Resolve conflicts independently

How do you deal with conflicts? With those in which you are directly involved and with others that only partially affect you? How do you find optimal solutions to problems?

Conflicts arise time and again between individuals, groups, organizations, and peoples. There are also internal conflicts, for example when values are difficult to reconcile.

The following section shows how to deal professionally with conflicts between two or more parties by helping those involved to find a solution on their own.

Conflicts are neither good nor bad

The term "conflict" usually triggers rather unpleasant associations. However, the meaning is neutral: clash. One could also speak of disharmony, tension, disagreement, or something similar.

A conflict does not necessarily have to be an argument or even a fight. It is often simply a difference of opinion on a particular issue or a clash of needs.

Different positions lead to conflicts

In a conflict, a certain attitude, opinion, or demand is expressed. People therefore take a position that they consider to be right or justified. In concrete terms, this can mean: "I want to have my own office!" or "My colleagues should keep the windows closed!"

A position is a specific solution that one party to a conflict considers to be correct. The demand is intended to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, the other party does not agree with this, as it represents a different position. This has resulted in a conflict.

What it's really about

Conflicts are a recurring topic in conversations with our customers. Either the people I am helping have a problem with other people, or they are indirectly affected, for example as a supervisor or as a member of a community. One of my first questions is often: What is really important to the parties involved in the conflict?

In a well-known example, two children are arguing over an orange. The mother wants to settle the dispute, so she takes the fruit and cuts it into two equal halves. This is a typical compromise. How could the mother have handled the situation better? She could have asked, "What would you get out of me giving you the orange?" One child might say, "Then I can squeeze the juice and drink it."The other would reply, "I can grate the peel and use it to bake a cake."What would be the optimal solution in this case?

First understand, then decide

When a conflict is resolved without knowing the most important interests and needs of both parties, the result is often only a compromise that is not sustainable. This is also familiar from court rulings. In many cases, the judge can only decide in favor of one of the two positions and rule in favor of one party. The other party is the loser.

How could the mother better help the children? She should ask bothof them, "Why does your brother/sister want the orange?" If they don't know, the next question is, "And why are you coming to me with this?" If the children can give a clear answer, the mother would ask both of them to come up with the best possible solution for their sibling. In this way, the children could learn to resolve conflicts independently and fairly. They would only need to ask their mother for a ruling if, despite mutual understanding of each other's situation, they cannot find a practical solution. Then they would have to accept the decision of the "higher authority."

What does this mean for your conflicts? Do you know exactly what you and the other parties really want? Can you describe their interests and needs precisely? How do you ensure a win-win situation?

Three steps to a solution

First step: Start by understanding what lies behind the other positions. For example,you could ask,"What would you gain if your demand were met?" Then the others will explain what they actually want. Reflect this back to them: "I understand that you need more peace and quiet at work so that you can concentrate."Or: "You get cold when the room is ventilated for a long time and you don't want to freeze."

Second step: Once each party has received confirmation that the other parties have understood them correctly, discussions can begin on options that meet as many of the expectations as possible. One of the original demands or something completely different may be accepted as a joint solution. In any case, this approach greatly expands the scope of possible solutions.

Step three: The jointly developed solution is set out in a binding contract. All parties undertake to comply with it. If necessary, you should also define the consequences of breaching the agreement. This avoids further discussion at a later date and increases the likelihood that everyone will stick to the agreement.

Requirements for an independent solution

The approach outlined above works in most conflicts. It may be necessary to bring in a neutral person to accompany the process. Facilitation or mediation is then the ideal procedure. However, not all conflicts can be resolved in this way. If, for example, one party has lost respect for the others and is no longer negotiating constructively, or if one party is unable to act independently, a different approach must be taken.