned or unplanned. From time to time you may be pushed into a role that you don’t like (example: based on op­er­a­tional ex­pe­ri­ence, man­age­ment may see someone in the role of a de­part­ment manager in the future, however the employee them­selves does not consider them­selves to have lead­er­ship qualities). The employee sees them­selves in a different role to that assigned to them – a person-role conflict occurs.

The situation is similar in a power conflict. This often arises when employees in similarly high positions have to work together. A conflict arises because one person believes that they should be higher up than another. However, the other person also sees them­selves as superior. This creates a power struggle that neither want to re­lin­quish.

There may also be rational reasons for conflict. Both in personal and pro­fes­sion­al lives, views can differ within a group. The problem is often caused by differing per­spec­tives. A material conflict therefore occurs when, for example, one wants to pursue different solutions or goals.

A conflict of values, on the other hand, is about the attitudes and con­vic­tions of those involved. They can often result from questions like these: How should sit­u­a­tions be handled? What are the ap­pro­pri­ate measures to take? If different beliefs emerge when answering these questions, this can sometimes lead to conflicts – since nobody likes to com­pro­mise on their values. This makes reaching a solution difficult. Conflict man­age­ment must intervene in this case so that the situation doesn’t escalate.

First of all, watching and doing nothing is not a solution. Every employee (not just su­per­vi­sors) should react if they notice tension between col­leagues. If you can’t or don’t want to do something yourself, a re­spon­si­ble person should be informed. When there is a conflict, it can usually be seen from various angles:

• Avoidance: The two parties avoid each other and do not talk to each other.
• Body language: Mimics and gestures make it easy to read moods. If body language has a negative, defensive effect, there is probably a conflict which will be obvious when the quar­relling parties are forced together.
• Distance: Talks between the two potential con­flict­ed parties are very distant and formal. Contact on a personal level is avoided.
• Ignorance: If a conflict exists, one side rarely takes the other side seriously. Therefore, the parties tend to disregard decisions of the other side.
• Ag­gres­sion: The parties involved react irritably or ag­gres­sive­ly to each other. Even small things can lead to es­ca­la­tion.
• Rumors: If conflicts have existed for a long time, it rarely only affects the people fighting. Rumors are likely to circulate around the office, possibly even stim­u­lat­ed by the dis­putants.

Latent conflicts like this tend to happen over time. To prevent this, you should intervene as soon as possible if you notice a conflict. Conflicts are easiest to manage when they are caught in the initial phase, making a sat­is­fac­to­ry outcome for both sides more likely. The further a conflict pro­gress­es, the more difficult it becomes to reach an amicable solution. Most likely, at least one side will then disagree with the clar­i­fi­ca­tion. At the end of an es­ca­la­tion (a more or less open dispute) nobody can win, as both sides will have already suffered excessive losses.

A clar­i­fy­ing conflict dis­cus­sion should turn the situation for the better at an early stage. Ideally, this dis­cus­sion should take place with a third party: a superior, an official trusted third party in­di­vid­ual or an external conflict moderator. Two models have proven their worth in these dis­cus­sions: the KULT model and the Harvard concept. However, certain basic pre­req­ui­sites apply to both:

• Ob­jec­tiv­i­ty: Emotions often cause a conflict to escalate. For this reason, the con­ver­sa­tion should stick only to the facts. Personal attacks are com­plete­ly in­ap­pro­pri­ate.
• Respect: Even if there is a dispute, in­di­vid­u­als should treat each other with respect. This includes letting both parties speak freely. 
• Will­ing­ness to com­pro­mise: Anyone who takes part in a conflict dis­cus­sion without the will to approach the other person blocks possible solutions to the conflict. To resolve the conflict, in­di­vid­u­als should look for sim­i­lar­i­ties and build on them.

KULT stands for clar­i­fi­ca­tion, causes, solution, and transfer. These terms describe the in­di­vid­ual phases to go through during a conflict res­o­lu­tion dis­cus­sion according to this model.

• Clar­i­fi­ca­tion: Before you begin trying to solve a conflict, you first need to clarify what it actually consists of. If several points are part of a com­pli­cat­ed network of conflicts, this step also de­ter­mines what order they should be dealt in.
   
• Causes: The problem is then analyzed to identify the causes of conflict. This step may take some time and may require other people’s help. In this phase, the par­tic­i­pants try to uncover the causes of conflict as ob­jec­tive­ly as possible.
   
• Solution: Once all the reasons have been brought together, a solution to the conflict is the focus. All parties agree on a concrete plan on how to resolve the conflict.
   
• Transfer: Finally, the plan is im­ple­ment­ed. It is important to ensure that all parties actually work towards achieving the goals that have been set. During this phase, however, new conflicts can arise which may require you to start the process over. At the end of im­ple­men­ta­tion phase, a re­flec­tive dis­cus­sion with the par­tic­i­pants should ensure that the same causes do not lead to the conflict arising again in the future.

The Harvard concept is based on a project at Harvard Uni­ver­si­ty and was published as a book by Roger Fisher and William L. Lury in 1981. The concept aims to find a solution with the best possible result for both sides. It is intended to make it easier for the con­flict­ing parties to negotiate among them­selves. A conflict moderator is not mandatory. Therefore, the model is very suitable for conflict res­o­lu­tion among col­leagues, as well as conflicts outside the pro­fes­sion­al context.

The Harvard concept provides clear guide­lines that must be adhered to:

• Always discuss on a factual level. The person behind the position is con­sid­ered separate from the matter at hand. There should be space for emotions, but everyone pays attention to a strict sep­a­ra­tion of emotional and factual arguments.
   
• The parties should put interests in the fore­ground. For this, you must analyze the conflict and to break it down to the actual goals on both sides. It often becomes clear that both in­di­vid­u­als are closer than they orig­i­nal­ly thought.
   
• Next, you should look for ideas about how to solve the conflict together. The par­tic­i­pants should not limit them­selves initially, but play through each idea mentally and also discuss it with one another.
   
• The best possible solution is then found on the basis of objective eval­u­a­tion criteria. Both sides have agreed on these criteria in advance. In order to maintain a fair trial, the ad­van­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of a solution should be discussed and no details concealed.

When finding a solution, you should bear in mind that despite the conflict, the re­la­tion­ship between two parties shouldn’t suffer much in the end. The aim of the Harvard concept is to achieve rec­on­cil­i­a­tion at the in­ter­per­son­al level as well. The best way to avoid a legal dispute is also the key to conflict res­o­lu­tion according to the Harvard concept. All options for conflict res­o­lu­tion must be on the table. This is why the gen­er­a­tion phase is so important. If it is neglected, you can’t be certain whether there might not have been a better solution for those involved. The best option is the one that brings the greatest successes for both sides (creates a win-win situation).

However, you can’t always rely on both sides actually adhering to the Harvard concept in every conflict. If one or both parties feel they have to ignore the rules of the Harvard concept, certain methods can be used to achieve a suc­cess­ful con­clu­sion. An essential feature of the concept is that no one should leave the objective debate and resort to insults. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, neither side must exert pressure on the other to speed up conflict res­o­lu­tion. If a party does not abide by these rules, the Harvard concept provides for in­ter­rup­tions in ne­go­ti­a­tions: only when the un­co­op­er­a­tive side shows itself willing to engage in a rea­son­able dispute will ne­go­ti­a­tions be resumed.

The Harvard concept provides that all in­for­ma­tion and details are known to both sides. If a site should try to reach a solution in its favor by deceit and you find out, you should make the negative behavior public. Their tactics will not work.

But what if one side makes demands that are simply un­ac­cept­able? In these sit­u­a­tions, the Harvard concept allows these demands to be accepted as hy­pothe­ses rather than directly rejected. By ad­dress­ing the con­se­quences of these demands, you can explain why they are un­ac­cept­able. In case of doubt, however, the Harvard concept also provides for an external third party: a mediator or conflict moderator can help to ensure that the talks are conducted on an objective level.

Es­pe­cial­ly when a conflict seems to be stuck, or escalates very quickly, help from outside can be useful – when com­mu­ni­ca­tion between col­leagues, even with the in­volve­ment of a su­per­vi­sor, no longer works, for example. As in­de­pen­dent third parties, mediators and su­per­vi­sors often have a better chance of bringing the dis­cus­sion back to a con­struc­tive level.

Mediation is an out-of-court con­cil­i­a­tion procedure. This legal clas­si­fi­ca­tion already makes it clear that this procedure is often used as the last option before a court dispute. In fact, mediation can also help in everyday disputes in the workplace and even in in­ter­na­tion­al political conflicts. The decisive factor for success is that quar­relling parties vol­un­tar­i­ly decide to par­tic­i­pate in mediation. The mediator acts in a mod­er­at­ing capacity. The aim, however, is for the parties them­selves to find a solution to the conflict.

Su­per­vi­sion, on the other hand, usually does not take place in a concrete conflict. Instead, you generally work with one person or – even better – the whole team to improve the structure. First, you analyze patterns of behavior and identify the causes of possible conflicts. In this way, you can avoid them at an early stage, and strength­en co­op­er­a­tion and cohesion among col­leagues in the long term.

At the end of conflict man­age­ment, peace should ideally be restored. However, it is not always possible to meet the ex­pec­ta­tions and wishes of both parties 100%. Four results are con­ceiv­able as the outcome of conflict man­age­ment:

• Lose-lose: This result does not satisfy either side. Usually this kind of situation arises in everyday pro­fes­sion­al life when a superior ends a conflict by making a strict decision, ignoring the ex­pec­ta­tions of those involved.
   
• Win-lose: With this result, only one side benefits from conflict man­age­ment. The other party is unhappy with the outcome, which creates potential for new conflicts.
   
• Win-win: The best result is the win-win situation. This kind of result makes it possible for both parties to leave the conflict satisfied. There is a solution that is sat­is­fac­to­ry for all sides; no one is ignored.
   
• 50:50: Not an ideal, but a sat­is­fac­to­ry result, is the equiv­a­lent com­pro­mise. Both sides have to give up parts of their wishes, but can also push through proposals in equal pro­por­tions.

In the best case scenario, a conflict can even be used as a starting point for a positive de­vel­op­ment. Since conflict man­age­ment uncovers the causes of conflicts, it is possible to change business con­di­tions in such a way that fewer conflicts arise from now on. In addition, those involved learn how to behave in conflict sit­u­a­tions in order to avoid es­ca­la­tions. Often, conflicts can be resolved at an early stage.