In every office of more than one person, conflicts are inevitable. Whenever workers thinks others are interfering with pursuit of a goal, they are bound to clash. Ideally, the disputants should try to negotiate a mutually agreeable compromise; typically, however, they take the battle underground, creating a situation in which personal victory - winning the point - takes precedence over advancing team's larger interests.

Workers don't air conflicts for fear that publicizing their complaints will make them look unprofessional, incompetent, insecure or petty. Conflicts per se are not a problem, because they can signal a need for change, prevent interpersonal deadlocks and create a troubleshooting climate. The problem is how to manage them. If an office squabble is mishandled, it can reduce morale and motivation and provoke more conflict.

Consider this situation.

Collin, an Managing Editor, and Stacey, an administrative assistant, had a big fight over a computer. Ann, the director of the urban planning office, didn't know what had happened, but she knew she had to restore peace. She talked to Stacey, then called in Collin. Part of their conversation went like this.

Ann: I talked to Stacey about the big blowup yesterday. She says that you keep going into her office and taking her computer. Now what's going on here, Collin? Collin: Wait a minute! I'm not taking her computer. It's the office computer and I need to use it, too. We agreed to leave the computer in the conference room next to her office so we could both use it. But Stacey keeps taking it. She's not using it - but if I take it she has a fit!

Ann: Come on, Collin, you know that Stacey has things she must type. You're a Managing Editor. You can take your typing to a clerk.

Collin: I do need a computer. I do a lot of writing. You're always on Stacey's side. Well, she started the fight. She broke the agreement.

How To Gather Information About The Conflict

Bring disputants together:
Although separating hostile people eliminates the risk of being caught in the middle of a verbal battle, separate conflict interviews are time-consuming and can actually create problems. Without the adversary present, disputants are likely to exaggerate or distort the issues. Likewise, talking to them separately makes it easier for you to be swayed by manipulative and persuasive tactics. Worse, yet, when you interview separately, the implication is that you are going to decide what action will be taken. In contract, talking to disputants in each other's presence sets the stage for their solving their own problems.

Interview all disputants:
It is essential to interview everyone involved to find out how each disputant sees the problem. When disputants feel that they haven't been able to tell their stories fully, they are not likely to follow through on any resolution plan. Avoid questions that lead disputants into areas that you feel are problems. Simply find out how each person involved sees the conflict today. Don't add fuel.

Maintain control:
Listening to one's adversary tends to reignite anger. Angry people often forget their manners and rudely interrupt to correct the other's version and to sway your opinion. Be prepared to control such outbursts.

Use your authority:
Communicate your authority through your manner. Whenever possible, make a formal appointment to meet with disputants in your office. Subtly but firmly convey the message, "I expect you to cooperate by following my instructions." This message, combined with the fact that you can enact negative consequences, is very effective.

Set ground rules:
Begin with an explicit statement of what you expect and what can be expected from you. "I'm going to begin by finding out about the problem. I will talk to you one at a time, about how each of you sees the problem. I'll begin with Joe and then I'll ask Sam how he sees it." Often this is all that is necessary. The disputants know that if they interrupt or argue, they will be breaking your explicit directive.

Have the disputants tell you their stories:
While one is talking, the other should be listening - but not participating. If you allow disputants to talk to each other, they may start arguing. Use your body. Sit between the disputants so, if bickering breaks out, you can quickly lean forward to block the disputant's view of one another and redirect their remarks back to you. If necessary, you can stand up between them and restate the ground rules.

Use gestures:
The gestures you make are valuable for controlling interruptions. Always avoid pointing or shaking your finger. These gestures can antagonize. A palm-up hand movement encourages a disputant to talk to you. A palm-down hand movement can be used without turning your head or interrupting the person you're interviewing to communicate "Wait!" Or "Be quiet!" For more impact, use the palm-down gesture in conjunction with a restatement of the ground rules. Begin with a low level of force. Your control level should be appropriate to the situation. If you make a strong display of force by raising your voice, for example, it will be difficult to back down. As a rule of thumb, start with a gentle but firm manner and escalate the degree of force in your voice, words, and gestures as needed to control disputants.

Keep disputants on the topic:
When a disputant gets sidetracked into describing other people's opinions, get him or her back on the topic with: "What is the problem as you see it?" Or interrupt and bring the disputant back by summarizing what was said about how he or she sees the problem. In general, maintain a here-and-now focus and stop lengthy historical accounts of previous conflicts by saying, "What's the problem today?" Even when there's a backlog of unresolved conflicts, it is best to focus on one problem, the most current one. Successful change is one area will encourage work toward resolving other problems.

Remain impartial:
It is vital that you do not say or imply your opinion. Your casual remarks could lead one or both disputants to feel cornered or judged. When a disputant feels backed into a corner by both you and an adversary, you can expect a defensive reaction. Get specific information. The more you get down to specific behaviors, the better. Drawing erroneous conclusions can be minimized by focusing on observable behavior. What did the person do? Say? When and where did it occur?

Accept each disputant's view:
Acceptance is the key. Question for clarification and specific information, but don't question the validity of the disputant's perceptions. It is essential that each person involved hears how the others see the problem.

Do not agree or sympathize:
Agreeing with disputants should also be avoided. When you agree with one, you implicitly disagree with the other. Expect attempts to get you to agree with them and be careful to avoid this trap. Your effectiveness as a mediator depends on your impartiality. By the same token, avoid reassuring or sympathizing. As well-meaning as your actions may be, they can be interpreted as a vote of confidence for the adversary's position.

Don't judge:
Don't be a detective, trying to determine whose story is "correct." Because you accept a person's perception of a situation doesn't mean that you personally agree with it. It is not necessary to identify reality to resolve the conflict, but it is crucial for each party to hear how the other views the problem. People make decisions and act upon their perception of the world.right or wrong. When you question or evaluate someone's story, you negate his or her perception of the dispute. And when people are judged, they tend to edit out parts of their story that make them look bad, and exaggerate aspects that make them look good.

Another pitfall of judging is that it shifts the responsibility: you become the all-knowing monarch who will review facts and issue an edit. However, if the disputants don't like your decision, they will thwart your attempts to handle the problem, then blame you for failing to resolve the conflict.

Encourage disputants to express feelings:
To avoid looking petty or immature, disputants often attempt to cover up feelings and as a consequence fail to state the problem in its entirety. Even when disagreements are grounded in substantive issues, there is a layer of emotion that can obscure the basic conflict.

In the dispute between Collin and Stacey, there was personal antagonism underlying the clash over the computer. Stacey was never invited to lunch with the editors and she believed that Collin was responsible for her exclusion. Once, when she timidly hinted that she would like to be included, Collin said, "You're not an editor. You're just a high-classed secretary!" Stacey resented Collin's comment and began watching his every move. When feelings are ignored, they can interfere with problem solving, and even when the original problem has been resolved, resentments can color future interactions.

"Check out" each disputant's feelings:
This technique is useful when there is a discrepancy between the disputant's words and the nonverbal message communicated. If Stacey sneers while saying, "I think Collin does a good job." A feeling check out might be, "I sense you have some negative feelings about Collin's work."

A feeling check out is also helpful when one thing the disputant says contradicts something else he or she said. For example Collin might say, "I like working with Stacey," and then complain about working with her. A feeling check out might be, "Do you mean that even thought you like Stacey, there are things she does that bug you?"

Sum up often:
It is important that everyone hear how the other side sees the problem. With each disputant, summarize what he or she said when you think you have the story, "So the problem as you see it is . . . . " Agreement with your summary is the signal to begin interviewing the next person. Summary each disputant's story before moving into mediation.

 
Successful Mediation

A successfully resolved conflict can have ramifications that far exceed the immediate conflict. Others in the work area will get the implicit message that you expect all personnel to be responsible for solving their own problems. And they will see that the disputants have solved a conflict though a mutually agreed-upon behavior change. In short, each time you guide disputants through the process, you are actually conducting a training session. If you consistently use this approach, you'll discover that over time disputants will spontaneously use negotiation and contracting without your having to intervene. This will take the burden off you and promote harmonious work relationships.

About the Author
Beverly A. Potter, Ph.D., holds a doctorate in counseling psychology from Stanford University and a masters in vocational rehabilitation counseling from San Francisco State. She has provided management and self-development training for over 20 years for a wide range of corporations, governmental agencies, associations and colleges, including Stanford University Staff Development, Hewlett Packard, GTE-Strategic Systems, SUN, TRW-CI, Cisco Systems, IRS, Tap Plastics, Becton-Dickinson, California State Bar, Design Management Institute, Asian Management Institute, International Association of Personnel Women.

Books by Dr. Beverly Potter:
From Conflict to Cooperation: How to Mediate a Dispute
The Worrywart's Companion
Finding a Path with a Heart: How to Go from Burnout to Bliss
The Way of the Ronin: Riding the Waves of Change at Work
Turning Around: Keys to Motivation & Productivity
Drug Testing at Work: A Guide for Employers & Employees
Brain Boosters: Foods & Drugs that Make You Smarter

How to reach Dr. Beverly Potter:
Ph: 510-540-6267
Fax: 510-548-7326
Email: docpotter@aol.com
USPS: PO Box 1035, Berkeley, CA 94701

Chat with Dr. Beverly Potter: If you have a brief question about a conflict situation that can be answered in a few sentences, send it to docpotter@aol.com and she will answer, usually in about 48 hours.

This material may be copied for your personal use as an individual. All personal copies must carry the previous copyright notice. To reprint for any other purpose, contact Ronin Publishing, Inc., Roninpub@aol.com or Roninpub@dnai.com, 510-540-6278, FAX 510-548-7326, PO Box 1035, Berkeley, CA 94701. You may reach Dr. Beverly Potter at docpotter@aol.com.