Listening is the key to remove the emotion from a difficult moment. Your tone of voice needs to remain calm and attentive to the communicators. The definition of communication is 7% verbal, 13% body lanuage and 80% listening. Many times by letting the parties talk it out in a controlled unemotional setting will create a constructive atomosphere to resolution. If possible all parties need to walk away with some feeling of resolve to their own issues. This may take more than one setting. You can create a step by step plan for follow-up with you as the leader.
It's important that people feel heard. When I know a difficult interaction has occured or is going to take place I try to remove the conversation to a place that's quiet and free of other disturbances. I'll ask each person for a complete discription of what is causing their frustration, why they feel their coworkers are doing whatever it is that caused the frustration and what their ideas are for solving the frustration. I also ask what a perfect outcome would be if that were possible. I try to just listen as much as possible and mediate the process. Usually this allows people to get their furustrations out, be heard and understood and play a significant part in fixing the issue.
In conflict resolution it is important we redirect all employees to the party they have a concern. We know that it might not be adviseable in all cases to recommend this with two parties that are not emotioanally ready to confront another employee with issues. In those cases it is best to gather as much of the facts as you can and then interview each party. Communication is 7% verbal, 13% body language and 80% listening. The listening part is where you can best evaluate and analyze the issues. When you have been a good listener to all stakeholders you can enhance your potential for resolution to the issues. Point out each person's strengths and do not highlight weaknesses. I know you had mentioned the potential of having the parties meet together which is a good idea but you may have to be involved with the meeting if necessary.
Myself I would usually start by listenning to each party alone not confronting them ,hearing what they have to say while trying to understand and then I would try to explain to each one what they probably have been missing and then I would recommend them to talk to each other
Susan,
You sound like you approach an issue with detail and patience if the siutation will allow you to weigh the variables. Your stakeholders are key to resolve any issue. The ownership and resolution will be better if you can involve your people. Communication can be measured by 7% verbal, 13% body lanugage and 80% listening. This is a two way talent for your employees and you as a manager. Solutions to issues comes from our ability to listen carefully.
Additionally we need to know our strengths and weaknesses. Employ our strengths and engage others with strengths we may not possess to target the solution.
Issues are best solved by collaboration and communion of the people most directly inlvolved. Management forums will create a long lasting workable solution that was designed .
Emotions that are subjective and not well thought out within create dissonance within the stakeholders. Keep all discussions to a resonable and democratic forum. All input is fair and equitable to the solution but the final is the collaborative support for the decision in what direction will be taken with the issue at hand.
I attempt to evaluate the degree of difficulty of the situation and assess whether or not it will self-resolve. At the same time, I gather as many observable or objective facts as I can before beginning any dialogs. Depending on the severity of the issue, I seldom look to a "knee jerk" reaction.
I then listen to all parties and evaluate from that point what my course of action should be.
Of course, I carefully document as much as I can about all of the situation and what has occured thus far.
Whatever the resolution, I continue to monitor the follow-up of events or parties in the situation.
I recommend each time you are presented with a potential conflict it would be advisiable always to step back and consider the issue from different stand points. As you travel down the path of communicating it is necessary to not reveal sides for any of the stakeholders but to be a listener. Your directions or advice may not be forth coming until all the information has been revealed to you. As far as seriousness of the interaction depends on the subject matter being discussed. If it pertains to policy, budget or ethics it may be necessary to communicate the issue to a higher level.
With all that said I would suggest you always start one on one and try to solve issues at the lowest level of managment. Depending on your level it may be best to return the issue back to their immediate supervisor. As it comes down the chain of command you will begin to see the seriousness of the communication. Always any issues in regard to ethics, budget or policy commnand a high level of importance. I don't usually consider the amount of confrontation it may cause vs the need for coaching of the indvidual(s) with the correct directions. All resolutions to issues comes from our ability to clearly research the problem.
Good Question, this is something we all are faced with in a leadership role. I recommend a book titled "Credibility" by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z Pozner which outlines qualities of leadership and will give you some insight to communication.
I have sort of a personal process that I go through to handle different interactions with others. I first try to determine how serious the conflict is and what kind of effect it will have on my own and others' work performance. If I determine that it is serious enough to warrant some type of attempt at resolution, I may first try talking to the person to see what the problem is, where it comes from, and what can be done about it. Most of the time this will solve the problem. If not, I have occasionally had to take the issue to someone higher up to assist with resolution of the conflict.
