Icon: enlarge
People seldom calm down when they are told: Calm down.
Other methods are needed
Photo: Johner Images / Getty Images
Ben, 36 years old: "As a group leader I lead a team of eight people. Two of my employees fight almost every day. The climate in the entire team suffers as a result. I have had several individual discussions with both of them and asked them to be more professional. It hasn't changed anything. I want to keep both employees because their performance is good. What can I do to resolve the conflict? "
Dear ben,
that sounds like a so-called "hot conflict".
The good news: this is beneficial in getting the situation under control.
Why?
A hot conflict is characterized by the fact that it is carried out openly and is recognizable to others.
This seems to be the case with your co-workers when they have arguments almost daily.
An emotional atmosphere is typical of a hot conflict, in which the personal weaknesses in the point of view are often ignored.
Your own perception and your share in the conflict are no longer checked.
Everything the other party says and does is taken as confirmation of the correctness of one's own position.
There are direct confrontations and arguments, often over small things.
In a cold conflict, on the other hand, the parties take a much more subtle and destructive approach.
It is denied, blocked and delayed.
The cold conflict must first be made visible.
This has already happened in your case.
The conflict resolution now aims to dissolve the "blindness" of both colleagues towards their own share in the conflict and the motives of the other colleague and to achieve a greater mutual understanding.
What can you specifically do?
For now, move away from having more one-on-one meetings and appeals to be more professional.
That would likely continue to prove ineffective.
The relationship level comes before the factual level - the colleagues will therefore probably not be able to pull themselves together and deal with each other objectively.
You rub yourself up as a superior and there is a risk that the employees do not feel understood and the fronts only harden even more.
In addition, one-on-one discussions often stabilize the conflict, because the employees perceive what separates them, remain stuck in their view of things and find that nothing has changed.
Instead, bring the colleagues together to discuss the conflict.
You can use an external mediator for this.
Perhaps there is even someone in the HR department with the appropriate qualifications.
You too can conduct the conversation yourself.
The prerequisites: You are impartial, neutral and not involved in the conflict.
Your role is that of the moderator, not the referee.
It's not about who is right.
Your job is to ensure that both colleagues finish speaking and listen, stick to their descriptions without reacting immediately to what has been said.
The course of the conversation
Here is a suggestion for the course of the conversation with the two colleagues:
First, ask both parties what their goal is for the interview.
(Helpful questions: "What should be different afterwards?" "How would that be recognizable?").
Write down the goals for everyone to see.
Ask each member of staff to describe their individual point of view and their feelings about the conflict (in I-messages).
Afterwards, ask the other colleague who has listened about their response to the description.
Make sure that no statement of content or a rating is given.
(Helpful questions: "What did you understand?", "What did you get?", "How is the situation for your colleague?")
Then invite you to a dialogue phase between the two.
Supporting questions that you can offer the two of you: "What do I think and feel about this?", "What else I would like to add!", "What is important to me that you understand!"
Then record what agreement can be reached and what both disagree on.
Clarify which measures and agreements would be helpful to deal with them better in the future and what can help to come to terms with the disagreed points.
Arrange a follow-up appointment to check where the two colleagues have made progress and where they have not.
Clarify what it was because of, how they made it, and what they will continue to work on.
Whichever path you choose, dear Ben, you need the consent of both colleagues and the willingness to face the conflict and work on improving cooperation.
Make it clear to both of them how the arguments are affecting their work and the team.
Have specific examples ready.
Nobody can whistle a symphony.
It takes an orchestra to play it.
Halford Edward Luccock (1885-1960)
Clarify for yourself, if necessary with your next superior, what the consequences will be if the conflict cannot be resolved.
What are the options for transfer, separation of duties, spatial separation?
Also inform the two colleagues of these consequences in advance.
This relieves you of having to resolve the conflict on your own and you are jointly responsible for a constructive cooperation.
Icon: The mirror