How to act in conflict situations
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:08 am
When conducting them, it is unacceptable to discuss the personal qualities of the participants. There must be a clear distinction between the character of each and the subject of the negotiations. Otherwise, the conversation will descend to the level of personal squabbles, which will not bring the desired result. Emotional criticism of the individual qualities of the participants will only aggravate the situation.
It is necessary to focus not on the positions of the parties, but on their aspirations. Most often, opponents hide the real goal of negotiations, and even more so their own interests. Although they are the basis of the positions of the opposing parties. So instead of arguing about points of view, it is better to find out what interests determine them.
Developing mutually beneficial new zealand email list options. When the interests of each participant are at the core of negotiations, this motivates the search for a solution that will satisfy both parties. Several alternative results can be obtained through brainstorming. It remains to choose one solution that is equally interesting to both participants in the negotiations.
Search for objective criteria. The goal of any negotiations is to achieve agreement between the parties. To do this, criteria must be used that are neutral to the interests of each participant. Otherwise, one of the parties will feel disadvantaged, will consider the result of the negotiations unfair and will not implement the agreement reached.
Experts have developed various procedures for settling conflicting interests: using lots, involving a mediator in negotiations, etc. Transferring the right to make a decision to a third party is a way out of a difficult situation that is quite widespread and has many options. And this is no coincidence. The participation of an independent person in negotiations helps to successfully resolve even the most difficult dispute.
Important! The conflict will be resolved only if the participants behave adequately, understand the task at hand, have open and honest relationships, and an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.
How to act in conflict situations
When to take action?
To a greater extent, this question pertains to horizontal conflicts between employees. The manager does not participate in them, but may be aware and prefer to wait, fearing being drawn into someone else's squabbles, subsequent escalation, and hoping that everything will "settle down" on its own.
How to act in conflict situations
Source: unsplash.com
Of course, sometimes the third is superfluous. Although in this situation, the help of the manager, who learned about the confrontation of subordinates, can manifest itself in creating conditions for reconciliation. He has the right to give them tasks that deliberately take the rivals out of the contact zone. For example, send them on business trips to different sites. The lack of visual contact will help the disputants calm down, think, and the claims will go away.
A figurative comparison to an unattended dispute might be that of smoldering coals in an empty house. Perhaps they will go out and there will be no fire, but if not…
It is not without reason that the analogy of a conflict with a fire is given as an example. There is a profound meaning in this: both are easier to prevent than to extinguish; in both cases, time plays a decisive role, since each of them will cause a lot of trouble, quickly increasing in size.
It is necessary to focus not on the positions of the parties, but on their aspirations. Most often, opponents hide the real goal of negotiations, and even more so their own interests. Although they are the basis of the positions of the opposing parties. So instead of arguing about points of view, it is better to find out what interests determine them.
Developing mutually beneficial new zealand email list options. When the interests of each participant are at the core of negotiations, this motivates the search for a solution that will satisfy both parties. Several alternative results can be obtained through brainstorming. It remains to choose one solution that is equally interesting to both participants in the negotiations.
Search for objective criteria. The goal of any negotiations is to achieve agreement between the parties. To do this, criteria must be used that are neutral to the interests of each participant. Otherwise, one of the parties will feel disadvantaged, will consider the result of the negotiations unfair and will not implement the agreement reached.
Experts have developed various procedures for settling conflicting interests: using lots, involving a mediator in negotiations, etc. Transferring the right to make a decision to a third party is a way out of a difficult situation that is quite widespread and has many options. And this is no coincidence. The participation of an independent person in negotiations helps to successfully resolve even the most difficult dispute.
Important! The conflict will be resolved only if the participants behave adequately, understand the task at hand, have open and honest relationships, and an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.
How to act in conflict situations
When to take action?
To a greater extent, this question pertains to horizontal conflicts between employees. The manager does not participate in them, but may be aware and prefer to wait, fearing being drawn into someone else's squabbles, subsequent escalation, and hoping that everything will "settle down" on its own.
How to act in conflict situations
Source: unsplash.com
Of course, sometimes the third is superfluous. Although in this situation, the help of the manager, who learned about the confrontation of subordinates, can manifest itself in creating conditions for reconciliation. He has the right to give them tasks that deliberately take the rivals out of the contact zone. For example, send them on business trips to different sites. The lack of visual contact will help the disputants calm down, think, and the claims will go away.
A figurative comparison to an unattended dispute might be that of smoldering coals in an empty house. Perhaps they will go out and there will be no fire, but if not…
It is not without reason that the analogy of a conflict with a fire is given as an example. There is a profound meaning in this: both are easier to prevent than to extinguish; in both cases, time plays a decisive role, since each of them will cause a lot of trouble, quickly increasing in size.